Author: ryanschaff

Opinions are great, even if they differ from my own. However, blatant lies and twisting history is uncalled for. While not every article contained it, many of these articles used history as their playground. They climbed all over it and abused it in order to fit their political argument. When we read Chauncey’s articles, some were concerned with the evidence he used and said it was poor. While I did not like everything he said, and felt there were elements of his arguments that contained more opinion than fact, he at least included some sources.  Well for the majority of these articles I ask where is the evidence at all? Many of them contained no facts to backup their opinions. Without facts you have no argument. A lot of the articles contained hypothetical arguments such as if George Washington lived today he’d allow Americans to own any gun they wanted. Or that if Martin Luther King were alive today he’d stand next to Rush Limbaugh in protest of big government. I think it’s pointless to make a statement that someone who lived hundreds of years ago would agree with something you are doing today because it’s impossible to prove.

Allan Carlson used sources to backup his claims, however he used the same author for most of his evidence. He made a good point that FOX News contributes to the narrowing of thought and closes people off to a healthy debate. When you watch Hannity and O’Reilly, there is no debate. They are right and you are wrong and they prove this by shouting at you rather than providing facts and debating in a polite way. However, FOX should not be solely targeted. MSNBC is guilty as well, as is CNN. Like Chauncey said, the corporate media networks are not interested in telling the truth but are interested in viewers so they stir the pot. What is shocking is how many people believe their pot stirring statements.

Moving on to Carol Scott’s article on the Constitution. She claims there are only three types of Democrats when it comes to the Constitution: Those who don’t support it, those who sort of support it but secretly don’t, and those that do. First off, it’s more complex than that. Just because someone does not support every single piece of the Constitution does not make them anti-American, or against the Founding Fathers. She basically said that those who do not support the Constitution 100% do not understand the Federalist papers and are not supporters of the Founding Fathers, which is a simplistic and ignorant statement.  Her agenda is clear; to make Liberals seem anti-American and against the Founding Fathers, while at the same time make Republicans the true patriots carrying on the legacy of the founders. She stated the “so-to speak supporters” are misleading the public. What is her argument doing then? Exactly the same thing.

The Optimistic Conservative provided us with an article on how everything in this country is tied to God. While everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, we are a country that was founded on the separation of Church and State. Meaning state should not influence religion, and religion should not influence the state. However, I feel the latter is not as condemned as the former. The rights in this country were created by men, not God first of all. Secondly, to clump all the founders in as Church going Christians is a misrepresentation of what they were. While the majority identified as Christians, to assume they all practiced the same way and with the same passion is, again, a generalization. We have freedom of religion in this country, which means saying this country was created under God (which means the Protestant version of God) is infringing on the rights of Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Taoists, etc. If government is not allowed to make decisions which infringe on religion, then why is religion allowed to make decisions which dictate legislation (abortion, gay marriage, creation taught in school, etc)? Seems hypocritical to me.

Ken Taylor’s article may have been the most biased out of the group. Not only did he include zero citations or evidence, but his argument is hypocritical. He blamed the liberals for using the founding fathers to back up their political claims, yet what is he doing in this article? The same exact thing. Not only is he taking words spoken by Washington out of context, he is forgetting that the second amendment stated guns should be available for a “well regulated militia.” A militia is not every single person who wants a gun. While the right to bear arms is clear, the right to bear any arm is not clear. He’s comparing the guns of 1776 to the guns of 2012? Sorry, but there is no comparison. I don’t agree when people say things like “Well George Washington would have agreed with me today” when they really have no idea what he would think. What would Washington’s reaction to the second amendment be if he saw we had automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and clips that could hold 100 rounds? Even 30 rounds would seem like an assault weapon to him. I don’t think Taylor should be so confident that Washington’s reaction would be supportive of total gun freedom. He also said there has never been a successful case of gun control in any country, which is false. Australia instituted gun legislation after the massacre in Tasmania and haven’t had a massacre since. Before that, they saw eight massacres within the last thirteen years. Europe is another example where gun violence is down. So it has worked in other countries Mr. Taylor.

I am done rambling now, but for the majority of the articles I just found zero sources or facts to back up any claims. I found ignorance towards historical events from a lot of the articles. Not only did they use history to justify their political viewpoints, but they ignored historical evidence which countered parts of their arguments. Liberals are not exempt either. Both sides use history to their benefit. However, the hijacking of MLK really annoyed me. While they use the argument his niece said he was a Republican, his own son said not only was he not a Republican, he never voted for one in his entire life. Who is a more reliable source? His niece or his son? However, I get the impression it doesn’t matter who said it as long as someone did, which troubles me. If you don’t use critical thinking when faced with facts such as this, how can you be a historian? You can’t say he was a Republican because his niece said so when his son says otherwise.

http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/

While 100% objectivity is impossible, I feel that trying to be as objective as possible is attainable. Not only were a majority of these articles not objective at all, but there was not even an attempt. A lack of evidence hurt their arguments as well.  Hardly any of them used any statistics or facts to support what they said. While I didn’t disagree with everything they stated, the way they presented it turned me away. Had they brought in other arguments and considered them instead of the “I am right, you are wrong” argument, it would have helped. And yes, Ms. Bachmann is incorrect, the majority of the Founding Fathers owned slaves including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Samuel Chase, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin.

King’s book really outlined a topic unfamiliar to me, and he explained his case pretty bluntly: something needs to change in the way sites are preserved and kept from developers. His experience, over 40 years apparently, with lawmaking for the environment, makes him very qualified to make the statements he does, especially about the various administrations which helped ruin environmental protection. The Bush administration, although I am not surprised, was treated quite harshly by King. However, I cannot blame him especially for the policies which ignored environmental protection (21). I don’t understand why environmental issues are tagged with negativity by certain people. These lands are important to us, this is the world we live in and if we don’t take care of it, how is that going to help future generations? I think it is a very selfish thing to only concern oneself with the present and not the future. I think King showed that level of selfishness when talking about the sponsors who only care about money, not what you can do for the environment. Like he said with that caption “Your project means the world to us!”, does it really? I have a hard time trusting lots of companies and administration because it seems their target is profit and taking advantage of people, when it really should be helping and making a difference.

But the one thing I really came away with from the book was how hard it is to get anyone to listen to you, if you are small time. If big companies want to do something, it is really hard to stop them. As seen from the situation in Abo Pass and Buckland, it’s difficult to stop development from occurring when they have the ear of the government. King pointed out that the system is corrupt, and I couldn’t agree more. However, corruption is pretty much everywhere, so it didn’t surprise me. I think he made a good point though on page 44, that they’ve grown so accustomed to corruption that they don’t even notice it. I think that is true at a lot of levels in historical protection and preservation. There is corruption both from the government in the sense that is the money really going to the project? And there is corruption with how they deal with developers. But with such a bleak outlook in stopping corruption, King makes it hard to feel like one can make a difference. I think if more of the public in America became involved, it could make a difference, but it’s hard for the little communities who are trying to stop developers from coming in to make a difference.

This weeks readings really touched a nerve with me. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s blatant ignorance and these articles were filled with examples of it. Staring with the articles concerning the celebration of the South’s secession, I knew the ignorance groups such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans had towards the Civil War. However, the public history and the education system in some of the southern states was appalling to me. The textbook situation in Virginia reaffirmed my viewpoint that Americans are not getting the truth, and this is not only in southern states, it’s happening nationwide. Textbooks come under fire in many states, either for their controversial passages such as the blacks fighting for the South, or because of a complete absence of important information such as slavery and the Native Americans. While Charles Pyle, the spokesperson of the Department of Education said because the book was approved didn’t mean they agreed with every sentence, shouldn’t they be more careful as to what books they allow? Although that is one part of the book, it’s an  inaccurate representation of a very important period in American history. Even if the teachers refused to teach that passage of the book, students are able to read it for themselves. There’s a reason many young people don’t see a problem with believing in conspiracy theories such as the 9/11 inside job, or the fake moon landings, and it’s because they’re being flooded with controversial and inaccurate information from textbooks, from television, and from the internet. While it’s impossible to eliminate inaccurate and controversial history, as historians we should do everything in our power to try and eliminate as much of it as we can.

Regarding the desire to reenact the South’s rise to power, I always find that troubling. Yes, it is their right to reenact it, but there are a lot of things I have the right to do, but that does not mean I do it, or should. As the article “They Have Blood on Their Hands” showed, they are celebrating slavery, bloodshed, rape, oppression, and racism by celebrating the rise of the Confederacy. What if the Nazis were allowed to recreate the Holocaust? Or what if, as a comment said on that article, if Muslims were allowed to reenact the events of 9/11? Is it not the same thing?

The article that really got me was the one on the class about the Founding Fathers. Lots of Americans love to use the Founding Fathers when it suits them in politics, however most of them who do that don’t understand the Founding Fathers at all. They have a warped view of them because of their political ideologies. Earl Taylor may mention that they wanted a separation of church and state, or that they wanted Americans to bear arms, but does he mention that Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian? Does he mention Washington’s warnings towards getting involved in foreign affairs, or his warning about the two party system? Does he mention how much Benjamin Franklin loved and admired France? Probably not because it wouldn’t fit with his political agenda, which I find happens a lot in this country when trying to debate someone who has already made up their minds about the Founding Fathers. I think it’s time we got our history right, instead of what we want it to be. As historians, it’s our job to put aside our political bias and teach history truthfully, which has been a problem for many years in this country.

Some might get discouraged from the statistics shown by the BLS, but I was not one of them. I didn’t pick this degree because I wanted to be guaranteed a job, I chose it because I loved it. Although, I am certain that my career will be historical in some way, there are a lot of ways to go about that. As the American Historical Association showed, historian can find jobs in museums, publishing, academia, contracting, archives, preservation, etc. There are a lot of options for us, so we shouldn’t ever get discouraged and depressed when we hear it’s competitive. Getting a job anywhere is going to be competitive, it’s not unique to historians. Staying positive is going to get you a job a lot easier than if you are discouraged about it. Some of the readings actually encouraged me, such as the American Historical Association. Academia is one of the areas I am interested in finding a job, but the section on consultants and contractors really caught my attention. Working for the various entertainment outlets would be ideal. Also hiring myself out as a contractor to do historical research was another career which interested me. So the options are very open for historians in my opinion. Competition just means they are not going to allow anyone to get the job. You have to be proficient in your field, and you have to be passionate and dedicated. Competition weeds the less passionate, the less proficient, and the less dedicated out, so in a sense we should not get so discouraged from it.

The short articles from Stroh and Beatty provided good tips on how to achieve the goal of getting a historical job. Stroh said he looked for a positive outlook and enthusiasm. He wanted to hire those that wanted to learn. Companies don’t hire the down and outer, they hire the positive learner who wants to contribute, not complain. This is where being humble comes into play. Even experts in their fields don’t know every single thing about that particular field, every day is a learning process. I agree with Stroh that enthusiasm and a desire to learn are good things to look for when hiring someone for a historical job. I find that lots of people who do not enjoy history had unenthusiastic teachers. Even people who are not history buffs, or who had no interest in history before, enjoyed classes with enthusiastic professors, or enjoyed tours with enthusiastic guides and museum employees. Evoking that passion to those you are trying to educate really impresses them. Beatty showed me that I am on the right track in getting my MA because it places me above those competing for jobs without an MA. So while it can be easy to get discouraged by looking at those stats, it will only make the process worse. Staying positive and enthusiastic about your opportunities is the best way to make it in struggling job markets.

Reading the chapters for this week showed me how much goes into historic preservation. Having no real background in it, I was amazed at how much goes into it, and how many different styles of it exist. Chapter seven gave a brief overview of the many styles of preservation. One thing mentioned in chapter seven that I important was “A guiding principle of good restoration practice is that an original element, even if in poor condition, is preferable to a replicated element (195). And a few lines later, the author took issue with Viollet-le-Duc’s interpretation that historic works should look how they were designed to be, which is confusing in itself. How many historic buildings that we take for granted as historic were altered to fit the designer’s assumption of what it should have been? There are a lot of recreated historic buildings in this country, how do we know if they are supposed to look that way or not? Examples spring to mind like Williamsburg and Jamestown. Sometimes the ruins are as important as the recreations. If Troy was reconstructed, or Knossos on Crete, would that really benefit more than the ruins? Although they are ruins, they are the original ruins. Should the Colosseum be renovated? I don’t believe so because you are taking away the originality of the building when you do that. If the Colosseum was rebuilt, it would not have been built in 80 CE, but in 2013. I think that is important to consider before jumping to the conclusion that we need a perfect visual of what the town, or building, looked like instead of the original foundations or ruins.

Another chapter that interested me was the chapter on historic significance, chapter five. The author proposed that McDonald’s is a historic building, and was added to the National Register (142). At first I was a little perplexed why McDonald’s of all places was historically significant. It’s one of many fast food restaurants in the country. Will Wal Mart and Best Buy become historic buildings on the National Register as well? I certainly hope not. However, I realized it represented something about life in 20th century America. Not only is McDonald’s popular, but it has become a part of our culture being one of the first fast food chains in America. Fast food, regardless of what one feels about it, is an important part of American culture. It represents the fast pace many of us live, and therefore is historically significant, for a positive or negative reason. Although I still find it odd to put it on the list, I understand in a way why it was added.