Category: Uncategorized

Chauncey DeVega’s article has to be the most biased piece of literature I have read in a long time.  According to DeVega, every conservative in America is a white supremacist racist or an idiot!  DeVega is sure to admit that there are a few “token Republican Negroes,” I wonder what DeVega would say to the descendants of a famous “token Repbulican Negro” like Martin Luther King, Jr.?  I had no idea that every American politician, including our current Black president, has sworn allegiance to a document steeped in white supremacy!? According to DeVega,  white supremacy is the “bleating heart” of the United States Constitution.  DeVega dismisses any view that doesn’t fall right in line with his own.  As for conservatives, Tea Partiers, Republicans, and other members of the New Right (most of whom are old, resentful, racist, frightened, and possessed according to DeVega), they deserve the right to have their views, just like DeVega has the right (ironically because of the very Constitution he so despises) to espouse his distasteful comments about individuals he clearly does care about (even if states otherwise).  As for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, they are striving to maintain cultural ties to their ancestors.  These individuals have the right to celebrate their culture just as the rest of America has the right to celebrate their culture.  I would charge DeVega to read the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights which lists rights of all citizens, not just individuals DeVega agrees with.

As for school textbooks, I think every historian should get a hold of a California-based US history book and a Texas-based US history textbook.  During my undergraduate career, I studied secondary education, I compared these textbooks and felt like I was reading about two completely different nations.  Reading a California-based text book, one will realize that diversity is pushed so far that key individuals in history (that happen to be white males) are replaced by less influential individuals simply because they are female or minority.  Reading a Texas-based text book, one might wonder how many “founding fathers” there really are, I for one had never heard of half of them.  California-based text books stress white oppression against all other individuals throughout America’s history, to the point that I wonder how a white student is able to read this history and still maintain a sense of pride in their nation.  Texas-based text books utilize terms like discrimination and division in society rather than slavery as much as possible, to the point that I wonder how an African American student with slave ancestors will be able to truly understand the history of their ancestors in America.  I could go on and on, but these two text book variations are the result of intense politicization of the educational process, a sad reality in an increasingly bureaucratic nation.  Why do we allow politicians, on either side of the aisle, to dictate what our children learn?  Why aren’t historians more involved in the process of curriculum development?  These problems will only be exacerbated with the use of the Common Core Standard.

I found Larry Cebula’s letter to be both hilarious and very sad at the same time.  Anyone reading this article will see the humor in the stories, but the fact that this many misrepresentations are being advanced at one location is disheartening.  I sincerely hope the individuals that received the letter begin to advance a fuller, more accurate explanation of the property they take care of.  Education outside of the classroom is just as important, if not more important, than education inside the classroom.  While I found parts of the return letter to be ironic, I do feel that the author has some fair points.  While we need to teach an accurate history of what happened in America, we also need to create citizens that are able to be proud of the nation they live in.  American children should know that slavery happened, that slavery was terrible, that the Civil War was directly tied to slavery, and that there are still things being done to try and right past wrongs (affirmative action…); but, Americans should also be taught about all of the great things in American history.  Educators and public historians should strive to present history in a manner that is true, but also in a manner that does no purposefully demean the United States time and time again.

Jeff Robinson brings to light very important questions for historians, scientists, politicians, civic leaders, and educators.  Robinson asks “How do we bring both the diversity of opinion and the question of specifically politicized values into our public history work, especially at sites and discourses where energy development, climate change, corporate exploitation, and agricultural shifts are prevalent?  In the case of my hometown, do we side with the activists using history-tactics, among other methods, or do we side with the majority that supports fracking?  Is it possible to belong in the middle?”  As a citizen, I have the right to my own opinion, and I have the right to come to that opinion how I so choose.  As a historian, I feel compelled to look up the facts as well as the general ideas of both sides of the conflict.  As an educator, I feel compelled to present both sides of the issue to my students; moreover, I feel compelled to encourage my students to assess the issue themselves before making an educated decision to side with one side or the other.

After reading about the National Museum of the American Indian and it’s not-so-perfect presentation of Native Americans, I find myself at a standstill.  I truly believe that anytime someone is exposed to something historically and/or culturally significant, this is a wonderful opportunity for discussion and education; therefore, a true learning experience exists in this museum.  I do feel that the museum should work towards to better representing Native Americans as they continue to exist and as they have existed historically.  While most social scientists contend that African Americans are the most oppressed racial group in American society (these social scientists reference slavery, institutionalized segregation, Jim Crow laws and Plessy v. Ferguson) the plight of the Native Americans is even greater than that of the African Americans.  Native Americans have been oppressed physically, spiritually, emotionally, sexually and culturally since the first white settlers “discovered” America.  Moreover, racism, oppression and genocide against Native Americans have been institutionalized for centuries and continue to plague Native American society as well as American society as a whole.  The greatest injustice befalling Native Americans lies in the continuous and overt neglect of the United States government, which has oppressed Native Americans externally and internally.  While the National Museum of the American Indian has great potential, I certainly hope they add to the museum in order to ensure people gain a more accurate understanding of the rich history that surrounds Native Americans.  As an aside, I fully intend on visiting the museum when I am in D.C. this summer.

 

 

As I get older, it seems that the ethical dilemmas in life become more confusing and seem to border on the absurd.   The issues that have to deal with presenting history correctly and accurately have gone the way that the Dodo has gone.  It can in part be blamed on the internet and all the pseudo histories and conspiracy theories that are being touted of.     The other part is our own ineptness of trying to keep historical places, institutions and events in their proper place and with historical accuracy.   The need to keep things accurate has to be preserved.  We, as future public historians can’t afford to be labeled as liars. The facts have to be presented in the best historical context given, and all politics should be moved to the wayside.  The Sons of Confederate Veterans need to really get their facts straight and say that the information that they have presented in no ways reflects that slaves actually fought for the South.  Unless it is a political institution, politics should never be insinuated and the institution should try to be as politically neutral as possible.

The thing that raised my ire the most was the article about the man presenting how the framers of the Constitution were, the types of men that this man thought they were and how religiously motivated they were.   It is truly amazing how the facts can be skewed in the name of religion.  One name that was not mentioned was that this guy was a member of the John Birch Society.  They are one of the main groups trying to give education about the Constitution, but it is their skewed version.   It is truly amazing how, older, male white men, in their 60’s, who probably never were in the Military or fought in Vietnam can try and educate our youth on how the Constitution works.  Enough soapbox, but it is very galling to say the least.

These articles did open my eyes to how narrow some peoples take on historical events and places happened.  I am so glad the blinders have fallen and that the truth can be shown on real names and events.  I am glad the writer of the letter called out the false inaccuracies in the “Munchhausen House”.  It was very appropriate to name this house after the man who was the biggest liar in the world.   That article made me look at even when people are given the facts, they will still tell their version of a skewed truth.

I would like to say that I had the time, and length of page to fully develop all of my thoughts and feelings on the subject of ethical quandaries in the practice of public history. I would like to say that I agreed with one or the other side, or that I felt it my passionate responsibility to correct others’ misinformation and misunderstandings. If only I could understand the community mindset that drives the academic practice and educational process, perhaps then I could say I agreed with something, anything, whole-heartedly. But the fact for me is that I do not. For myself it seems just as dangerous to toe the line of academic communally agreed upon knowledge as the right-wing nut-jobs that still insist on a White House conspiracy causing the nine-eleven attacks. The immediate argument on the academic side is to hedge bets, to err on the side of caution, to go where the evidence leads, to trust the convergence of evidence. On the other side there is the terribly persuasive—if not a little sexy—“How do you know that they are not all in collusion to lead you astray?” Now, aside from the questions of collusion and who “they” are, I must plead guilty to a inquisitive spirit that does not like to let a question be. What I mean by that is that even after academic history as an institution has thoroughly vetted a question and considers it answered, I will remain, firmly, stubbornly planted to any question that I do not feel has been fully and satisfactorily answered. I think that this behavior is relatively common among historians, but not absolute as this week’s readings indicated.

Typically, my issues with the readings were not so much with the immediate content, but with the philosophies that I see entrenched behind the content. It would seem that within the corporate world—what many would refer to as the “real world”—white, male, middle-aged humans hold the power and create relationships and groups that prop up their status and position in an effort to make more money, gain more power and ultimately have more control over things and people. It would also seem that these men are heartless at times and without concern in dealing with the starving human condition in which those in their employ exist. Nor does it appear that they care for the environmental impact of where their decisions lead. Because of this general appearance, middle-aged, white men become an easy target—often too easy a target—at whose feet may be laid the general grievances of society. The avant-garde of this army of grievance expressionists is another group, a group that attempts to be balanced, but who too often find themselves mired in almost the exact same self-preservation system, just on the opposite side of the coin: the academics.

Perhaps I’ll start with the extremely accurate quote of the Native American woman: “We’ve been trying to educate the visitors for five hundred years; how long will it take to educate the visitors?” I found this quote particularly interesting because it expresses the frustration in the education process, as well the rigid inability of education to adapt meaningfully to change. It seems to me that what is present in our society is not so much a problem with misinformation, as it is a complete lack of internal reflection on either party mired in the frustrating battle between money and knowledge. When I look at the education system, I see nothing more than I see among white middle-aged men vying for power, it just happens to be an internal struggle for who gets to corner the market on knowledge rather than money. The economics are the same, only the currency has changed. Ultimately, the educational system would have itself as the ultimate power, controlling who gets what through a system of knowledge exchange. Is this not the purpose in using history to stop fracking? Is it not the purpose in perpetually taking issue with a relative minority that believes the Civil War was over state’s rights? Is it not the case in trying to educate on American internal colonialism? While I will be the first to agree that there were horrible things that were done to indigenous, as well as exogenous people, and that certain attitudes persist, I am enormously critical of any system that seeks change by inversion, particularly when that system ultimately seeks the same thing that its antagonist does: power.

To me it seems that what we have is two identical systems each trying to raise its flag higher and higher while slinging mud at the other in a war to determine who rules. In such a ridiculous and juvenile engagement, I feel it is best to ally with neither. If that makes me a defector, a rat, or a double agent, I am okay with that. It’s not my battle. Even as a historian it is not my battle to correct every error I run across, I can’t. This is the reality that I live in, a reality that recognizes that people are people, they will draw their beliefs and emotions into any situation, that is what makes them human. For me to activate those emotions and beliefs in an effort to twist and warp them to seeing “my side” seems to me the greatest unethical practice. It is no different than playing their material greed to get them to carry out my material will. Ask yourself after reading each of the articles this week whether you agreed with them or disagreed with them merely because of evidence, or if it was because it was presented in an emotionally warping manner? For me, there was a lot of philosophical errors in the articles, they made huge assumptions about the power of education and purpose of history, issues which were not addressed. For these reasons I choose neither to unite with those historians, nor declare them an enemy.

As I looked at this week’s menu for the readings, it seemed that this was indeed light, but in looking at the opportunities for jobs, the outlook looks grim and bleak.  As with any job it seems that knowledge and that term, “experience” is the one thing that is needed before you should even put in a resume to a prospective employer.

The Bureau of Labor Statics was quite surprising in that an Archivist makes more than a Curator.  I would think that a person in management would more than a “grunt” doing the manual labor of finding and archiving materials for institutions.  I clicked along the top tabs and looked at the various jobs and it listed what would be the top paying jobs and I was surprised that the political scientist would be paid the most.  I wonder if it is as a lobbyist that the profession of lobbying legislatures that would pay the most salary if you represented an institution that needed federal funding.  The one occupation that I was surprised at was that of the post-secondary History teacher.  Teachers beginning salaries are not that much starting out, and I am really surprised that the BLS would publish this.

The one thing that I do agree with my fellow students is that doing an internship or working already in the field will open the doors for full time employment.  It is usually word of mouth on how most jobs are advertised and I am certain that this is the same pattern in the public history arena.  I know that internships always look good on a resume.  I am always asked what I plan to do after I graduate.  Being retired, I still have many options open and want to fill my time wisely, and I feel that one is never too old to fulfill a second career.  The future is just as bright for me as it is for younger students, so I don’t want to let anything hold me back.

 

I found this week’s reading rather light on substance. I feel that if I need an academic to tell me that I need to think outside of the box, I’m not really thinking outside of the box. It is like having to be told to be proactive. (It would seen that one being told to be proactive must have missed the boat on being proactive). I’m not sure whether these catchphrases are really and honestly parsed by those who use them. At any rate, that is my rant for the week, now to the business of the history business.

I read through the different articles and browsed the websites this week—I even signed up for The Versatile PhD, which I felt provided a greater scope of insight, or perhaps outsight than most of the other career focused jargon on the other websites. I chose to get my MA in history because I felt that of all the academic disciplines it provided the greatest scope. By that I mean that historians are trained thinkers and analyzers, taught, as one author this week put it, “to assess conflicting interpretations.” I also have discovered along the way that many employers value a history degree, even when it does not directly relate to the position for which they are hiring, because they believe that these people have the ability to bring together data and create understandings about that data. Historians also tend to withhold judgment toward more fringe interpretations. In a world as fast moving as technology, these are very desirable skills. Historians do have one great flaw, by and large, however: over-analysis, and sometimes, stagnation of thought.

As I read through the websites and considered the data presented on the Department of Labor website, I considered whether this is all being too thought. I have heard so many times from professors, bosses, teachers, even some of my students, parents, spouse, family in general, friends, etc, “You’re overthinking this.” In talking to my colleagues that practice history, I hear the same story from them; that they have been told the same thing. So maybe all this talk of career is being greatly overthought. At first I thought the statistics were depressing, but then I realized, “Hey, I don’t have to be a statistic.” Just because x is what everyone else does with their history degree does not mean that I have to do x. I have a particular set of skills that works for me, others have their own. In truth, just because I am not directly employing my skills in history, does not mean that they are not being used. Skills are a part of who I am, which means that I will use them somehow in whatever I do. Having spent nearly four years (and tens of thousands of dollars) getting a graduate degree, I would hope that I want to more directly employ these skills.

Back to the issue of getting out of the box. In order for a person to really emancipate himself from the box, he must remove himself as a whole, body, mind and soul from that system. When we talk about a box, we are speaking of a system. It would be foolish to say that I was out of a box if I was simply imagining what the outside looked like while I remained firmly locked in the box. Likewise, it would be a simple mind who, having been liberated from the box, kept his mind entrenched in thinking about the comforts and ease of being in the box. (BTW, for those who were with me in 501, remember the fishbowls? This is very similar) In terms of academia, or whatever you may call it, as a system of thought, it is based on data analysis and scientific method with some good old fashioned common sense thrown in the mix. Academics are taught to withhold judgment until the data has all been analyzed and an interpretation has been sussed from that analysis. I felt like that was much of the reading this week, we were being told that it was a different system of considering employment for historians, but it amounted to being simply different ideas within the same system. I found myself still analyzing the data for historians, looking at the jobs that historians get and trying to draw new conclusions based on the same evidence in the same system. This I didn’t like.

Perhaps it is just me that got trapped in that thinking as I read, or perhaps not. What I do know is that I do not plan on spending my life and time in the academic system. There are so many other systems tow which I could apply myself, why stick within only one.

I did find some of the results of USA jobs quite fascinating when I searched for historian, because many of them were not historian jobs at all. They were, however, still within a more, or less, similar vein of thinking to the academic system, since Government seems to mimic the academic models in many ways. What I find more interesting is a search on Monster, or other job sites that list private businesses seeking employees. While many of those are large corporations, or institutional companies (private museums and educational facilities), there are a few that are smaller businesses. To some degree, even large corporations operate as institutions, and along the same systems that are employed in academic institutions, so I am more interested in small businesses that think differently; businesses that are developing their own systems of government and new ways of performing work. These are the businesses that are experimental in how they perform, and create systems that adapt quickly, rather than to bleed dry resources then panic as they realize that their system is no longer working.

There was another great article published this week in Forbes that addressed the issue of an entity that actually manages to work on a different system with great success: BSU Football. And Yes, I said Forbes, not Sports Illustrated. In order to make things work, and to continue to make them work, the bar for setting expectations must constantly be addressed and redressed. Such thinking is indicative of organizational out-of-the-box thinking.

How does this all play into historians and finding a job? Well, it is simple, first think out of the box, get out of the box and be out of the box. Look to make a paradigm shift within your own life, thought and existence. Reflection can provide some good insight, but it can also create a very enclosed box. While the reading this week is perhaps a good starting point, it is not a paradigmatic shift in thought or process. It does not raise the bar for where historians can achieve excellence, it maintains a firm root in academic systems of thought and analysis. I think for those who are of a like mind to myself Guillebeau’s book was far more insightful.

I told you it wasn’t about a garden. What did you expect?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics offers a plethora of information that can be interpreted many different ways.  The optimist will quickly realize that all of the history related fields pay well.  The pessimist will readily notice that the number of applicant far outweighs the number of history related jobs.  The realist will accept these realities and recognize that all of these jobs have a modest, modest meaning at par with the national average, job outlook percentage.  The real benefit of the Bureau of Labor Statistics webpages is the descriptions that explain the quick facts.  In order to garner a history related position, one needs something beyond the traditional educational experience; practical skills, hands-on work experience, and a competitive spirit.  Rather than being distraught with the current job market, I was assured that I am in the right program.  Getting a Masters in Applied Historical Research will allow me to fill the gaps of traditional academia while simultaneously boosting my chances to stand out above other candidates in whatever history related field I choose to enter.  Something else this website reminded me of was that historical research does not necessitate a historical position; people in the MAHR program are especially equipped to compete in a variety of job markets.  Sometimes looking for a job entails thinking outside of the traditional box and looking at where you can best utilize your skills and interests.

Bob Beatty’s article contained great insights about the public history; although, I wish he would have left the personal stories and clichés out.  The best sentence I found in any of this week’s articles was Bob Beatty’s “the process of doing history was, and should remain, the primary focus of academic history.”  He goes on to say that it isn’t always possible for public history programs to teach skills and provide service learning opportunities.  My questions is why isn’t this possible?  If public history programs can’t teach the necessary skills and provide the necessary opportunities then what are they doing?  What is the point of a “public history” program if no one is learning about doing history?  This should not be a question of possibility or need, there is no point in having a public history program that can’t train people to do history for the public!  He concludes his article stating that it is okay for public history students to not receive formal training in museum work, but I completely disagree.  If someone wants a museum job, they need to be working with museum things, they need to be studying museum things, and they need to be doing museum things.  Beatty’s article can be boiled down to some great sounds bytes that fail to truly benefit public history students.

Scott Stroh’s article read like a “How To” article for eternally happy and ambitious people ready to change the world.  He explains that organizations must inspire, challenge, question, nurture, inform, educate…the list goes on and on.  At what point does a descriptive list still help people?  Rather than provide bullet points of what an organization does, Stroh should add prose explaining why these things are imperative for a successful, beneficial organization.  Moreover, Stroh should explain how to do these things.  By this I do not mean that he should list eight ridiculously simple steps to, seemingly, succeed in life.  “Be relentlessly positive.”  “Take action on your passion.” Really?  This article lacks depth and life application.

I found The $100 Startup to be a very informative, and helpful tool to use. For a while I’ve wanted to either start a record store, or start some sort of shop where people can hang out, drink and listen to vinyl records all day. The part on making your passion marketable really spoke to me because of that. Then I realized history is another passion of mine, and so by writing about history I am making my passion marketable, to a degree. However, the one part of this book that really jumped out to me was the importance of value. Providing a service for others, instead of simply wanting to cash in was one of the themes of this book. Instead of simply giving people what you want to give them, or what you think they should have, give them what they want, provide a service for them. As historians, that is a great goal to have in the sense that we should be helping others. While we shouldn’t give the people what they want all the time when it comes to history (since it will amount to Searching  for Sasquatch), providing a service is a good model for us to follow. It seems a lot of companies today are more interested in giving us what they want to give us rather than what we want, so I felt the portions of the book where he talked about providing a service was valuable. He did mention the importance of making money, which I agree with, but there was more than just making money.

Another reason I appreciated this book had to do with the uncertainty in the job market, so being more creative with your options opens your possibilities. With history there is no guarantee to making money once you get a degree, it’s helpful to learn other ways to put that degree to use besides finding a museum or a school to work for. It also encouraged me because it made me realize there are many options to pursue in your job hunt. You shouldn’t feel tied down to only one or two options, and making a passion like history become a career can be more accessible than many might realize. Guillebeau combined great advice and encouragement with an easy to understand approach.

In recent years the depressed economy has created opportunity by necessity. So many people without jobs have decided that since failure is a guaranteed anyway, they might as well go out with a bang and doing something they love. It seems that it should go without saying that people will not always pay for what others love, but that point does need to be made. Chris Guillebeau did make a good point of reminding his reader of that very thing. Guillebeau’s whole message, the idea of a simple, passion-driven, micro-startup is one that should resonate with many. I was raised by a father who started and ran his own business for many of my growing up years, to a degree it was a very successful business, but as the success has faded with that business the discourse has grown in the family over how to develop a successful plan doing the things we like to do. I read Guillebeau’s book within the first couple of weeks after I received it, the first half in a single setting in bed until about two in the morning. I immediately referred my wife to read it and this past week it has been in her stack of reading. The point is that Guillebeau has written an excellent guide, not a philosophical discourse on ways of thinking about business and passion, but a hands on guide for actually doing it. While there are many who may not understand the value in Guillebeau’s suggestions, it is nonetheless a book that can increase one’s understanding of making a business succeed.

 

When I came to the history department, I was relatively confident that I wanted to teach and that I wanted to pursue a doctorate in the subject. As the disillusionment began to develop over the semesters, and my own life took a couple of turns, I had to face the fact that my passion was, and is, not in teaching, in the classical academic setting. Ultimately, I am working on a degree so that I can provide a living for my family and it so happens that I am passionate about history, but in a very awkward, sometimes anti-historical manner. What I have tried to develop is an understanding about the relationship between my passions for administration, hospitality, and history. The readings this week come as no surprise to me in a history course. They were written by people who have had to come to terms with the reality of the world, the reality that classic academia, while it may always exist, it fundamentally shifting and unless one has an advantage by the way of education of connection, getting the few positions that remain, is a near impossibility. The other thing that they had in common was the basic premise that one should work at what he is good at, and often what we are good at, is what we love. The difficulty becomes the indebtedness that often accompanies a degree of any sort. Such debt feels like a weight that makes it difficult to accept the possibility of making a salary on one’s own. In my own case, I feel as if I have enough debt (which is basically an economic risk) that I don’t want to take on more risk as an owner in a business. As Guillebeau pointed out, however, traditional jobs no longer provide the safe shelter that they used to.

 

What this all means for historians with shiny new degrees and no department or museum in which to hang their hats is either positive or negative, it comes down to philosophical positioning—do I groan and complain about a system that is saturated with workers, and not creating more jobs, and not paying for the jobs they do have? OR, do I accept the reality that those traditional jobs don’t exist anymore and grasp the opportunity that exists in other realms? I have to consider that many of the most revered universities and colleges in our country were not begun with a full staff that was offering cushy full-time positions. Maybe the situation in which we find ourselves now is an opportunity, not only to redefine who we are as historians, but what education is, how people learn and what value we offer.

I went to purchase my school books at the beginning of the semester, and I was rather confused that an entrepreneurial book was one of my required texts.  I was not particularly looking forward to the read.  As an academic historian, I know exactly what I want to do with my life.  I want to teach!  Teaching is fulfilling, always changing, and personable: everything I could ask for.  While I do not want to be a businessman and I have no desire to run a business, I did enjoy reading Chris Guillebeau’s “The $100 Startup.”   The book was informative, inspirational, and accessible.  Unlike many texts assigned in academia, this text was simple and to the point.  Guillebeau’s enthusiasm drenches every page; he truly wants to help people start their own small business.  For a person that is interested in doing just that, this is a must read.  His use of real life examples, real people and real businesses, substantiates his claims.  Many “How To” books lack this depth, focusing solely on the author’s personal experiences.  Guillebeau’s discussion regarding the “knowledge economy” explained how this text fits into public history.  Many budding historians do not want to fill traditional history roles in society (teachers, museum curators, or historical bureaucrats).  It is these historians that will gain from Guillebeau’s “The $100 Startup.”  These historians need only key in on what aspect of the “knowledge economy” they wish to fulfill, and begin!  These historians have skills, and are continually gaining more skills, and these historians have interests.  What these historians need to do, according to Guillebeau, is connect these skills and interests with what other people, their potentially clients, want.  Even historians filling traditional roles (teachers, museum curators, and historical bureaucrats) can gain from Guillebeau’s basic idea; the biggest difference being that that these individuals are selling themselves (their skills and interests) in hopes of a “traditional” job and a “traditional” paycheck.

“Historians as Consultants and Contractors” explained that there are numerous things a history consultant can do, many of which we have discussed in our Public History class.  Historical consulting is a growing industry that is almost always in need of hiring professional historians for short-term contracts.  As an educator, I immediately thought about how many summer opportunities there must be for a High School History teacher!  While I might be “constrained” during the school year, I will be the definition of flexible over the summer months.  While I am still in my initial year in the Masters of Applied Historical Research program, I have already gained invaluable insights into how to bring history alive, the digital humanities, and so much more.  These skills combined with my growing interests will allow me to gain a part time position as a historical consultant whenever I so desire.  This chapter stressed the importance of complementing a history degree, and I really liked reading that.  All too often, academic readings contain such a narrow focus that interdisciplinary approaches are rarely even mentioned.

Tyler Rudd Putman’s “Crafting a New Historian” elicits deep thinking.  While Putman could be described as a typical academic, he has a Master’s Degree and he is currently pursuing his Doctoral Degree, he could also be described as an atypical academic.  After earning his Master’s Degree, he spent a year sewing clothes to make a living.  It is this year outside of the traditional academic scope that led him to figure out what he truly wants in life, what he enjoys doing, and what academia entails.  For those individuals with an exclusive view of what “doing history” entails, Putman was no longer “doing history” in the garment business.  For those with an inclusive view of what “doing history” entails, Putman never left the history field; he merely found another way to “do” history, through sewing historical clothing.  He was making a modest living, enjoying what he was doing, and had time to yearn for academic comforts like the library.  Putman states that “the cognitive overload of an academic life prevents us from being truly thoughtful,” and I would argue that there is much truth to this statement.  Many academic are confined to specific topics, are embarrassed by their hobbies, and fail to associate themselves with the real world.  I agree with Putman, “Academic historians need to spend less time in the library and more time confronting the rigorously critical world of the nonacademic public.”  This is essential for anyone hoping to work in the public history field.  Putman concludes his article with explaining numerous reasons not to get a PhD, most importantly that there is a very real possibility that he will be sewing clothes after gaining his degree.  Despite problems like these, he is currently working towards his Doctoral Degree; to say I was shocked by his decision would be an understatement.