Section 2 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ashley P
- Start date
Sandez
Hay Guys
Re: Fish?
Case study for me was W Churchill.
I used Watt, Gilbert and Jenkins.
Case study for me was W Churchill.
I used Watt, Gilbert and Jenkins.
Asheroth
Paranoid Android
Re: Fish?
I did Crusades, and referred to about six or seven historians, some in more detail than others. Since the questions asked us to 'analyse' the source I made reference to it in most points I made, and managed to keep the fish puns to a minimum. I am, however, ashamed/SO PROUD of one thing I did say; when I was talking about anachronistic treatment of the facts relating to the Crusades, I said that not only had Anderson selected his fish, he had 'prepared' them in a certain way by imposing modern values upon them
Overall, I think I did well on this exam.
I did Crusades, and referred to about six or seven historians, some in more detail than others. Since the questions asked us to 'analyse' the source I made reference to it in most points I made, and managed to keep the fish puns to a minimum. I am, however, ashamed/SO PROUD of one thing I did say; when I was talking about anachronistic treatment of the facts relating to the Crusades, I said that not only had Anderson selected his fish, he had 'prepared' them in a certain way by imposing modern values upon them
Overall, I think I did well on this exam.
Last edited:
dasphoebus
Pastamancer
Re: Fish?
I did JFK, and this question really lent itself to the topic, because I could talk about how historians like Hersch pick and choose their evidence, and how they use information unavailable to their predecesors. My arguement was a weak trot-through IMO, since there was only major linking to the question in the second paragraph and the conclusion.
Ummm, we weren't supposed to actually talk about Carr right? I mean, we were supposed to analyse what the jist of his statement was, rather than blab about relativism right?
I did JFK, and this question really lent itself to the topic, because I could talk about how historians like Hersch pick and choose their evidence, and how they use information unavailable to their predecesors. My arguement was a weak trot-through IMO, since there was only major linking to the question in the second paragraph and the conclusion.
Re: Fish?
When I read the question I was SO tempted to return in kind an extended metaphor of my own in relation to JFK. The smartass in me was going "do it... do it... do it"
I evetually settled by trying to fit as many puns in as I humanly could.
"one finds it hard to CAST their attention away from..."
"revisionists were looking for the big, juicy and often ellusive propaganda fish in the pool of facts"
"these may be large obstacles for historians to TACKLE"
"propaganda filled American society to the Bream (pronounced 'brim' it's a type of fish)
There were a few others I've forgotten but, hey, you ask a stupid question...
When I read the question I was SO tempted to return in kind an extended metaphor of my own in relation to JFK. The smartass in me was going "do it... do it... do it"
I evetually settled by trying to fit as many puns in as I humanly could.
"one finds it hard to CAST their attention away from..."
"revisionists were looking for the big, juicy and often ellusive propaganda fish in the pool of facts"
"these may be large obstacles for historians to TACKLE"
"propaganda filled American society to the Bream (pronounced 'brim' it's a type of fish)
There were a few others I've forgotten but, hey, you ask a stupid question...
Asheroth
Paranoid Android
Re: Fish?
Dasphoebus: If you didn't talk about Carr himself, that's OK, as long as you analysed the quote. In fact I think giving a exposition of Carr of any length would have been a waste of time. Analysing the source without giving an account of the author would have been fine.
NON-SERIOUS ATTEMPT F MINUS MINUSstephabi said:
Dasphoebus: If you didn't talk about Carr himself, that's OK, as long as you analysed the quote. In fact I think giving a exposition of Carr of any length would have been a waste of time. Analysing the source without giving an account of the author would have been fine.
Re: Fish?
haha yes...
I got my innuendo in there so i was happy. my case study was JFK and the Kennedy family had allowed Dallek to look at his health records because "they liked his tackle". mwahaha. yeh mine rambled alot and was lacking a good structure, but i found the first question easier to manage.
haha yes...
I got my innuendo in there so i was happy. my case study was JFK and the Kennedy family had allowed Dallek to look at his health records because "they liked his tackle". mwahaha. yeh mine rambled alot and was lacking a good structure, but i found the first question easier to manage.
Re: Fish?
aye -for q1 i was just wondering if it was expected to acknowledge that she was a post modernist - coz i sed her perception contrasted with that of post modernists...
what did she say that implied she was :|?
bit of a rough source i rekn ..
aye -for q1 i was just wondering if it was expected to acknowledge that she was a post modernist - coz i sed her perception contrasted with that of post modernists...
what did she say that implied she was :|?
bit of a rough source i rekn ..
Last edited:
Re: Appeasement
i don't think my essay makes much sense! oh well
just out of curiousity...which school do u go to?
you seem to be doing all the same options my school is, even in ancient history (i've seen u in other threads...and i can tell you...u're big competition...hope the rest of ur school isn't like you!)
i thought the question was fairly general...it was ok for appeasement i suppose...but i don't know how they're going to discriminate between the essaysp342i said:
i don't think my essay makes much sense! oh well
just out of curiousity...which school do u go to?
you seem to be doing all the same options my school is, even in ancient history (i've seen u in other threads...and i can tell you...u're big competition...hope the rest of ur school isn't like you!)
dasphoebus
Pastamancer
Re: Fish?
We're currently discussing that in the other thread. Tis a pickle, but I'd say the source sucked, however BOS would not have picked the "history is a science" bit if they didn't want us to say she was empiricist.mikeyklim said:
thenothing
no member
Re: Fish?
She sort of said it was 'almost a science' and a way to find multiple, 'useable truths' - the 's' makes her post modernist.
Look at Elton, Ranke and Windshuttle. All empiricists, all believe that through the correct methodologies one, absolute truth can be found.
Basically:
Empiricism = one truth.
Relativism = many truths.
Post Modernism = so many truths, it's impossible to get to one, hence, many 'useable truths'.
She sort of said it was 'almost a science' and a way to find multiple, 'useable truths' - the 's' makes her post modernist.
Look at Elton, Ranke and Windshuttle. All empiricists, all believe that through the correct methodologies one, absolute truth can be found.
Basically:
Empiricism = one truth.
Relativism = many truths.
Post Modernism = so many truths, it's impossible to get to one, hence, many 'useable truths'.
Re: case study - wtf!?
the quote wasn't really regarding context was it, more the personal impositon on ones historical interpretation leading to discourse?
and clendinned made a big point about the rising popularity of public history, i think if any, this was the main point abuot contextual influence.
did any of you challenge trhe source directly, sure i highlighted differences and similarities with historians but also showed how Clendinned him/herself littered his perspective with the corruption of rhetoric (i didnt say corruption of rhetoric, something mroe suave)
Edit: E. H. Carr
the quote wasn't really regarding context was it, more the personal impositon on ones historical interpretation leading to discourse?
and clendinned made a big point about the rising popularity of public history, i think if any, this was the main point abuot contextual influence.
did any of you challenge trhe source directly, sure i highlighted differences and similarities with historians but also showed how Clendinned him/herself littered his perspective with the corruption of rhetoric (i didnt say corruption of rhetoric, something mroe suave)
Edit: E. H. Carr
Asheroth
Paranoid Android
Re: Fish?
No, that doesn't work. She was discussing history as a whole, as a huge record of human achievement. That's what the 'useable truths' thing was referring to, so the plural just refers to the many records that we can extract truths from. Empiricist, in my view.
No, that doesn't work. She was discussing history as a whole, as a huge record of human achievement. That's what the 'useable truths' thing was referring to, so the plural just refers to the many records that we can extract truths from. Empiricist, in my view.
~*Bubbles*~
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 14
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2006
Re: case study - wtf!?
I hear you, thats gotta be the most interesting response on tacitus ive ever written (i did the same case study) lol o well, i recon i did ok hope soAshley P said:the facts are really not at all like the fish on the fishmonger's slab!
they are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean...
words of wisdom from the BOS... sage.
how the hell could you use that to discuss?!:burn: tacitus fished in the ocean of corruption, to catch his fish tiberius
that was the most creative exam i've ever done!
it's over!
billy_slater
Member
Re: case study - wtf!?
yeah i couldnt be screwed writing about the fishes eh.
"history means interpretation" my whole essay was based on that one line.
yeah i couldnt be screwed writing about the fishes eh.
"history means interpretation" my whole essay was based on that one line.
pine-fresh
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 3
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2006
Re: Fish?
I liked the fish. It seemed like an easier question than previous years and fit well with my case study - context, purpose, selectivity/omission of facts, etc.
Did anyone else do the Historicity of Jesus Christ? I talked about the Radical debate and used about 7 historians.
How long were your answers?? i only got 12 pages for that one...
I liked the fish. It seemed like an easier question than previous years and fit well with my case study - context, purpose, selectivity/omission of facts, etc.
Did anyone else do the Historicity of Jesus Christ? I talked about the Radical debate and used about 7 historians.
How long were your answers?? i only got 12 pages for that one...