Historiography (1 Viewer)

[ekoolish]

if they are atleast 10 words a quote that is around 200 words of your essay as quotes.. assuming it is 800-1000 words with around 300 of them being used in an introduction and conclusion, you would have the most convoluted, incoherent development of argument possible. how can you possibly develop a logical argument with analysis and evaluation if you have 20 quotes?

Lmao

 

[driaxx]

0 real ones.

ROFLMAO I agree.

Seriously "From K.Thomerson" but I did use quite a few real ones, but I backed up my historiography more with historical perspectives and schools of historians, i.e. in the Cold War, the "Realist historians argued blablabla" and maybe throw in a quote to back it up here and there

 

[cem]

I didn't think you needed historiography to outline the life of Leni Riefenstahl..

As a marker of this section - you don't.

 

[tetrisam]

As a marker of this section - you don't.

good, cos i didnt include any

 

[Freshjiver]

I used maybe ONE actual direct quote as in within " " for each section.
After reading the marker's notes i found that it shows you know the historian better if you spoke in some depth about what the historian believed and how they analysed a situation etc rather than just spitting out a quote.

ie: a, Direct quote) When describing Hitler, Churchill stated that he was like a "boa constrictor.. he had eaten, and now needed time to digest.. before he ate again" (im not sure if thats exact but its something like that)

ie: b, Historical analysis) Winston Churchill compares Hitler to a boa constrictor. This is centred around the idea that while the appeasment policy was "feeding" Hitler for the time being, he would inevitably wish to "eat" again. This lead to the eventual feast of Poland, following the nazi-soviet non-Aggression pact of 1939.

Personally i don't think its worth memorising a bunch of quotes when you can just discuss historical persepectives and have the same, if not better, effect.

But i could be wrong, i suppose we'll just have to wait & see the marks.

 

[cem]

I used maybe ONE actual direct quote as in within " " for each section.
After reading the marker's notes i found that it shows you know the historian better if you spoke in some depth about what the historian believed and how they analysed a situation etc rather than just spitting out a quote.

ie: a, Direct quote) When describing Hitler, Churchill stated that he was like a "boa constrictor.. he had eaten, and now needed time to digest.. before he ate again" (im not sure if thats exact but its something like that)

ie: b, Historical analysis) Winston Churchill compares Hitler to a boa constrictor. This is centred around the idea that while the appeasment policy was "feeding" Hitler for the time being, he would inevitably wish to "eat" again. This lead to the eventual feast of Poland, following the nazi-soviet non-Aggression pact of 1939.

Personally i don't think its worth memorising a bunch of quotes when you can just discuss historical persepectives and have the same, if not better, effect.

But i could be wrong, i suppose we'll just have to wait & see the marks.

As a marker if I had those two ways of dealing with the quote from Churchill in different essays the second one would certainly get more marks from me.

 

[annabackwards]

As a marker of this section - you don't.

Oh thank heavens XD

good, cos i didnt include any

+1

 

[chinesewombok]

I used quotes from actual historical figures themeselves (such as Mao Zedong in the National Study section).

For Conflict in Indo-China I used quotes by Marshall McLuhan and former French President Charles de Gaulle.

I think when using elements of historiography such as quotations the aim is to make it seemless and flowing rather than forced.

(Unrelated: roar84eighty Nietzsche = king.)

 

[nosh22]

Hmm... I used about 2 for WW1
5/6 for Russia.
7/8 for Cold War.
5/6 for Gorbachev.

 

[freaky.styly]

i used ~5 in each. fuck when you need to just make up jew names.

mandelbaum
goldstein.. etc.