Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Caitlin Thornbrugh Group 2
In reading Skemp’s work I think it is important to remember the idea we were talking about in discussion that we are studying history from someone’s perspective. What would the history of colonial America be described at if we were under the direction of a British historian. What descriptions of the people and events would be different? In describing Benjamin Franklin the majority of Americans would choose to look at all he contributed to the founding of our society. I wonder what the English would have to say about him. On page 77 Skemp discusses his “contradictory” messages as he tried to be the middle man. The American government is not quick to admit its wrongdoings. The description of Lord Hillborough plays on the emotions of the readers to build up an aversion to him—he is described as “unbending” and issuing “firmer control over the colonies.” Then set against the hero Ben Franklin in a “showdown” it makes it hard for the American reader to see maybe he was just trying to do what he felt was the right thing for his job and for his country. There is a quote from Franklin saying he should be known for his “Conceit, Wrong headedness, Obstinacy and Passion.” Could some of these adjectives also describe Franklin himself? An example of this would be when he sends the letters between Hutchinson and Oliver to Thomas Cushing. I think Henretta’s description of Hillborough’s activities on page 149 leaves more room for the reader to draw their own conclusions, because it simply states what he did, and uses only direct quotes from him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yes, of coarse history is biased on individual's perspectives and it's also said that, "history is written by the winners."
With that in mind, I still believe that Ben was best known, world-wide, for his skills in negotiation and compromise as well as his diplomatic skills.
It is true that bias historians will show their own people in a brighter light. Good point! I agree with the suggestion that some of those adjectives do apply to Ben in some ways but those could also be attached to anyone at one point in their life. No one is perfect..
It is true what you say about Henretta reading; it does leave much room for interpretation. In a way I actually could not decide what my feelings were about Benjamin's character throughout the reading. I don't know if "conceit, wrong headedness, obstinacy and passion" are words that describe Ben but then again i am not sure i know how to describe his character. Nice way to look at things from a different point of view.
It can be interesting to think about how unbiased history is. However we all know that no matter the actual happenings of the past, the ones who gain control in the end write the history books. Would you describe Bill Gates as a thief or a philanthropist? If you were to ask Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple) he would say thief. If you were to ask recipients of funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, they would say philanthropist. Grey areas are rarely of interest to people. And one of the most moving, and exciting things about History, as we know it, is the fact that it tells a definite story. If someone was able to take all the "myth out of the man" when discussing Ben Franklin, I doubt highly that it would be widely accepted, or even read with the same attention as a grand adventure where Franklin beat the odds and brought truth and justice to the world through careful rhetoric and expansive idealism. Let's be honest here for a moment. Benjamin Franklin DID generate a lot of intellectual discussion and DID frontier the political and scientific advancements that everyone said he did. However, is that going to say that no one else of that time would have been able to do the same thing? The simple fact is we don't know. We can't know. And most people don't really care to know. That's why History can be such a touchy topic between researchers and historic librarians. Should history be a conservation of what we do know? Or should it be broken up and analyzed? Hasn't the history we created work for us thus far? Is there any reason to doubt its value?
It's true that history is certainly a biased subject, but there are so many first hand accounts to uncover do describe the events in different viewpoints. I'm sure over in England there are records written by the King and Parliment of their opinions of the time that we are just not looking at because this is a history class in the United States. This aspect applies to reading Henretta and then reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. (Which is also a wonderful read.)
yes i have noticed the bias in skemp. altho some of it seems to be legit. the British are notorious for their pride, and at this time arrogance. now there is stereotypes, and maybe some of these politicians have been wrongly accused of these attitudes, but stereotypes are there for a reason. i don't think alot of these politicians were really concerned with the well being of the colonies, some of them just seemed to be out to make a buck, or prove something to the 'unruly' colonist.
Good post and I think you're right. I'm sure in GB they teach a fairly different perspective then we are learning here. Of course, it is probably also not seen as such an important part of history as it is to us. To us, it is the formation of our nation, to them, a loss of some colonies.
Interesting point. I agree that history is biased and I do think that the history of Colonial America would be described differently if it were a British Historians perspective. The British most likely see Ben Franklin in a different light than we do but I agree with nbuss that Ben Franklin is probably still know world-wide for his many accomplishments.
From what the Skemp book describes, it seems Ben Franklin was doing a lot of calming people down and telling them what NOT to do, and when tension and frustration is building up, a truly successful figure is supposed to step up and talk about what SHOULD be done and gather support for that. By keeping America unsure it kept them hesitant, and I'd agree that his lack of ability to lead people in a particular direction could be a negative at that point, but you can't blame the guy for trying to be level headed. And I'm sure the story of Ben really is slightly biased for us. In Britain they probably don't talk about him a whole lot since he wasn't necessarily one of their key players, they may even instead focus on the passion and obstinacy of Hillsborough, who knows.
Depending on what you read the level of biased opinion is either stonger or weaker, but all historians (whether they intend to or not) lead the reader into their own opinions about the subject they are writing about. So yes I definently would say history is biased, and the opinions vary from all different texts.
Post a Comment