Cliopatria's Ralph Luker has put together a list of sites that "seem to me to be central to history blogging on the net." While Ralph does not suggest that they are the best sites, he does "mean to say that, without them, history education on the internet would be seriously impoverished." Some of the blogs will no doubt be familiar to you, but this is your chance to branch out a bit and try something new. Enjoy.
blogging hiatus I have to admit to feeling just a bit lost. I never realized just how hooked I am to blogging as an outlet. Don't be surprised to see a post every few days or so. I hope my readers don't think less of me or think of me as weak-willed (lol).
It's time for a little break folks. Since November 2005 I've managed to balance blogging with my teaching and research. Right now I simply have too much on my plate. I have two major research projects that need to be completed by September, including the Crater manuscript and an annotated collection of the letters of Capt. John C. Winsmith who served in the 5th South Carolina. In addition, I need to finish a chapter for an edited collection on the demobilization of the Army of Northern Virginia, as well as a few book reviews and encyclopedia entries, and prepare a talk for a conference in Philly in June.
Thanks to all of you for your continued support. I look forward to returning to the blogosphere re-energized and with a great deal to discuss. Have a wonderful summer.
On Friday I shared some thoughts in connection with a paper that I will be presenting on Civil War blogging at the upcoming meeting of the SCWH in New Orleans. Brooks Simpson's latest post has given me a bit more to chew on in connection with this paper. His post is a brief response to Michael Aubrecht who recently offered some revealing commentary concerning Brooks's decision to share his OAH comments as a 3-part post. While Aubrecht hopes not to be misunderstood, Brooks rightfully pins this as a first-rate example of the anti-intellectualism that pervades sections of the Civil War community. I quote at length as this blogger has a tendency to take posts down after being challenged:
Many of these conferences and seminars can sometimes come off as being a bit elitist and arrogant. Sometimes people who participate in these events echo that sentiment in their comments. (Ironically, most of the best rangers, guides, speakers, authors, filmmakers, re-enactors, and all around buffs that I know are anything but ‘academics’ and have zero pedigrees to boot.)
Continue reading "He Knows Not What He Speaks Of or Why Civil War Historians Should Blog (Part 2)" »
Brett Holman has put together the latest installment of the state of the military historioblogosphere and although not much has changed there is some movement in the top 5. The good news is that Civil War Memory is now ranked at No. 1. Mark Grimsley's Blog Them Out Of The Stone Age is No. 3 and Eric Wittenberg's Rantings of a Civil War Historian is now on the list at No. 4. As I've said before I never really know what to make of the Technorati rankings which is what Brett uses in his analysis. Over the past few weeks the number has fluctuated between roughly 100,000 and 60,000. Still, I'll take advantage of the bragging rights even if it is only for 6 months. Thanks to Brett for taking the time to pull all of this together.
This should not be read as an exercise in self-indulgence, but as some thoughts in preparation for a talk that I must present to a room full of academic historians at the annual meeting of the Society of Civil War Historians this coming October in New Orleans.
There is an ongoing conversation concerning just about every aspect of the Civil War and it is taking place with little involvement on the part of academic historians. You can find these discussions on countless message boards, listservs, blogs and privately maintained websites. Topics range from the ever popular battlefields and commanders to complex questions of secession, emancipation, the law, and the role of women. The content of these debates and discussions reaches a far larger audience than any published book or journal article and yet academic historians for the most part continue to write for one another even if a few of their titles appear on the bookshelves of the local Barnes and Noble. I don't mean to impugn all academic historians. It is worth noting that there are individuals in the field who have made it a point to reach out in various ways, whether it is speaking at a local Civil War Roundtable, leading a battlefield tour or speaking to groups of students. It is worth pointing out that those who specialize in the Civil War and related subjects are lucky to work in a field where there is such a deep interest on the part of the general public.
Continue reading "Should Civil War Historians Blog (academic that is)?" »
Fellow blogger and high school history teacher Chris Wehner has a very interesting post up on the risks of introducing personal politics in the classroom and on his blog. He was prompted, in part, by my recent exchange with Brooks Simpson surrounding my statement of support for Barack Obama on this blog. Chris's concern, as I understand it, is that the introduction of personal politics in the classroom ultimately runs the risk of alienating students and stifling discussion:
For several reasons I have decided to cease with political blogging: First, as in the classroom, my words here are taken seriously by young people. I have students who might read this blog and I can influence them. Yes, being a positive influence is the goal, but by ranting political points of view, am I violating that trust factor with students? This was my question to myself. As I see it, I need to keep this blog focused and free from political rants, much like I do in the classroom.
Second, I have always felt that as an educator it is my duty to develop “thinkers,” and not simply expressions of my political or social beliefs. If I continually made rants in my classroom about the Iraq War, my feelings about Bush (or any other candidate), then I feel I am doing a disservice to my students. I am potentially influencing them to “believe” and “think” like me, and that is wrong in my humble opinion. As teachers our students will look up to us, and that can be a license for some to influence their students in ways that are simply not appropriate.
I am going to address Chris's points in turn, first the question of the place of personal politics in the classroom and second on my blog site. First, I think it is important to note that the introduction of one's personal views in the classroom need not be characterized necessarily as a "rant"; it seems reasonable to suggest that it can be done in an intellectual way and in a way that furthers or introduces a topic for discussion in the classroom. In contrast to Chris, I have on occasion shared my political views with my students. What matters is the way in which it is done given Chris's point that our primary responsibility is to "develop thinkers."
I want my students to see someone who is not only passionate about history and politics, but can also engage in serious intellectual thought from multiple perspectives. Let me say that these moments do not occur every day or even every week, but when they do I am very much aware of my role and responsibility. What is my responsibility? First and foremost, I must be as clear as possible as to why I hold a specific position. There is no emotion or ranting, but a clear explanation as to why. Second, I must be able to demonstrate that I have thought about the issue in question from multiple perspectives; in fact, I must be able to demonstrate that I am as familiar with the relevant counterarguments as I am with the one I happen to support. It's also important to demonstrate change over time, that on occasion there is a need to engage in revision based on new information or personal experience. In the classroom a teacher must make students feel comfortable sharing their own views and this can only be accomplished if the instructor understands that the discussion is ultimately not about him or her. Most of the time the students are much more interested in questioning one another than their teacher and that is my preference since it helps build community in the classroom and a sense of trust that will hopefully lead to a continuation of the discussion outside of school. However, when the questions are directed at me or I am engaged in debate with a student I make sure that all of the students understand that I am listening and that I am interested in what they have to say. I can't tell you how many times I've said, in response to a student that I need to consider their point or a question asked. In other words, I want my students to understand that even though I hold a set of beliefs I do not claim to have it all figured out.
Chris believes that a more activist approach on the part of the teacher is more suited in the college as opposed to the high school classroom:
I am potentially influencing them to “believe” and “think” like me, and that is wrong in my humble opinion. As teachers our students will look up to us, and that can be a license for some to influence their students in ways that are simply not appropriate.Yes, one can say that as long as I have a safe classroom and students feel safe in expressing viewpoints counter to mine, then I can stimulate discussion. In a college classroom, maybe, but in a high school classroom, students who disagree will more often than not be intimidated and will close themselves off to me as a teacher.
I couldn't disagree more with Chris on this point, although I should note that I teach juniors and seniors. In fact, my work to model proper behavior during debate tends to have a positive influence in the way students treat one another. If I don't do it, who will? Most of my students get their news from one of the mainstream cable channels or radio personalities where the objective is entertainment, insult, and sound bites. Again, the injection of a teacher's political/moral/religious views into the classroom need not take the shape of a "rant" and I am curious as to why Chris continually uses that term.
Finally, let me say something about my blog and this week's wade into the political arena. Brooks Simpson's comments have given me a great deal to think about. I understand that some of my regular readers may have been caught off guard, but in the end, I assume that most of you can distinguish between a political and historical post. This is not going to be a regular feature as I want this site to stay focused on issues related to the Civil War and memory. At the same time this blog does provide me with a voice and I chose to use it for a political purpose. I do not nor need not apologize for doing so. For the first time in my adult life I feel a sense of urgency for this country. We are five years into an immoral war that should have never of happened and we have a president that has proven to be completely incompetent. Obama's speech on Tuesday evening had a powerful effect on me. He spoke to me in a way that no previous public leader has been able to do and I wanted needed to share it - not as a historian, but as a citizen.
By the way one of my students came to class yesterday morning after having read my blog and commented on my announcement. I looked at my class and very calmly said that I fervently hope that at some point in their adult lives, and regardless of their political views, that they are able to support a political candidate for office that speaks for them.
A few weeks ago I was contacted by a graduate student in the History Department at the University of Richmond who is currently taking a course in public history. The student asked to interview me about blogging and history and since I am a graduate of the school I was more than happy to comply. Given that the questions are about blogging I figured that my responses should be blogged.
1) What motivated you to create this website/blog? What, if anything, inspired or challenged you to create this website/blog?
Answer: I began blogging back in November 2005. At the time there were only two or three Civil War blogs, but it was Mark Grimsley's Blog Them Out of the Stone Age which inspired me to throw my hat in the ring. What I liked about Mark's blog was that it introduced a wide spectrum of topics related to military history to a diverse audience. It worked to bridge the divide between more casual readers of military history and scholars working in the field. I've tried to do the same thing with Civil War Memory. I see myself as occupying a unique position as both a high school history teacher and Civil War historian. In addition, my interests extend beyond military themes which remains the preoccupation of most Civil War enthusiasts and while I did not have specific goals in mind when I first started blogging I did hope to introduce and discuss questions and issues that are often overlooked in certain circles. These include the topics of memory, race/slavery, social/cultural history and even subjects beyond the Civil War entirely.
2) To what degree are you building on previous research and works? To what degree is your research and blog new and what has it added to the research already out there?
Answer: While much of what I blog about relates to my own ongoing research projects this site is not meant as a substitute for work that will hopefully find its way into peer-reviewed publications. My readers have offered a great deal of insight in response to posts which focus on research-related themes and I am greatly appreciative. This is truly one of the benefits of blogging. I've used this blog to help write articles and conference presentations. [Click here for posts related to my book-length project on the Crater and historical memory.] Blogging gives you the freedom to explore ideas in a public setting in much the same way that a conference presentation makes possible. In the case of blogging, however, the audience is much larger and more diverse. My readers have become an integral part of the process of research and writing.
I am sorry to read that Lincoln scholar and fellow blogger Brian Dirck will discontinue writing at A Lincoln Blog. My rounds within the Civil War blogosphere are relatively narrow, but Brian's site was a regular stop. I valued his insights surrounding Lincoln's place in popular culture as well as his thoughts on Lincoln historiography. I understand Brian's concerns about time and the extent to which it takes away from other obligations, both professional and personal. Still, the participation of scholars such as Brian, Mark Grimsley, Brooks Simpson and others raises the bar significantly within the Civil War blogosphere.
I am currently working on a presentation for the upcoming meeting of the SCH in New Orleans on Civil War blogging and one of the points that I hope to make is that professional historians should see the blogosphere as an opportunity to reach beyond the confines of the their academic world. No doubt, scholarship must remain a priority for those teaching at the university level, but the general public is largely unaware of this scholarship and a certain percentage distrust academics, which I am reminded of on a regular basis here at Civil War Memory. The point is that Americans are very interested in the Civil War and in debating the central issues involved, and blogs, listers, wikis, serve as popular forums for these discussions. Unfortunately these discussions are taking place with very little involvement from those who are professionally trained and who study the Civil War and related topics for a living. Clearly, there are opportunities for professional historians to reach beyond the relatively small audience of fellow historians who read journal and university press titles. I know that professors here at the University of Virginia are required to engage in a certain number of hours a year of community service. While I haven't thought through this idea much, it seems to me that blogging could easily be acknowledged as a form of community outreach. Civil War historians are unique in that they have a large and diverse audience to engage with, and many of them go out of their way to do so. With the Civil War Sesquicentennial on the horizon the question of how to commemorate and think about the war will be much debated. Blogging offers one useful avenue in which to discuss these questions in a way that will be read by a diverse audience the world over.
Please understand that this is not meant in any way as a criticism of Brian's decision to leave the blogosphere. He clearly articulated his concerns and I have to admit that if it is a choice between regular posts and Brian's published work I prefer the later. I've learned a great deal from both his recent study of Lincoln's law career as well as his edited collection on Lincoln and race. I wish Brian all the best.
Recent Comments