Joshua Wortzel
Mr. Briski
04/12/09
Extra Credit – Analysis of Student Essays
When it comes to assessing history, there is one theme that remains a constant – subjectivity. “Cold, hard history” has never existed; however, everyone and his brother will try to coerce society into believing that their interpretation of the past is indubitably correct. The truth then is that history is a menagerie of perspectives, and it is up to the reader to discern from what he reads what is well substantiated supposition and what is malarkey.
The five essays selected to be assessed in this paper vary in content, yet intrinsically they all revolve around this same theme of subjectivity. Perhaps this concept is epitomized best in the essay entitled “Eulogy on Eugenics.” Although an interesting and original assertion, that Darwin is in fact responsible for the regimented genocide that was to steep the twentieth century in millions of gallons of blood, there is little corroborating evidence throughout the piece that even insinuates Darwin ever intended his scientific ideas to be lifted from the page and put to practice in concertedly molding the gene pool of the human species. Thus, the jump to Darwin’simmediate culpability may be premature and in fact fallacious. Was Eli Whitneymaniacally planningto expand the African slave tradewith the invention of his Cotton Gin, or did Alfred Nobel intend for his discovery of explosives to be used to maim fellow humans on the battle field? In studying each man’s personal documents and reflections, the answer to these questions becomes exceedingly clear – no; however, without substantiating evidence, such erroneous conclusions could be drawn.
On the contrary, some essays make a stirring argument by including in quotes from actual sources to validate their accusations. For example, in the essays entitled “Bulbs, Barbarism, and the Birth of Capitalism,” the writer includes many alternative opinions regarding how the capitalistic impulses guided the Netherlands’ economic prosperity. Granted, does she show the whole picture by also explicating the emergence of the tulip bubble that was to burst and gravely hurt the Dutch economy due to rampant speculation? Not entirely, but this missing element is compensated by her suggestive tone indicating that the auspices of capitalism had its pitfalls, as indicated by the immanent bubble burst.
Some essays utilize perspective and citations from secondary sources, as was the case in the document regarding Dutch capitalism, but perhaps a stronger corroborative tool is the use of primary sources, as utilized particularly effectively in the essay entitled “Dancing Through History: The History of Ballet in Europe.” Here the writer adds credibility to her assertions through including perspectives from the contemporary individuals, such as quoting Pierre Rameau, a pioneer ballot master whose work greatly shaped the development of ballet as an art form. Even including Degas original works in the citation allows the reader to make his own interpretations of the pieces, whether they be in concordance or discordance with the interpretations of the author. In so doing, the author solidifies the reader’s security in imbibing the insights put forth in the essay.
The essay entitled “Italian Unification” takes the power of including such primary sources further by also stipulating that such perspectives are biased as a result of other extenuating influences that may have shaped the historical speaker’s point of view. Nowhere is this better seen than when he quotes King Victor Emmanuel I’s excited renunciation of papal influence in the governance of Italy. The writer aptly notes that although the king may have considered such a separation of church and state a miraculous step in securing the autonomy of his own dominion, the staunchly Catholic mass of plebeians may not have shared such sentiments. This consideration for plausible inaccuracy or influences upon documents shows a deeper understanding of the historical context of the subject matter, and comes as close to making history an empirical science as human supposition can become.
That is not to say that a paper should be devoid of the writer’s own personal conclusions and hypotheses regarding a subject. In fact, it is often this infusion of the writer’s voice that adds color and vivacity to the otherwise lifeless written word. The essay entitled “It was a Small World After All: The Spanish Civil War as a Microcosm for the rest of the Twentieth Century” craftily utilizes wordplay and fiery language to entice the reader into considering a perspective that a Spainish domestic conflict could ostensibly depict the political conflict between socialism and fascism that was to torment the entire twentieth century. For example, the writer includes his own interpretation of Picasso’s Guernica as a metaphor for the self-mutilated, dismembered elements of Spain as Franco order the bombing of his own people during his seizure of power. Although this interpretation may be contrary to what the artist truly intended to depict, the writer’s interpretation opens the reader’s mind to speculation and further independent analysis of this specific segment of human history.
Each of these essays builds off a larger historical theme that together forms a rounder picture of human history. For example, the papers on eugenics and ballet perhaps fall within the category of social/societal elements of humanity, the essay on the Dutch tulip trade pertains to economic factors, and the essays on Italian unification and the Spanish civil war have a political connotation. However, these themes are inextricable. The economic practices of the Netherlands are integrally tied to the social freedom the nation provided its citizens. Religious freedom drew some of the greatest minds out of persecution in Spain and other areas of Europe where in the Netherlands they were given the ability to utilize their talents and ingenuity to improve industry and make a profit. Ballet is an art form just as political as it is social, for Louis XIV utilized court formality and “cultured refinery” as a means of subjugating his sword nobles and consolidating his own absolutist power. In essence, although these separate themes of history may exist, they are too interwoven to be neatly separated and studied independently.
Yet perhaps the beauty of history is the reality that the past is completely open to interpretation. When Galton began reflecting that eugenics could be used to purify or enhance the human race, did he commit a genocidal crime, or are words irreprehensible if they are not put into action? In the same token, can blame ever be placed upon one person’s head, or for that matter, is history dictated by the influence of specific individuals or the collective decisions of human kind? Hitler would never have been able to slaughter six million Jews had not the rest of Europe aided, or at least passively accepted, his projected plans. World War I would not have escalated to encompass such marked brutality had society as a whole not beseechingly and eagerly sought out open conflict as it did. Thus, it requires the inquisitive and introspective historian to assess the many elements of history and draw a conclusion. The reality of the matter is that when coming to a conclusion requires pulling from widely disparate sources, the conclusions will be different.