on outlines and research topics

They outline is proving helpful to organize and group together the ideas into a single thought. It helps to do those note cards to pull out the important points of the piece to know what the writing is about and how to interpret it. Yes it was a bit troublesome to include all the sources since you don't need all of them to tell a reader about the depression, but in each reading it presented something different and similar at the same time so I do get the idea of using all of the source. Personally I was very lost on putting together this sort of historical essay since it was something i never did, i never had to write without an opinion, so it was hard to create an outline.

on hidden interpretation

What I thought of about the text book pieces we read was that the authors have their own way of interpreting history by stating the facts differently and putting things in and leaving things out. Each one were similar but had there own twist to how they presented the Great Depression. Whether it were the reasons for the depression, the economy view, the social view, or the world view on this crisis. It should be taught to students how to dig out these interpretations so that they can see the individual in the books or articles they read. It is a useful tool to learn early and can be used for any subject one is reading about. I wish my school had taught us this strategy.

On the responce to Foner, Jenson, and Becker

       In the third section of Becker he says on page 233, "The least the historian can do with any historical fact is to select and affirm it. [...] to give them a certain place in a certain pattern of ideas, and this alone is sufficient to give them a special meaning." Personally I semi-agree with this statement that some historian do pick and chose which ideas are important to include to piece together history, but there might be other facts that have to do with that time line that get left behind. This shows bias when record history.
        In the Jensen article he wrote, "students are typically taught a sanitized version of history in which the inherent superiority and benevolence of the United States is rarely challenged." I do think it is right to teach history in this light when you are teaching children at the ages of 12 and under, but those kids have to wake up and smell the coffee of the real picture of the united states the US isn't as great as everyone thinks. There is so much left hidden to present a certain view of the U.S. It's when you get to High School and even at the extreme College you see what the U.S. was and is like. This view should not be clouded it should be clear and broad casted out so people can see the real history of the United States from East coast to West coast from the Revolution to the Present.
         In the article by Foner, he mentions how the U.S. failed to understand the religion of Islam. This is true in a sense that the government does know somethings about Islam, but the people of the U.S. don't know as much as they should neither do they read up of watch on the news that shows what is going on in the world. Everyone is fixed on the news in the U.S. they fail to realize  that news happening somewhere else can effect us and our country and the world. I bet that there are some that watch the news but didn't know that the Taliban or as they like to be called the "Freedom Fighters" blew up and destroyed the  Buddha's of Bamiyan  in Afghanistan.Those remarkable sculptures Were History dating back to the 6th century, and they were destroyed in a snap by the Taliban. A marvel of History and Art and Religious meaning all Destroyed! These thing are not talked about or well known here in the U.S. only to those who have interest in Art and History know about it. It is a big Change in History for people everywhere we are lucky there are still pictures of these wonderful works of Religious art on the Internet be preserved.  So History is not all just about one country its the World. If one thing happens there it effects everywhere.
         In responding to some one's article i chose Mary. She mentions the “the history we teach [must be] a candid appraisal of our own society’s strengths and weaknesses, not simply an exercise in self-celebration – a conversation with the entire world, not a complacent dialogue with ourselves.” which is the last quote in Foner's article. she mentions that, "Only learning the history of one’s own greatness seriously handicaps the development of the society that teaches history that way. Not only will it be impossible for that society to understand events such as terrorist attacks, but it deprives that society of intellectual richness." I  agree with her. History will be blah if one only teaches it without interpretation and yes your society will not be rich in culture if there is no personality to it. It would be as blah as a blank sheet of paper with small scribbles on it rather that a artists masterpiece.

      When reading the articles by Zinn, Stearns, and Becker, I saw many ideas about what they thought about History as some of the same views as I have. For example, in the Zinn article he talks about the problems of US history being taught by isolating other countries that had impacts in creating our countries history; Its was all about the history of the white man rather than anything taught about the Native Americans or the Black peoples that lived here.  It is important to give a multiple view of history even if it's of one country it should be told by the eyes and thoughts of everyone and of any race. Also how US history is not taught in a way that you see what else was going on at the same time as other things, like the civil war was going on at the same time as the western expantion and the gold rush that follows in California People don't learn about this unless they have gone to college or investigate it themselves, these are things not heavily taught in normal public schools, because they have to follow a criteria made by those higher in the school systems.
       When reading the Stearns article I particulary agreed on that everyone is there own historian, even though they may not realize it. I should think people would love history if it was taught in a fun way that involved not just memorizing dates, but learning everything that was going on at the same time as those dates they want you to know. So much is missed and untold when you are told to learn about al the presidents and generals and all that stuff. It the bigger picture, the whole picture that people are suppose to know.
         Finally, when reading the article on Becker, I thought that yes history is made up by memories of people and a countries events that are in the past, they have either been orally passed on or written down. Also that everyman/womans past is woven together to create a quilt that represents the history of their community or country whether big or small everything a person says or does that has influence is history.

I am Sara, a student in History 200 or the nature of History Inquiry. This Semester is going to be difficult I think with all the assignments that will be given, along with keeping up on this blog :( this blogging is all new to me.  I was not sure if this was a class needed to be taken with someone like me who is majoring in Public History, but I have heard horror stories about taking this class. I hope I live through it. I have always liked history ever since i was a little kid. I wanted to travel and see sites all around the world. I had wanted to work in a museummaybe as a tour guide or something. I semi-like college the only thing i don't like about it is the work, but that's what college is and I have to do it. When I am not in class I am worrying over will i ever get my homework done it time.