Conclusion: Gratitude

This is perhaps my final post on this blog for my Historical Methods class, and I am happy to be signing off on such a high note! I have finished all my papers for the semester, and all that remains is to study for a few exams, and for this, I am thankful.

I have learned so much in this class, and among the greatest lessons is how a historian must recognize the complexity of history. In a sense, he must engage history in a dynamic way to understand its dynamic nature. For this, I am thankful.

Gratitude is the greatest lesson to take away from this class, though. I alluded to this in the previous post, and I did not learn this until I did my research on the Stonewall Riots. Reading of the struggles of those who came before me, humbled and touched me. Because of their courage and sacrifice, I can live as I do today, and that is something I cannot take for granted. After all, not too long ago, such a life was not granted. I can do little else but honor their courage and sacrifice but continue to learn more about history and apply its lessons to my life. I will cultivate the virtues of history-- gratitude.

Though my Historical Methods class has ended, I will continue to use historical methods in every aspect of my life. After all, everything is illuminated by the light of the past.

The Road to Stonewall

As I continue along the path of research paper season, I am now writing three different research papers. I have made significant strides in each paper, and everything is now falling into place. I will say that my paper on the Stonewall Riots will demand much more attention in the coming weeks, but I am content with where I am in my research. 

In terms of my secondary sources, I have access to a sizable amount of information and articles from other historians and sociologist. The articles I am using ask the same question I plan to answer which is "What made Stonewall different, and why did it happen at the Stonewall Inn rather than another place?" My secondary sources evaluate how there was a complex set of variables that came together to produce the explosion that was the Stonewall Riots. So far, I have concluded that the riots happened because the following variables came together: the beginning of the sexual revolution, Greenwich Village's history as a place for the rebellious, the advent of the World's Fair in New York in 1964 and the city's response to "clean up" New York's populace, widespread police corruption in working with the mafia and the police's prosecution of the law via "entrapment," the homophile movement's actions in the years preceding the riots, the volatile nature of gay homeless youth, the media's willingness to give the riots attention, and the rioters determination to memorialize the event. What made the riots different and historically heavy, was primarily because the rioters were so determined to remember the riots with pride-- something the LGBT community had rarely experienced prior to this event.

As far as my primary sources go, I am using newspaper articles that were published during the riots, legal documents targeting homosexuals during the time of the riots, letters written by the rioters and police, and interviews with the survivors of the riots. These definitely lead me to conclude the aforementioned rough thesis. 

What remains to be as thoroughly researched however, are the instances of LGBT resistance happening in other parts of the country at this time, but I will find my way to that information in the coming weeks. 

So far, I have my questions, and I have a solid yet incomplete answer. I have a direction, and I will continue on the road to a greater understanding of the Stonewall Riots.

The Road to Stonewall, for me, is the road to gratitude. I am sincerely in debt to the rioters.

Approaching a Thesis: Research Methods

In my experience of writing research-heavy papers, the general key is just that-- research. However, that can be misleading, for the real trouble I find is not doing research as much as it is organizing the researched material. 

In the beginning of my undergraduate career, I would formulate a thesis in my mind and seek out only information that would validate my thesis. I was very uncompromising, and then I would just read my sources and write as read....a truly horrible way to write a paper. It led to a lot of stress, and it severely limited my research scope to only those things that would support a thesis that I developed largely independent of my research. The method is quite backwards, really.

My bad paper writing life

I have learned from those mistakes, and now I believe I have a more sound method for research. Simply stated, I now approach my subject with as unbiased a mind as I can muster, and I organize nearly all of my research before I write. This helps me formulate a smooth, well-written thesis.

One thing I do to be sure I approach research with a good mindset, is to clear my mind of any attachment to any conclusion. I find that in order to truly engage the information I am researching, I must read the documents with an open mind. This allows me to accept the complexity of the issue which not only applies to history but also to other fields as well.

Once I have my sources, I begin reading them, and as I read them I write down quotes from them and record where each quote comes from. By the end of my research, I'll have a multitude of pages of quotes. Then I begin to re-read the quotes, and I sort them into topics in my head. This abstraction process is lengthy, but it pays off in the end. 

After I let all this information stew in my mind for a while, I am ready to begin building a detailed outline, and I let my research in tandem with my mind lead me to a rough thesis. The quote pages allow me to reflect on my research efficiently, and they aid me in coming to a solid thesis. 

I move past the previously mentioned rough thesis to chart the remainder of my paper. I organize each quote under its appropriate heading, and soon enough, I have an outline that is approximately half the size of however long the research paper is.

Though the aforementioned rough thesis will need revision as I proceed to write my paper, it serves me well in forming the remainder of my paper.

The important thing for me to remember in the process, is that I must take the information as it comes, and I must afford plenty of time to create a well-written research paper. Like cooking any good stew, a good research paper requires a lot of simmering time. In these moments, I must be content to let information simmer in my mind. For me, research comes very naturally if I afford it time. 

Let the research stew! That way, you can create a hearty paper full of all kinds of intellectual greatness!

Term Paper Season: Plagiarism

In the midst of term paper season, one of the important issues to contemplate is plagiarism. According to Miriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, plagiarism is "the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person." At this point in my academic career, I do not conduct much of my own independent research on topics. For example, I do not solely examine historical documents and draw conclusions. Instead, I read both primary sources and many secondary sources-- writings of other historians. Most historians do this, and there is no shame in it.

Avoiding plagiarism is quite simple..........just cite the source you use. Citing someone else's work pays off in multiple ways. First, it is just nice to give someone credit for their work. After all, they probably put in a lot time and effort in their work; citing is a respectful way to acknowledge their hard work and dedication. Second, citing many sources and many perspectives indicates that you have contemplated the richness of your topic. If you have no citations or hardly any, it is easy to perceive your paper as one-sided. In a sense, it is oftentimes better to have cited many different writers and sources. Finally, citing is the right thing to do. To pass someone else's work off as your own is intellectual theft, and I personally believe that generally speaking, theft is wrong.

It may be tedious, but it is ultimately rewarding.

Plagiarism may be alluring to many, but in the end, you are just limiting your own intellectual development if you participate in plagiarism. Just cite your sources folks.

Term Paper Season in Stonewall

As more than half the semester is behind me, that can only mean one thing ahead-- term papers. You might be surprised to find that I am not in mourning over this, but in fact am very excited to learn more. For my historical methods class, I will be writing my term paper about the Stonewall Riots that took place in New York City in 1969.

The infamous Stonewall Inn

I do not know much about the Stonewall Riots other than the popular details: it was the beginning of the gay rights movement in the US, it took place at the Stonewall Inn, and it was started by a group of drag queens, male prostitutes, homeless youth, and other such groups. I do not know the scale of the riots nor the circumstances surrounding the riots. However, I am excited to learn more, and I am ready to start research.

So far, I have found a critically acclaimed primary source written by author David Carter called Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution. It contains first hand accounts of the riots from rioters and bystanders, but it also explores the circumstances surrounding the riots including: the everyday treatment of LGBT people, the legislation in place targeting LGBT people, and what exactly sparked the riots. In that sense, this book functions as both a primary and secondary source.

Besides this primary source, I am looking up any information I can find in my college's library, and it seems like I will have no problem finding resources. For the first time in my life, I may even cite a documentary! All in all, I am excited to dive in.

The Stonewall Riots in action

Preparing for Historical Debate: Did U.S. policies promulgate and extend the Cold War?

For my Historical Methods class, our instructor has decided to assign students into groups embodying two viewpoints on whether or not U.S. policies promulgated and extended the Cold War or not. I was assigned to the group that asserts that U.S. policies did not promulgate and extend the Cold War. I will admit to at first despairing that I was assigned to the group I was because I believed that U.S. policies absolutely led to and extended the Cold War, my attitude had radically (and delightfully, I might add) changed. Indeed, I have a a great group of other students to work with, and I believe we are off to a great start. Though we have not had a chance to meet up and discuss our debate plan, we have been working diligently, and so far, research seems promising.

My skeptical self before I started research. "I don't know how I feel about this prompt..."

 
The research has not only been promising, but also quite surprising. Without giving away too many details, my research has help illustrate the complexities of the Cold War from not only American but also Russian and British perspectives. One of the most surprising things I have learned is that Americans and Russians were not of one mind, and the changes in American, Russian, and British policies throughout the Cold War reflect this from both a "great man" and a "bottom-up" historical interpretation.

The gears in my head turn as I researched. "Hmmm, that's jolly good stuff. Maybe there's something here..."

Suffice to say, I am very much looking forward to meeting with the other students in my group, and I am even more excited to begin the debate. I believe it will be a fun competition, but I am more excited to arrive at truth. After all, I believe a debate is less about winning an more about arriving at truth. No matter what happens, I think I will leave the debate a few steps closer to truth, and that is enough for me.

BAM! I am changed forever by this research.

Mickey Mouse and American Neurosis

In historian Mike Wallace's Mickey Mouse History, Wallace explores how Disney theme parks have affected American understanding of history. Specifically, Wallace considers how Disney's the Hall of Presidents, The American Adventure, and other attractions affect American understanding of history. However, for the sake of brevity, the post will only specifically explore Disney's The American Adventure seeing as it the youngest of the attractions related to history.

The American Adventure offers and idealistic run through of American history from Pilgrims arriving on North America's shores to "American Future." Though the presentation notes conflict in American past, figures like Martin Luther King Jr. are presented as more icons that actually spokespeople for their particular movements (150-152). Indeed, conflict in American past is hardly explored at all; instead, America is presented as a nation that has dealt with its past conflicts and moved on (152). The presentation is also curiously silent on important events in American history such as labor movements and the Vietnam War. In the end, America is displayed as a country with "imperfect but still inevitable progress" who has risen above the problems of the past despite current difficulties with poverty, sexism, racism etc (150).

A scene from Disney's The American Adventure

Wallace examines The American Adventure and other Disney "historical" attractions, and he concludes that they are less historical and more historicidal. They distort history unabashedly in a public setting where millions of people visit each year. Noting the popularity of such attractions, Wallace believes that this is a symptom of problems with American's understanding of history. "I think the country at large needs to reflect upon the consequences of the corporate commodification of history" (154). He asserts that if a country feels the need to alter or repress memories of itself, it could be a symptom of historical neurosis. He hauntingly concludes, "The past is too important to be left to the private sector. If we wish to restore our social health, we had better get beyond Mickey Mouse History" (155).

I believe that the best way to address a problem is to being as transparent about it as possible with one's self. In the same way, if a community has a problem it is often best to address the problem with as much honesty and transparency as possible no matter how difficult one's past may be. To do otherwise, to do as Disney does, is to allow the problem to fester as the community carries on with a kind of mania that will demand a reckoning eventually. America the free only if it retains its history.

Historical Controversy: US Reaction to the Initial HIV Epidemic in the US

The LGBT+ community, like many minority communities, have a history of oppression. The oppression ranges from the more acute form as seen in the mass killings of homosexuals during the Holocaust to less acute (but still damaging) forms of oppression such as a family asking a homosexual relative to live in the closet. I believe many American people would like to think that the US has not participated in more acute forms of oppression in a long time, but some argue that the way the American public handled the outbreak of HIV in the US constitutes just that-- acute oppression of the LGBT+ community.

Beginning around 1980, homosexual men and IV drug users began to come into medical offices with strange diseases; this was especially prevalent in urban areas with large numbers of homosexuals. As these patients began to die, and larger numbers of patients came into medical offices with the same symptoms, city health departments began to take action. Journalist Randy Shilts in And the Band Plays On writes extensively on how San Francisco's Public Health Department did an excellent job in tracing the spread of the disease, but he also writes how other cities' Public Health Departments such as New York City's simply played off the issue as a "gay affair" despite the deaths (310). Shilts believes this was because at first, HIV only affected homosexual men and IV drug users-- a reflection of America's homophobia. As the disease spread, the media called it "gay cancer" even as heterosexuals begins to fall victim to the disease-- a further reflection of America's homophobia (137).

San Francisco's Castro District, one of the areas hit hardest by the initial HIV outbreak

The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) remained effectively silent on the issue by not funding research at all (292-293). As the death toll grew higher and higher, the Reagan administration responded in 1983 calling it America's "Number One Health Priority," but the Reagan administration gave no extra funding to the Centers for Disease Control or the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for research (293-294). Shilts accuses Ronald Reagan himself of "ritualistic silence" until he publicly addressed the American people on the now termed AIDS epidemic in 1987 (588). To further illustrate his point, Shilts compares the NIH's spending on another public health crisis at the time (1976), Legionaire Disease, to their spending on the AIDS epidemic. The NIH spent roughly $34,841 per death from Legionaire Disease, but the NIH spent $8,991 per death from AIDS in 1982 (186).

A truly harrowing yet enlightening book.

Call it a sin of omission, but I do agree with Shilts when he says America's response to the initial outbreak of HIV reflects its homophobia at the time. Indeed, I still encounter people who believe HIV is simply a disease that affects only homosexuals. Regardless of how one feels, America's initial reaction to the HIV epidemic continues to spark great controversy, and perhaps this will lead to greater dialogue in how to address this terrible disease that does not discriminate.

The Museum-Public Relationship

Author John Donne once wrote how "No man is an island," and I believe Donne succinctly demonstrates how man is a social being in those few words. No man is such a radical individual that he can live entirely unaffected by his environment. Furthermore, man exists in relation to others. For instance, a man is a son in relation to a parent and a husband in relation to his spouse. In "No Man is an Island," Donne artfully shows how man is a social and relational being, and I believe this concept can tell us something about public museums and their purpose.

To review, a public museum is a museum that is run by a board of directors as is the case with public museums. However, public museums differ in that they rely on donations from major public sponsors and the generosity of society at large. For instance, the Smithsonian relies on funding from the US Government and depends on generosity from Congress to keep its doors open.

In a sense, a public museum enters into a relationship with the public, so a public museum is a social entity. Because of this, a museum must keep their public's interest and beliefs in mind. However, a museum still has an obligation to educate and challenge the public to discern their place in the world in light of the past. As in all relationships, there are times of tension, and sometimes, public museums do things that come into conflict with the public.

For instance, the National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C. came into conflict with WWII veterans and members of the Republican party when they opened an exhibit exploring the US decision to drop nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Many people raised concerns that the exhibit held too harsh a view of America at the time of the bombs' dropping. The dissenters to the exhibit believed that the museum lead people to see Japanese as innocent victims of American Imperialism. The controversy grew so large that even members of Congress became involved. They demanded that the museums change the exhibit In the end, the museum decided to remove the aspects of the exhibit that offended so many.

The National Air and Space Museum

However, some see this as an unjust censoring of the museum. They believed this censoring compromised the truth the museums sought to communicate with the public.

Regardless of how one feels about the aforementioned controversy, one thing is certain-- public museums must act with a mind towards the public they serve. Museums cannot and nor should they try to act independently of their public. This is not to say that museums must compromise the truth and depth of their exhibits, but it is to that museums must operate with a degree of finesse in respecting both the past and the public. Of course, as all relationships are, the museum-public relationship is a two-way street, so the public must also treat the past and museums with respect.

Exploring Public History: The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

From its opening and dedication in 1993, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has opened its doors to over 36 million visitors from all over the world. I have visited the museum five times now, and I can personally testify the museum's popularity (the crowds were always so dense!). More importantly, I find the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to be one of the best museums in the world, for it not only explores the past, but also aids visitors in contemplating what the Holocaust means for the present. 

Upon entering the museum, the visitors are handed an ID card with the name and life summary of someone who lived during the Holocaust. Visitors are encouraged to read various entries on their ID card at various checkpoints throughout the museum. Soon after receiving their ID cards, visitors enter an elevator with a small tv screen inside which plays a short clip of US soldiers describing their thoughts upon first encountering the concentration camps across Europe. "We couldn't imagine what we found....we just...we've never seen anything like it" as a picture of a pile corpses flashes across the screen. This solemnity dominates the visitors' experiences for the remainder of their time at the museum; it gently yet firmly urges them forward into deeper understanding of this great tragedy.

 The museum begins with an overview of the Nazi Party's rise to power, and how antisemitism took root in Germany and other parts of Europe. The museum guides the visitors to examine how the Nazi party utilized propaganda, education, religion, politics, nationalism, and violence to convince the German people (and much of Europe) to participate, ignore, or be somewhat complicit in implementing the horrors of the Holocaust. The Museum covers everything imaginable pertaining to the holocaust from how the Nazi party rose to power to how everyday German citizens could possibly allow their government enact systematic genocide. 

What is most remarkable about this museum is that it is not content to simply report facts, it discerns how those facts impact and illuminate the present and future. 

Specifically, the museum has exhibits about preventing genocide and how to address contemporary genocidal movements happening now in places like Syria and Darfur. The museum does a fantastic job at providing a riveting and educational public history experience, and I hope I can make my sixth visit soon enough.

Public History and Mike Wallace's Reflections

In the previous post about why I decided to study history in college, I talked about how everything is illuminated by the light of the past. I believe this notion speaks to many historians, but I believe this notion also speaks to non-historians. In at least some vague sense, we all know that everything is illuminated by the light of the past regardless of how closely we study history. The popularity of gossip shows testify to this as do, unsurprisingly, museums.

Museums are concentrated efforts to preserve and explore the past in a public setting. They also exist to educate and entertain others about the past. Mike Wallace in Mickey Mouse History explores the history of museums in America, and he elucidates how developments in public history reflect changes in American society. 

For instance, museums functioned as unifying cultural sites for the fledgling American government on the eve of the Civil War.

"It will be good for our citizens in these days when we hear the sound of disunion reiterated from every part of the country...to chasten their minds by reviewing the history of our revolutionary struggle." - Governor Hamilton Fish on the preservation of George Washington's revolutionary head quarters in 1850.

 Of course, these efforts proved ineffective seeing as the civil war broke out, but the museums/cultural shrines reflect the government's desire for strong unity among the states. Of course, the focus of the museums have changed over the years, and museums differ in their representations of history depending upon the roots of the museum. For instance, local efforts in New York City lead to the creation of museums focusing on Latino, Asian, and African history. This reflects how Americans are coming to understand themselves as not strictly American, but rather as Asian/African/Latino etc American. This also demonstrates how minority groups within America develop differently from the majority group. Furthermore, the rise of such minority-focused museums reflect how Americans are becoming more understanding of the complexities of American society. American history is not simply the history of presidents and generals, but also of common men, women, members of the LGBT+ community, and immigrant people.

Signs of progress!

Though there has been much progress in museums, museums often struggle to fully encompass the complexity of what they represent. For instance, in Colonial Williamsburg,  they "set the story of the black slaves alongside the story of the planters. What they were less willing to tackle were the relations between those classes" (23). A history of a colonial plantation exempting the relations between various groups fails to capture the complexity of the time, but representation of various groups does show progress from the original strict representation of only "great white men."

American public history does show great signs of progress that give me great hope, but I am confident in saying that American public history has a long way to go, as do all historians. So far, Wallace's book is proving to be a great, enlightening read, and I'll be sure to keep everyone posted on my thoughts.

The Past is the Past, and I Study the Past

Once when I was in high school, I was studying history with a friend when he boldly stands up and announces that history is stupid. He begins declaring with all the angst of a lazy pubescent teenager that we shouldn't have to study history, and how it doesn't really affect our future. After all, he wanted to be an accountant, not a historian. I however found his words revolting yet paralyzing. I could not find the words to defend history, but I did find my passion for history that day.

Later that year, I had the pleasure of taking a Catholic Moral Foundations class where we watched the movie Everything is Illuminated. It is a film about an American Jew who goes to Ukraine to discover what happened to his ancestors during the Holocaust. The film was surprisingly historical, but one line sticks with me:

"I have reflected many times upon our rigid search. It has shown me that everything is illuminated in the light of the past. It is always along the side of us, on the inside, looking out. Like you say, inside out. Jonathan, in this way, I will always be along the side of your life. And you will always be along the side of mine."

If you have the opportunity to see it, do it!

Upon hearing these words, I knew why I love history. Everything is illuminated by the light of the past! By its light, the present makes sense, and with historical interpretation, I can discern what the past can teach us today. Hence the name of this blog, The Illuminated Lighthouse.

Come on! Those flowers! Check out this movie.

LeFeber's Insight

In the previous post, I explored how humans are dynamic, and consequently, human history is dynamic. With this in mind, it makes sense how historians can examine the same event and come to completely different conclusions.

Historian Walter LaFeber explores this phenomenon by investigating the realist and revisionist views of the open-door policy in Liberty and Power: U.S. Diplomatic History, 1750-1945.

First up, the realist. The “realist” school of thought posits that “to survive in the modern world, Americans has to understand the realities of power (especially military power) and understand as well that the United States was not all that different from other nations” (377). Realist believe things go badly for American officials when they get caught up in the “’legalism and moralism’” of their times (377). He cites realist exemplar George F. Kennan’s American Diplomacy saying that realist would see the American support for an open-door policy in Asia as British manipulation of Americans. Kennan and other realist assert that American officials simply supported the policy because they believed it was the moral or most fair thing to do, even though it was most beneficial for Great Britain. As one can see, realism is marked by emphasis on “great man” history and how great individuals impacted the course of American development.

Conversely, the “revisionist” school of thought as seen in William Appleman Williams’s The Tragedy of American Diplomacy sees this same event as engineered by American leaders who “fully understood, and were determined to expand , their nation’s economic interest” (378). Instead of emphasizing military power, revisionist Williams emphasizes economic concern as the motivator for American policy.

 

Revisionist!

As you can see, both realist and revisionist historians examine the same events, yet they come to drastically different conclusions. This shows how a historian’s time, interests, and school of thought can affect how one views history. LaFeber’s valuable insight into history is a useful notion for any historian to remember, for it allows one to explore the dynamic nature of history. Which I am convinced is of paramount importance.

The Dynamic John Lewis Gaddis on the Ecological Approach to History

Before diving into my thoughts on the first four chapters of John Lewis Gaddis’s The Landscape of History, a forward seems appropriate.

Growing up in a Catholic household, I have been steeped in myth and fairytales from cradle to college. However, as teenagers often do, I grew to be suspicious of myths. I favored hard science and empirically verifiable truths over myths, but then I learned that myths do not aim to communicate truths in the same way a science theory does. Myths exist to communicate truths about the human condition. For instance, one lesson the myth of Genesis communicates is how the world was created as an intentional act of love; the “seven days” are simply artistic flare. 

Doesn't have to be this way, does it?

This phenomenon is exactly what author C.S. Lewis references when he says, “Some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again.” Fairytales (and here I use fairytales and myths interchangeably) seek to communicate truths about the human condition. With maturity, I find it easier to ascertain the truth to be found in myth. I was reminded of this when I was reading J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings when the character Gandalf says, “Hobbits really are amazing creatures. You can learn all there is to know about their ways in a month, and yet after a hundred years they can still surprise you.” Substitute hobbits with humans, and you arrive at a simple yet important truth— humans are dynamic.

The ever-wise Gandalf 

With this simple truth in mind, one part of Gaddis’s work stood out to me— the ecological approach to human affairs/history. Gaddis defines the ecological approach to human affairs as the study of human affairs that “values the specification of simple components… [and] considers how components interact to become systems whose nature can’t be defined merely by calculating the sum of their parts” (55). In other words, the ecological approach identifies individual components of a system, and goes a step farther in identifying how the components interact to create the system. This approach allows many variables to exist without compromising lucidity. Gaddis posits that the ecological approach should be applied to history. To understand how this approach works in history, think of how the American Revolution started. A historian using the ecological approach would identify the various causes of the American revolution, (economic distress, geographic distance, lack of American representation in Parliament, etc) and show how these possibly innumerable causes work together to culminate into the start of the American Revolution.

You weren't expecting this, were you? Ahhh, human dynamism.

What is most remarkable about Gaddis’s ecological approach is how it accounts for humanity’s dynamism. For this reason, I think Gaddis is really onto something grand. I look forward to reading the rest of his book.

Blog Reviews

I chose Edwardian Promenade and Stoneman’s Corner for my blog reviews. They are similar in many regards, but they offer the reader very different experiences.

Edwardian Promenade (Click here for access)

Edwardian Promenade is a well-established blog started in 2007 by Evangeline Holland. Details about Holland are rather scarce, but she is primarily a historical fiction writer who has written a few non-fiction historical book as well a historical research guide. As for her education and academic credits, none could be found, but this does not mean she is without such credits. After all, her blog is impressive if for no other reason than the enormity of her sources, which number well over 100 sources, and scope of the blog post’s topics. As one might guess, the unifying topic for her blog is Edwardian English history which includes everything from African-American, amusements, domestic service, fashion, food, great war, men, new york city, royalty, social season, and women’s history. However, Holland also writes about Gilded Age America and Belle Époque France in this blog. Her sources range from encyclopedias and newpapers from Edwardian England to cook books and Wikipedia, and her blog posts reflect her use of sources. Meaning, each post is enlightening, exciting, and innovative. Holland’s blog is an ideal blog to follow for those interested in some casual historical research but also for more serious historians looking for something lighter. All in all, I had a very satisfying experience with this blog.

Stoneman’s Corner (Click here for access)

Stoneman’s Corner is a more stoic, bare-bones style blog authored by historian, editor, and teacher Mark R. Stoneman. In contrast to Holland, Stoneman boldly lists his credentials from his education to his professional experience. He obtained his undergraduate history degree from Darthmouth College, and then he went on to obtain his masters degree in Modern European History at Universität Augsburg, and his PhD in Modern European History at Georgetown University. His blog consists mostly of military history book reviews, his work in the classroom as a graduate school teacher, and his experience as being an editor for various history books. Though Stoneman does not cast as wide a net as Holland, Stoneman does seem to dive a bit deeper into history in that he explores historiography. Facts are not enough from Stoneman, so he explores how one’s perspective is important in studying history in many of his posts. His sources are almost entirely academic, and this reflects his deep academic roots. Stoneman’s blog will not appeal to as many as Holland, but it offers reader a valuable, more academic experience without being as heavy as a book. All in all, I had a good albeit dry experience with this blog.