Alicia’s Bridge To The Blog

Today in class we talked about new historical criticism and examples of how it relates to society. We discussed many of the terms that were found throughout the whole chapter. We learned about the terms used through the examples that relates so closely to society. All while keeping in mind how history is nonlinear based on the new historic theories.

Personally, I thought it was very interesting how all the words that were placed on the board had some type of example. I never really thought about how history is just a piece of a story that just keeps unfolding throughout time. But how that story can be biased based on who is writing the story because usually the stories being written are from those who have power. For example, what is written in our textbooks are those who were victorious but, there is rarely a story about the loser. So does this mean that we (the readers) are  not receiving the full truth of history? In class we discussed briefly how sometimes there are things being hidden from us. But is it for the better or just creating a disadvantage for us?

There was one particular example that stood out the most, that is the one about the Holocaust. We were discussing how it is a hard argument to prove that society is always progressing in the right step. And how the Holocaust’s slogan is to “never forget,” but the question becomes then why is there still so many genocides or even racial disputes/killings that have happened since the end of the Holocaust. Is there other examples to prove that society isn’t always progressing? Or how the power is circulated through people?

2 thoughts on “Alicia’s Bridge To The Blog

  1. tselmuun319

    New historicism argues that history is always an interpretation rather than a presentation. Therefore what one person has to say about a specific historical event is subjective to the opinion/perspective of that person. A good example to argue about new historicism is Jennifer’s new historicism analysis on Pocahontas. As seen from the cartoon, we perceive only what the author wants us to look at. The issue of Native American culture, which is obviously inaccurate in its portrayal of a minor culture and superiority of white race. However, it succeeded in brainwashing the target audience(kids) including me.
    The question of whether or not the reader is receiving the full truth of history, I would assume that a new historicist would answer no. The most that a reader could do to get a full picture of history is probably by studying multiple perspectives.

  2. rtolson

    I agree with the previous comment, to gain a good grasp on history one should learn multiple perspectives. I will use myself as an example. Growing up in the Spotsylvania County School system, I was given a very pure and good representation of the U.S. in history class. It was very, “U.S. is awesome and we do nothing bad.” It wasn’t until a variety of classes my senior year and freshman year of college where I learned many things that were left out of the previous history books. Like how a group of U.S. soldiers massacred an entire village in Vietnam. I agree that learning multiple perspectives is key to understanding history.

Leave a Reply