{"title":"To Feel as Our Ancestors Did: Collecting and Performing Oral Histories","authors":"Bruce A. Lesh, Daniela Kelm","doi":"10.2307/30036784","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/30036784","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83054,"journal":{"name":"The History teacher","volume":"39 1","pages":"268"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/30036784","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68452417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M ORE THAN EVER, history courses are crossing boundaries. For example, the college-level African Diaspora course I have been teaching is a case in point: it surveys interactions linking the African continent and its Atlantic diaspora over the past 500 years. Other examples of old and new boundary-crossing courses include surveys of world history, Western Civilization, and such thematic courses as environmental history and international relations. Courses in national history also partake of boundary-crossing. For instance, within United States history, courses which address multiculturalism, the American West, or interactions of the colonial era must cross boundaries. In teaching and scholarship, historians today are working to show students how to view the past as more than localized narratives, more than comparisons of isolated experiences. Teaching at this breadth,however, brings problems of its own. In some cases, despite the hopes of the teacher, the available course materials and texts continue to organize the past into discrete localities and time periods-leaving students with most of the work in making connections across boundaries. In other instances, where course materials provide a rich array of interactions and perspectives, students may feel deluged by
{"title":"Interactions and Connections: Locating and Managing Historical Complexity.","authors":"P. Manning","doi":"10.2307/30036770","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/30036770","url":null,"abstract":"M ORE THAN EVER, history courses are crossing boundaries. For example, the college-level African Diaspora course I have been teaching is a case in point: it surveys interactions linking the African continent and its Atlantic diaspora over the past 500 years. Other examples of old and new boundary-crossing courses include surveys of world history, Western Civilization, and such thematic courses as environmental history and international relations. Courses in national history also partake of boundary-crossing. For instance, within United States history, courses which address multiculturalism, the American West, or interactions of the colonial era must cross boundaries. In teaching and scholarship, historians today are working to show students how to view the past as more than localized narratives, more than comparisons of isolated experiences. Teaching at this breadth,however, brings problems of its own. In some cases, despite the hopes of the teacher, the available course materials and texts continue to organize the past into discrete localities and time periods-leaving students with most of the work in making connections across boundaries. In other instances, where course materials provide a rich array of interactions and perspectives, students may feel deluged by","PeriodicalId":83054,"journal":{"name":"The History teacher","volume":"39 1","pages":"175-195"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/30036770","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68452187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
IN FEW OTHER REALMS of historical scholarship have the last three decades witnessed such all-encompassing transformations as in AfricanAmerican history. The Civil Rights Movement changed the way scholars have written about slavery, but the broad wake created by that revolution in the history of the "peculiar institution" has struck every other facet of African-American history as well. During the 1970s, even as scholars penned now-classic works on the plantation South in the antebellum era, the margins of the institution fell open to detailed investigation. In no instance was this more the case than with the free African Americans who lived in the states outside of the slave South. Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, dozens upon dozens of books and hundreds of journal articles have appeared that seek to understand the significance of those who lived, as Leon Litwack put it, "North of slavery."' In 1860, 226,000 (forty-seven percent) of the nation's 478,000 free blacks lived in free states, and thus totaled over five percent of the black population in America. Though oppressed by popular prejudice and a range of legal and institutional constraints--in 1847, blacks at a convention labeled themselves "slaves of the community"African Americans outside the South wielded significance far beyond their meager numbers. Urban and often literate, some lived in states where they could vote while others commanded considerable wealth. More importantly, all possessed
{"title":"Free Black Activism in the Antebellum North.","authors":"Patrick Rael","doi":"10.2307/30036772","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/30036772","url":null,"abstract":"IN FEW OTHER REALMS of historical scholarship have the last three decades witnessed such all-encompassing transformations as in AfricanAmerican history. The Civil Rights Movement changed the way scholars have written about slavery, but the broad wake created by that revolution in the history of the \"peculiar institution\" has struck every other facet of African-American history as well. During the 1970s, even as scholars penned now-classic works on the plantation South in the antebellum era, the margins of the institution fell open to detailed investigation. In no instance was this more the case than with the free African Americans who lived in the states outside of the slave South. Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, dozens upon dozens of books and hundreds of journal articles have appeared that seek to understand the significance of those who lived, as Leon Litwack put it, \"North of slavery.\"' In 1860, 226,000 (forty-seven percent) of the nation's 478,000 free blacks lived in free states, and thus totaled over five percent of the black population in America. Though oppressed by popular prejudice and a range of legal and institutional constraints--in 1847, blacks at a convention labeled themselves \"slaves of the community\"African Americans outside the South wielded significance far beyond their meager numbers. Urban and often literate, some lived in states where they could vote while others commanded considerable wealth. More importantly, all possessed","PeriodicalId":83054,"journal":{"name":"The History teacher","volume":"39 1","pages":"215-253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/30036772","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68452291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"To secure these rights : the report of Harry S. Truman's Committee on Civil Rights","authors":"B. Williams, S. Lawson","doi":"10.2307/30036785","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/30036785","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83054,"journal":{"name":"The History teacher","volume":"39 1","pages":"270"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/30036785","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68452479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
FROM 1900 TO 1970, only eight United States historians established courses on Native American history in history departments at the college and university level. This made them rare exceptions in an academic world that placed overwhelming emphasis on mainstream Euro-American history, with extremely limited attention to race and ethnicity. Except to a small degree, these professors did not introduce Indian or Native American history because of inspirational forces coming from their respective campuses. Instead, and as will be argued in this paper, they were influenced primarily by larger societal trends that surfaced offcampus.' After examining why historians did not introduce Native American history courses before 1930 this paper will look at the rare exceptions themselves and the off-campus external factors that motivated a few of them to offer Native American history at the higher education level. These contributing elements include the Meriam Report of 1928, the Indian Reform Movement of the 1920s and 1930s, the Indian claims research of the 1950s, and the political climate of the 1960s, each of which will be discussed.
{"title":"Rare Exceptions: Some University Professors and the Teaching of Native American History, 1900-1970.","authors":"S. Crum","doi":"10.2307/30036769","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/30036769","url":null,"abstract":"FROM 1900 TO 1970, only eight United States historians established courses on Native American history in history departments at the college and university level. This made them rare exceptions in an academic world that placed overwhelming emphasis on mainstream Euro-American history, with extremely limited attention to race and ethnicity. Except to a small degree, these professors did not introduce Indian or Native American history because of inspirational forces coming from their respective campuses. Instead, and as will be argued in this paper, they were influenced primarily by larger societal trends that surfaced offcampus.' After examining why historians did not introduce Native American history courses before 1930 this paper will look at the rare exceptions themselves and the off-campus external factors that motivated a few of them to offer Native American history at the higher education level. These contributing elements include the Meriam Report of 1928, the Indian Reform Movement of the 1920s and 1930s, the Indian claims research of the 1950s, and the political climate of the 1960s, each of which will be discussed.","PeriodicalId":83054,"journal":{"name":"The History teacher","volume":"39 1","pages":"153-173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/30036769","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68451752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
MY FAVORITE COURSE THESE DAYS is the one I used to think I never wanted to teach, a Seminar on Historical Method for potential and declared majors. When I went and where I went to graduate school, no one talked about teaching, as if there was nothing to talk about or at least nothing worth talking about. With my Ph.D. under my belt, I assumed that it was my job to teach my students the material I had learned in years of studying eighteenth-century France specifically and early modern Europe more generally. It took me longer than it should have to realize that the material matters less than the process of reading, thinking, talking, and writing about it. During fifteen years in my current job, I have never taught a course on eighteenth-century France, which does not bother me in the least. The methods seminar I have come to enjoy teaching has no prescribed geographical, chronological, or even thematic content. In offering it twelve times in nine years, I have explored many options and learned a great deal. In this essay I review my unsuccessful and successful strategies for teaching research and analytical skills, which illustrate changes in my assumptions about and attitude toward teaching. Older and perhaps wiser as well, I no longer assume that our students already know how to do what we expect them to be able to do by the time they enter or at least by the time they exit the University, whether how to
{"title":"July 14 and September 11: Historical Method and Pedagogical Method.","authors":"J. Merrick","doi":"10.2307/30036771","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/30036771","url":null,"abstract":"MY FAVORITE COURSE THESE DAYS is the one I used to think I never wanted to teach, a Seminar on Historical Method for potential and declared majors. When I went and where I went to graduate school, no one talked about teaching, as if there was nothing to talk about or at least nothing worth talking about. With my Ph.D. under my belt, I assumed that it was my job to teach my students the material I had learned in years of studying eighteenth-century France specifically and early modern Europe more generally. It took me longer than it should have to realize that the material matters less than the process of reading, thinking, talking, and writing about it. During fifteen years in my current job, I have never taught a course on eighteenth-century France, which does not bother me in the least. The methods seminar I have come to enjoy teaching has no prescribed geographical, chronological, or even thematic content. In offering it twelve times in nine years, I have explored many options and learned a great deal. In this essay I review my unsuccessful and successful strategies for teaching research and analytical skills, which illustrate changes in my assumptions about and attitude toward teaching. Older and perhaps wiser as well, I no longer assume that our students already know how to do what we expect them to be able to do by the time they enter or at least by the time they exit the University, whether how to","PeriodicalId":83054,"journal":{"name":"The History teacher","volume":"39 1","pages":"197-214"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/30036771","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68452235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The minister, Rev. John Reichardt, served the Zion Evangelical German Reformed Church in Lowden, a German-language congregation in a town where the majority of people were of German heritage. His crime: maintaining pride in his German cultural roots and failure to abandon the language of the enemy.2 The anti-German sentiment during World War I reached a point where “people speaking German on the street were attacked and rebuked.”3 Iowa Governor William L. Harding legitimized such expressions of prejudice and war-time fanaticism when he issued “The Babel Proclamation” on May 23, 1918.4 Antagonism toward Germans and their language escalated nationwide, but Harding became the only governor in the United States to outlaw the public use of all foreign languages. Harding understood the connection between communication and assimilation. He was convinced that destroying the vital bond of language within ethnic communities would force assimilation of minorities into the dominant culture and heighten a sense of patriotism in a time of war. Harding’s understanding of immigrant assimilation offers insight into subsequent efforts to superficially create unity through language legislation.
牧师约翰·赖克哈特(John Reichardt)曾在洛登的锡安福音德国归正会(Zion Evangelical German Reformed Church)任职，这是一个以德语为母语的教会，那里的大多数人都是德国血统。他的罪行是:对自己的德国文化根源保持骄傲，未能放弃敌人的语言第一次世界大战期间的反德情绪达到了“在街上说德语的人受到攻击和指责”的程度。爱荷华州州长威廉·l·哈丁于1918年5月23日发布“巴别塔宣言”，使这种偏见和战时狂热的表达合法化。4对德国人和他们的语言的敌意在全国范围内升级，但哈丁成为美国唯一一个宣布在公共场合使用所有外语为非法的州长。哈丁理解沟通和同化之间的联系。他深信，摧毁民族社区中语言的重要纽带将迫使少数民族融入主流文化，并在战争时期增强爱国主义意识。哈丁对移民同化的理解为后来通过语言立法表面上创造统一的努力提供了洞见。
{"title":"Divided by a Common Language: The Babel Proclamation and Its Influence in Iowa History.","authors":"Stephen J. Frese","doi":"10.2307/30036745","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/30036745","url":null,"abstract":"The minister, Rev. John Reichardt, served the Zion Evangelical German Reformed Church in Lowden, a German-language congregation in a town where the majority of people were of German heritage. His crime: maintaining pride in his German cultural roots and failure to abandon the language of the enemy.2 The anti-German sentiment during World War I reached a point where “people speaking German on the street were attacked and rebuked.”3 Iowa Governor William L. Harding legitimized such expressions of prejudice and war-time fanaticism when he issued “The Babel Proclamation” on May 23, 1918.4 Antagonism toward Germans and their language escalated nationwide, but Harding became the only governor in the United States to outlaw the public use of all foreign languages. Harding understood the connection between communication and assimilation. He was convinced that destroying the vital bond of language within ethnic communities would force assimilation of minorities into the dominant culture and heighten a sense of patriotism in a time of war. Harding’s understanding of immigrant assimilation offers insight into subsequent efforts to superficially create unity through language legislation.","PeriodicalId":83054,"journal":{"name":"The History teacher","volume":"39 1","pages":"59-88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/30036745","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68451844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 1930s, radio was still in its earliest stages. The country had sunk into the Great Depression and only about half of the population could enjoy this new form of mass media in their living rooms. At the same time, a bright man from New York, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was running for President of the United States. Though he was crippled by polio, few knew that his imposing 6' 1" frame was relegated to a wheelchair. People recognized him as a man with great charisma and determination. In pictures or at conventions for the presidential campaign, FDR always looked strong and healthy, either sitting or standing with the help of hidden heavy metal braces and the subtle supporting arm of his son or aide. Even some of those who saw FDR regularly did not realize the extent of his disability.' The simultaneous rise in popularity of radio and FDR's political fortune is an interesting historical twist of fate. Radio brought news alive, but left people free to create images in their imaginations. FDR's distinctive voice and jollity flowed into people's homes. His disability was invisible. Radio helped make this possible. Through this means of mass communication, FDR could convey his ideas effectively, sitting in his estate in Hyde Park, New York or in the White House. He immediately realized the importance of this form of mass media and its power to promote his image.2 Also, as the first president to use it almost on a daily basis, he made Americans realize the benefits of radio: getting fast and viable news, and having a personal connection with their president. In this sense, he helped radio to become more popular.3 Because FDR was such a masterful communicator, he was able to use his speeches, broadcast on radio, to shape American history. Evidence of FDR's successful use of radio is widespread. The power of his "Day of Infamy" speech led the nation to unite behind the President's call to war, and his fireside chats gained him support from the people for innovative and controversial social programs. These addresses were directed at the people. It was the first time that citizens felt as if they knew their president as a friend.4 For FDR, it was quality time to clear up rumors spreading across the nation, and squelch his critics as he gave people the "real news," on Roosevelt's terms, unfiltered by the press.5 Indisputably, one of FDR's most important qualities was that he had a firm control over the media, and he got what he wanted.6 FDR not only acted as a guiding
{"title":"The Great Communicator: How FDR's Radio Speeches Shaped American History.","authors":"Lumeng Yu","doi":"10.2307/30036746","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/30036746","url":null,"abstract":"AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 1930s, radio was still in its earliest stages. The country had sunk into the Great Depression and only about half of the population could enjoy this new form of mass media in their living rooms. At the same time, a bright man from New York, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was running for President of the United States. Though he was crippled by polio, few knew that his imposing 6' 1\" frame was relegated to a wheelchair. People recognized him as a man with great charisma and determination. In pictures or at conventions for the presidential campaign, FDR always looked strong and healthy, either sitting or standing with the help of hidden heavy metal braces and the subtle supporting arm of his son or aide. Even some of those who saw FDR regularly did not realize the extent of his disability.' The simultaneous rise in popularity of radio and FDR's political fortune is an interesting historical twist of fate. Radio brought news alive, but left people free to create images in their imaginations. FDR's distinctive voice and jollity flowed into people's homes. His disability was invisible. Radio helped make this possible. Through this means of mass communication, FDR could convey his ideas effectively, sitting in his estate in Hyde Park, New York or in the White House. He immediately realized the importance of this form of mass media and its power to promote his image.2 Also, as the first president to use it almost on a daily basis, he made Americans realize the benefits of radio: getting fast and viable news, and having a personal connection with their president. In this sense, he helped radio to become more popular.3 Because FDR was such a masterful communicator, he was able to use his speeches, broadcast on radio, to shape American history. Evidence of FDR's successful use of radio is widespread. The power of his \"Day of Infamy\" speech led the nation to unite behind the President's call to war, and his fireside chats gained him support from the people for innovative and controversial social programs. These addresses were directed at the people. It was the first time that citizens felt as if they knew their president as a friend.4 For FDR, it was quality time to clear up rumors spreading across the nation, and squelch his critics as he gave people the \"real news,\" on Roosevelt's terms, unfiltered by the press.5 Indisputably, one of FDR's most important qualities was that he had a firm control over the media, and he got what he wanted.6 FDR not only acted as a guiding","PeriodicalId":83054,"journal":{"name":"The History teacher","volume":"39 1","pages":"89-106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/30036746","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68451979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
STUDENTS IN MY UNDERGRADUATE Sociology and Social Science classes often tell me that the "history" they learned in high schools was different than the "history" they learned in our university classes. They often claim that what they learned in K-12 was "wrong" and that they did not learn the "real" history until they got to college. They usually focus on the fact that K-12 history is typically taught from a triumphal "grand sweep" perspective emphasizing places and dates, and the glories of the past in general. They contrast this with a college curriculum that they say emphasizes that there were great injustices in the past. Students often feel as if they have to choose between one version, or the other. Often my students' history preferences are based on their pre-existing political views about the role of the state in ordering society. Those on the right choose to believe in the "glorious past" version of K-12, and those from the left focus on the "persistence of oppression" version often emphasized by college courses in history and education departments. The "glorious past" version of history has in its corner the millions of K-12 textbooks distributed to schools around the country. The persistence of oppression school uses a different "clandestine" history of which the most popular right now seems to be James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. This
{"title":"Why Students Think There Are Two Kinds of American History","authors":"T. Waters","doi":"10.2307/30036740","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/30036740","url":null,"abstract":"STUDENTS IN MY UNDERGRADUATE Sociology and Social Science classes often tell me that the \"history\" they learned in high schools was different than the \"history\" they learned in our university classes. They often claim that what they learned in K-12 was \"wrong\" and that they did not learn the \"real\" history until they got to college. They usually focus on the fact that K-12 history is typically taught from a triumphal \"grand sweep\" perspective emphasizing places and dates, and the glories of the past in general. They contrast this with a college curriculum that they say emphasizes that there were great injustices in the past. Students often feel as if they have to choose between one version, or the other. Often my students' history preferences are based on their pre-existing political views about the role of the state in ordering society. Those on the right choose to believe in the \"glorious past\" version of K-12, and those from the left focus on the \"persistence of oppression\" version often emphasized by college courses in history and education departments. The \"glorious past\" version of history has in its corner the millions of K-12 textbooks distributed to schools around the country. The persistence of oppression school uses a different \"clandestine\" history of which the most popular right now seems to be James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. This","PeriodicalId":83054,"journal":{"name":"The History teacher","volume":"39 1","pages":"11-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/30036740","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68451727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
THE WORD BORDERLANDS has many meanings in North American historiography, but this short overview focuses on the time and place that American historians have long known as the Spanish Borderlands. Historian Herbert Eugene Bolton, the much-studied father of what came to be known as the "Bolton School," popularized the term "Spanish Borderlands" in a little book of the same title, published by Yale in 1921. The University of New Mexico Press reprinted that volume in 1996, with a fine introduction by Al Hurtado, who is completing a biography of Bolton.' Bolton taught the history of the Americas, South as well as North, and ranged across Latin America in his pioneering transnational work.2 In much of his writing, however, he aimed to add a Spanish dimension to the Anglo-centric history of the United States. That was certainly the case with his little book on the Spanish Borderlands. Bolton defined the Spanish Borderlands as those parts of the United States once claimed by Spain, from California to Florida, thus situating the Borderlands within the framework of United States history. My own survey of the field, The Spanish Frontier in North America, published in 1992, followed Bolton's anachronistic model of placing a
边疆这个词在北美史学中有很多含义，但这篇简短的综述主要集中在美国历史学家长期以来所知的西班牙边疆的时间和地点。被广泛研究的历史学家赫伯特·尤金·博尔顿是后来被称为“博尔顿学派”的创始人，他在耶鲁大学1921年出版的一本同名小书中普及了“西班牙边疆”一词。1996年，新墨西哥大学出版社重印了这本书，并由正在完成博尔顿传记的阿尔·乌尔塔多(Al Hurtado)作了精彩的介绍。博尔顿教授南北美洲的历史，并在他开创性的跨国著作中涉及拉丁美洲然而，在他的大部分作品中，他的目标是在以盎格鲁为中心的美国历史中加入西班牙的维度。他那本关于西班牙边境的小书就是这样。博尔顿将西班牙边境地区定义为西班牙曾经宣称拥有主权的美国部分地区，从加利福尼亚到佛罗里达，从而将边境地区置于美国历史的框架内。我自己对这一领域的调查，《北美的西班牙边境》(the Spanish Frontier in North America)出版于1992年，遵循了博尔顿的不合时宜的模式
{"title":"The Spanish Borderlands, Historiography Redux.","authors":"David J. Weber","doi":"10.2307/30036743","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/30036743","url":null,"abstract":"THE WORD BORDERLANDS has many meanings in North American historiography, but this short overview focuses on the time and place that American historians have long known as the Spanish Borderlands. Historian Herbert Eugene Bolton, the much-studied father of what came to be known as the \"Bolton School,\" popularized the term \"Spanish Borderlands\" in a little book of the same title, published by Yale in 1921. The University of New Mexico Press reprinted that volume in 1996, with a fine introduction by Al Hurtado, who is completing a biography of Bolton.' Bolton taught the history of the Americas, South as well as North, and ranged across Latin America in his pioneering transnational work.2 In much of his writing, however, he aimed to add a Spanish dimension to the Anglo-centric history of the United States. That was certainly the case with his little book on the Spanish Borderlands. Bolton defined the Spanish Borderlands as those parts of the United States once claimed by Spain, from California to Florida, thus situating the Borderlands within the framework of United States history. My own survey of the field, The Spanish Frontier in North America, published in 1992, followed Bolton's anachronistic model of placing a","PeriodicalId":83054,"journal":{"name":"The History teacher","volume":"39 1","pages":"43-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/30036743","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68451832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：