Today in class, we finished our discussion about William Bradford and his writing styles. In the beginning of class, Laz posed the question, "What is the purpose of Bradford's document?" and "Is it primarily historical?" One opinion was that the document was not solely historical because it is hostile in nature; pointing fingers and focusing on an image of the oppressed having to stand for what they believe in to be accepted. The work does not serve only to inform, but also as a means by which Bradford can persuade a reader into thinking that the Puritan way was the best, etc.
From this, the question arose whether this work can serve as a history or not. THe writing goes with the times in that there was not yet a standard of writing, so if Bradford was intending this to serve as a history, which is likely because the Puritans were into history and disagreed with fiction, then he was basically making up his own format or basing his format off of that of another individual who made their format. It definitely serves historical purposes, and may in one way or another a history, but then we must decide if we accept it as a history.
Thus, discussion turned to the attempt at understanding what elements of a work qualify it was a history. We discussed the necessity of a thrid party to serve almost as a mediator in composing the events without the use of bias or emotion. In the end, however, we mostly agreed that a third party is only useful with the aid of recollections and thoughts of those involved, who can contribute the necessary emotions and "inside information" that presents a much clearer picture and broader understanding.
At the end of class, we talked about the legitimacy of textbooks and delved into the comparisons between an elementary text book and a high school level textbook. The elementary books seem to only have one view point. It seems as if contexts are simplified in order to be easy understood by children, but is this debilitating their possible abilities and self-fueled ideas of the future? Children maybe do not get enough credit for their thinking abilities. They seem to be mislead at a young age as if theat is somehow better for them. Also, textbooks seem to leave out a lot of mistakes that America has made in the past, ie. the true events of Columbus's time. Lastly, we tried to decide if the aim of always being politically correct obstructed views, but we did not quite finish this conversation. Any thoughts?
-Jen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe that Bradford's document can be considered as history. However, at the same time, the reader must take into account the bias that goes along with it. Bradford's document had, as Jen said, a persuasive tone in it. He wanted to show that the choice to come to the New World was a correct one and that the views he personally had were correct as well. Despite the opinion present in the document, I believe it can still be considered history.
All history textbooks, no matter how much they try to avoid this, have a bias in them. Thus, reading documents written from two different points of view can help to illustrate the full story. The reader just has to be aware that what they are reading has a slant to it, so that they don't accept it as absolute truth. They need to read from many different sources and then draw their opinion about the facts of history. Bradford's history helps to provide just one point of view.
--Alexis
I believe that Bradford's document cannot be described as a history. I think that while it does report some "history" it is more of a judgement and Bradford's document should be used as a tool to better understand the time.
-Kelsey
Post a Comment