Washington DC, July 20, 2015. Cuban Embassy re-opens after more than 50 years.
Hi all;
I’ve heard from lots of you and I’m looking forward to receiving the final paper/projects in the next few days. Everything is due tomorrow December 10 at noon. I’ll be in my office (with chocolate) from 11-12:30. If you want to hand it in earlier, please just slide it under my door. If you have received an extension, also just slide it under my door. If you have a long commute and would like to hand it in electronically, or if your project is electronic, then please send me a quick note to let me know that’s what you’re doing.
Thanks for a great semester!
For those of you thinking about your papers, here are a few thoughts about the historiographic paper, if you are not clear on what that is:
Do not think of this as a research paper. This is NOT a paper about topic X. It IS a paper about how different scholars or authors have written about and explored topic X. Let me take you through an example: abolition in Barbados. Once you’ve identified your books or articles, you would NOT pull information out of them and write a paper that says: “In 1838 slavery was abolished in Barbados. This was because all of the slaveowners were tired of their slaves and they thought it was a nice thing to do.”
You WOULD write a paper that goes something like this: “Historians have understood the abolition of slavery in Barbados in several different ways. Prof. Frank Ocean argues that slavery was abolished because slaveowners thought it was a nice thing to do. On the other hand, Prof. Adele argues that slavery was abolished because slaves were really sick of being slaves and they caused so much trouble that eventually slaveowners gave up in frustration. Clearly these are extreme positions, and there may be space for a more nuanced argument…etc etc”
So, you would identify and analyze the arguments (with less summary and more analysis), and then, take the question a little further to see what kinds of issues or questions remain unexamined, or to ask if there is a middle ground between two interpretations, or to introduce some kind of fact or perspective that neither takes into account. Remember all of the ways we’ve been talking about narrative, interpretation, and perspective, these will come in handy.
You shouldn’t need more than two sources. Please cite all the sources you use, and write well and elegantly. Just because it’s a more formal paper doesn’t mean you have to use dull language. As always, let me know if you have questions.
Some things from previous weeks:
a video about YouTube
David Foster Wallace’s essay, “Deciderization”.