History HL: Historiography?

[Richard Stifler]

So I have realized one of the negative aspects of my essays for History was the lack of historiography, though is it necessary to like make specific references to historians for a certain matter, for example: "Robert Service  is one of the historians who believes..."? Or can I just say that IB-beloved sentence "there is much debate among historians on this..." and then pass on and say the spectrum of opinions, without making specific ref? My Hist teacher told me we could just do this, but Idk

[Guest]

Our teacher said that it's nice to have specific examples of historians, but if there are general beliefs (example, structuralism vs intentionalism for Hitler) you can say "one perspective of this is ____". Apparently they don't like the phrase "Historians say".

[Empiral]

The best way to do it is:

- State your argument

- Provide data

- Provide historiography 

- Provide reasons why or why not that historiography may be trustworthy.

 

For example, if you are writing an essay on the Big Four, and your argument is that the Big Four did not wish to cripple the German economy. You can use revisionist historiography, which states that Germany was more than capable of paying the reparations. You can then OPCVL revisionist historiography, and state that the value of the revisionist historiography is that the historians had access to the archives, which only opened in the 1960s. Compare this to the orthodox historians who believed the reparations killed German growth and fueled Nazism, the orthodox historians obviously did not have access to the archives. The revisionist historiography is thus more valuable, which in turn means your argument has solid evidence to back it up. 

[Richard Stifler]

On 31 de Outubro de 2016 at 11:28 PM, Empiral said:

The best way to do it is:

- State your argument

- Provide data

- Provide historiography 

- Provide reasons why or why not that historiography may be trustworthy.

 

For example, if you are writing an essay on the Big Four, and your argument is that the Big Four did not wish to cripple the German economy. You can use revisionist historiography, which states that Germany was more than capable of paying the reparations. You can then OPCVL revisionist historiography, and state that the value of the revisionist historiography is that the historians had access to the archives, which only opened in the 1960s. Compare this to the orthodox historians who believed the reparations killed German growth and fueled Nazism, the orthodox historians obviously did not have access to the archives. The revisionist historiography is thus more valuable, which in turn means your argument has solid evidence to back it up. 

Pal, where can I find revisionist historiography?

Could you send me essays you have done, just for me to perceive the way it should be done?