Aussie History

Adventures in Australian History, mostly geared to VCE Unit 3&4 studies, with added other stuff that I'm interested in. Any photos or external content will be sourced as accurately as possible and is used for educational purposes. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are advised that photos and links may appear representing people now deceased.

[georgy-konstantinovich-zhukov]

British troops pose with their squad’s pet dog while stationed in Italy during World War I. While war dogs were often employed for military purposes, plenty more were simply adopted by units as mascots and morale boosters.

(IWM)

[aushistoryvce]

This series on war dogs by georgy-konstantinovich-zhukov is truly excellent. I highly recommend a browse through his posts on the subject.

[georgy-konstantinovich-zhukov]

USMC war dog “Caesar von Steuben” is x-rayed by Navy corpsmen after being wounded on patrol during the fight for Bougainville. 

As with most of the dogs that fought with the United States military in World War II, the three year old German shepherd had been a civilian, owned by a family in the Bronx who volunteered him for service, one of thousands of families to offer their pet up for the war effort.

Only a select few were accepted into service, and even then they would undergo rigorous training to prepare them for life in the combat zone. In total, 1,074 dogs were ‘enlisted’ in the Marine Corps, and 29 would die in combat, along with just under 200 fatalities from disease or accidents. After the war, an outcry ended plans to euthanize the remaining veteran animals, and instead they were put through demilitarization training, with almost universal success. Many were returned to their families, although in more than a few cases, the Marine handler would bring the dog back to civilian life with him.

In Caesar’s case, he recovered from his wound quickly, and he received an official commendation for his communication runs prior to his wounding, including completing his ninth and final one while injured. Returned to service however, he would be killed in combat while fighting on Okinawa in 1945.

(National Archives)

[aushistoryvce]

The role of animals in war.

[paper-daisy]

My brothers and sisters and my mother (have) no alternative only to put up with the brutal and cowardly conduct of a parcel of big ugly fat-necked wombat headed big bellied magpie legged narrow hipped splaw-footed sons of Irish Bailiffs or english landlords which is better known as Officers of Justice or Victorian Police who some calls honest gentlemen, but I would like to know what business an honest man would have in the Police.

Ned Kelly, The Jerilderie Letter, 1879

Otherwise known as the best list of insults ever thrown about, an interesting side track in an 8000 word long letter of complaint about the treatment he and others had suffered at the hands of the police.

(via katalizi)

[aushistoryvce]

This interactive map allows you to explore the locations and link to the stories from the outstanding website 'Collaborating for Indigenous Rights 1957-1973', put together by the National Museum of Australia. This is a great resource for Unit 4, VCE Australian History, Area of Study 2: Debating Australia's Future, 1960-2000, Indigenous Rights.

[haitianhistory]

Today’s word/concept is: HISTORIOGRAPHY 

So, what does this word mean in the context of historical research? 

Historiography usually refers to all the work on a given historical topic and the study of how historians have dealt with historical subject matters.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “In its most general sense, the term refers to the study of historians’ methods and practices. Moreover, “historiography becomes itself historical when we recognize that these frameworks of assumptions about historical knowledge and reasoning change over time. On this assumption, the history of historical thinking and writing is itself an interesting subject. How did historians of various periods in human history conduct their study and presentation of history?" (Source)

Trent University defines historiography as “a summary of the historical writings on a particular topic … It identifies the major thinkers and arguments, and establishes connections between them. If there have been major changes in the way a particular topic has been approached over time, the historiography identifies them.” (Source)

So, to put it plainly, historiography can be understood as the the body of historical writing on a topic and the history of how historians have approached a particular topic over time. 

⇒ For example, if you encounter in your readings: “The Historiography on the Haitian Revolution is very large” It usually means → ”Lots of stuff have been written about the Haitian Revolution.”

Historiography of course, does not only refer to the grouping of works on a topic, as we have seen already, it also focuses on the changes in historical methodology. 

So, historiography evolves over time? Why?

Historians can rarely escape their own time. This is not to say that the historical discipline is entirely subjective, rather, this is to suggest that historians do not write in vacuums. Historiographical essays are thus important because they help us see how the methodology in studying a particular topic has changed over time. 

⇒ For example, in the 1960s, most (but not all) historians favoured an approach that gave a significant importance to economy and were often interested in making Marxist and class-based analysis of History. This is not necessarily true today when many historians prefer an analysis which gives more space to culture (hence, you will often hear people refer to a "cultural" or "linguistic turn" in History). 

Now, this change in the way historians understand events rarely means they debate over the occurrence of those events (although, it does happen), — what it actually means is that historians find that some approaches highlight factors that better explain historical events than others. Historians’ major task is not simply to narrate events, their work also involves looking at the relationship between various instances (that is, their causal relationship) in explaining historical events. (To make this text more digestible, I will save you a discussion on the problems historians face with narration and causality, just remember that the two have an influence on historiography.)

So, as just mentioned, historiography helps us see how the way in which historians write about History changes, in part, because they often take different approaches with time.

⇒ For example, for a long time, the dominent historiography on the causes of World War I suggested that the Great War was fought between European powers for colonies (i.e. the surproduction of goods forced European capitalist to pressure their own government to support their adventures in foreign lands in search of the new markets). Other historians, who do not necessarily completely reject the previous explanation, argue however that nationalism is better in articulating the drive to go to war. Historiography also suggest that we should not underestimate the importance of European alliance system before WWI (i.e. the “domino effect”). More importantly, most (but not all) historians who favoured the colonies and market explanation tended to be further towards the left (Marxist, Leninist and so on) in their analysis. (Notice “tended’ is in italics.)

At any rate, historiography is a complex term but it is necessary to understand it in order to comprehend some of the work historians do (and to grasp the real nature of most of their disputes). 

To recapitulate, in most instances, historiography is:

The body of work on a particular historical topic of interest (i.e. : the historiography on the Haitian Revolution, the 20th century historiography on the French Revolution, the historiography on Thomas Jefferson…)

The “history of history” (the study how historians have dealt with particular topics, with a special importance given to the context in which their work was written. This usually emplies analyzing the approach(es) historians have favoured to write about History (i.e.: was this historian sensible to the Marxist turn in History, the Postmodern turn in History, the Cultural turn in History, the Subaltern and Postcolonial turn in History …?))

Warning: Before using a term, always make sure you are comfortable with its meaning and that it won’t be placed in your text simply as an ornament. If unsure, consult an appropriate dictionary or a Professor. 

[medievalpoc]

I have to admit that this is a pretty dense read.

This is also kind of what I’m talking about with the sort of ascending hierarchy of jargon…you have to understand the words used to explain the jargon, which requires a foundation of jargon already in place.

This is why I try to show the process, rather than tell it. This is also a rather conservative explanation that tends to blunt the critical edge I think that historiography should have, as well as downplaying just how contentious and common debates and disagreements among historians are.

This is why I think some people are confused when I do something like post a medieval artwork, and then cite writing from someone in the late 1700s who talks about that work. What I’m trying to do is show how our ideas about that medieval work have been affected by the person writing int he late 1700s. I’m not using “outdated sources”, I’m showing you how the centuries between middle ages and right now have affected our view of that work.

After all, if each era’s historians add their own perspectives, doesn’t the racism, colonialism, and orientalism of their writing affect the work of those who build on those narratives? Doesn’t racism, colonialism, and orientalism right now affect the narratives of today’s historians?

I think these things can be discussed by anyone, and understood by anyone, regardless of jargon and strict gatekeeping over exact definitions. The purpose of language is communication, and I think a lot can be communicated through images, audio, and video as well.

Bottom line for me is really, trying to maintain the subjective/objective dichotomy in historiography is counterproductive.

[aushistoryvce]

Slideshow with fantastic images and news clippings from the 1972 Tent Embassy from the Foley collection. From 8.23 onwards there are a roll call of key activists - great for putting faces to the names you may have read in books and articles.