What Is the Poststructuralist Argument, and How Does It Pose a Challenge for Historian - Assignment Example

David K. Jones Hist 325 23 October 2007 If history is defined as the study of what in the past is deemed meaningful, then how would you define your topic selection as meaningful history? In what ways do you expect your research to further historical understanding? How would you defend the significance of your topic to a skeptic who wondered whether your topic was relevant to our understanding the past? Meaningful history is history that teaches. My research can further historical understanding because battle technology is used to this day. Elephants used by the armies in Africa and Asia in battle has inspired the heavy tanks of today. Alexander the Great had to fact the elephants of Porus. The idea of learning from an enemy in battle is implemented by good armies. At the time using elephants in battle was unique. Alexander was not take with the idea, but after his death his generals took a great idea, then used it for their advantage. The use of elephants in battle is relevant in understanding the past, because not only were the elephants useful in battle, but also in the transportation of the armies. More men and supplies could be carried by the massive beasts. The elephants could also move obstacles along the way, such as rocks, trees, or other objects standing in their way. There were drawbacks, like training and maintaining the elephants. Since elephants need a substantial amount of food, that also had to be taken into consideration. The lesson learned from these elephants have helped armies over the years with strategies. Although the technology has changed, the basics remain. The historical aspect of Alexander the Great and elephants is important. This helps foster an understanding of the strategic measures used in battle during this time, which has helped military strategists since. The history of Alexander the Great needs to be examined in detail, especially the elephants to understand how he conquered the massive amount of territory. What is the poststructuralist argument, and how does it pose a challenge for historians? Do you agree with the poststructuralists? Why or why not? Post-structuralists hold that the concept of "self" as a singular and coherent entity is false. An individual is represented by conflicting tensions and knowledge claims, such as gender or profession. This means in order to properly study a text a reader must understand how the work is related their own personal concept of self. Self perception helps determine ones interpretation of meaning. The meaning the author is secondary to the meaning the reader understands. Post-structuralism rejects the idea of a literary text having a single purpose. Every individual reader creates individual purposes for a given text. This makes a generalization to any situation where a subject perceives a sign. A post-structuralist critic must be able to utilize a variety of perspectives to create a multifaceted interpretation of a text, despite the fact that some interpretations conflict with another. This view is true to an extent, however some texts cannot be interpreted, while others can. For example, one quote from my research states: “Hasdrubal, Hamilcar’s son, was the first to use it. At the Metaurus he had given each of his mahouts a chisel and a hammer, and ordered them to drive the chisel home into the mounts’ spinal column at the point where head and neck joined, as soon as the animals threatened their own side. In that fatal battle more elephants were thus slain by their own mahouts than were killed by the Romans.” This statement can be interpreted by animal rights activists as cruel, or by military men as necessary. However, the fact that more elephants were slain by their own mahouts than were killed by Romans cannot be changed. Statistics and facts can be twisted, but normally only have one meaning. True historians will no the difference. This is why I partially agree with poststructuralist. Explain the difference between primary and secondary sources. What are the most important primary sources that you have uncovered so far in your own research project, and how do you expect these to be useful for your research? Primary sources are records of events as they are first described, without any interpretation. They are also sets of data, such as census statistics, which have been tabulated, but not interpreted. Secondary sources, on the other hand, offer an analysis or a restatement of primary sources. Some secondary sources not only analyze primary sources, but use them to argue a contention or to persuade the reader to hold a certain opinion. Examples of secondary sources include: dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks, books and articles that interpret, or review research works. Since elephant warfare existed in the B.C. (Alexander the Great and elephants around 330 B.C.), primary resources are not suitable. Secondary resources have to be used with this type of research. Although secondary resources will be used in this research, credible resources will be used. Scholarly journals, books, and other academic resources will be utilized. Unsuitable secondary resources would include, but are not limited to, Wikipedia, encyclopedias, unverified websites, and other less credible resources will be avoided. When using secondary sources, one must determine if any prejudices or false interpretations are being used. This determination is important for an unbiased history paper. Although using secondary sources to determine the importance of elephants in battle, enough unbiased secondary sources exist. A unbiased paper can be completed upon this topic, if great care in research is taken. Discuss the problem of “objectivity” in historical research and writing. How would you define “objectivity”? Is this an ideal that historians should strive for, or is it misleading to believe that such a thing as objectivity even exists? To what extent should historians filter out their own biases when researching and writing history, and to what extent is it acceptable for historians to argue on behalf of a particular perspective? Explain. Objectivity should be the goal of historians. It is an ideal that historians should strive for, but that is what objectivity is a mere ideal. Historians are human. Humans have emotion. It is impossible to remain impassive when researching tough topics. The research of elephants in battle is a subject where objectivity can be maintained, but is hard. When writing on this topic, it is easy to forget the elephants are not objects, but live animals. People when researching and writing about history, generally become detached. Since it is real on a mental level, but not a physical level, the whole subject becomes intangible. This makes the subject easy to research either objectively or passionately. Some researchers because it is only real mentally to passively write about the facts. On the other hand, some researchers are bothered by the fact that they only know the subject mentally, thus put a passionate spin on history. Either way, historians must try to arrive at the truth, not an inflated version of history. In order to do this several things must be kept mind. First, there are no good guys and bad guys. Humans were humans back then, just like today. Secondly, events happen not on a global scale or design, but on an individual level. It is easy to say Alexander the Great conquered this territory and that, but individuals helped create this history. Lastly, primary sources like accounts of battles and diaries can be tainted by unobjectionable intentions as well. Although objectivity needs to be the goal, one must realize it is an unobtainable goal. References Glover, R.F. 1948. “The Tactical Handling of the Elephant.” Greece & Rome. 17, 49, (January): 1-11. Read More