Coursework Week 2

The Plan Week 1 Drafting on an event Week 2&3 Drafting paragraph on an historian Week 4&5 Drafting primary source paragraph Week 6&7 Drafting section on focus Week 8 Drafting section on counter Full first draft 6/11/17 Final draft 8/1/18 Coursework Lessons will be the first History Lesson of the Week From Week 2 we hope to be in Computer Rooms

Historians You need to choose two historians who’s arguments will be looked at in detail in your coursework. You need to fully understand their arguments. You need to relate their arguments to your question (they are probably not answering your exact question) You need quotes from their books etc. You need to research them and the context in which they wrote You need to decide to what degree you agree with them

Possible Historians Martin Luther King Supreme Court Women Anti-Semitism August Meier Clayborne Carson Kevern Verney Taylor Branch Geoffrey Hodgson Possibly interpretations that focus on other leaders e.g. A Philip Randolph L Goldstone A Graham Davis M Tushnet James T Patterson Belinda Robnett Bernice McNair Barnett Any traditional interpretations arguing that famous civil rights leaders such as King are the most important factor. (e.g. Meier and Godfrey Hodgson) Daniel Goldhagen Christopher Browning Amos Elon Ian Kershaw

A02 (A bit like extract Q on Tudors) Understanding of the interpretations: You need to show you fully understand what the interpretation is in relation to the question you are answering. Evaluations of the interpretation: Essentially what are the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, are they convincing? Evaluation of the context in which the interpretation was produced: There are a number of factors that might need to be looked at- date ( views and events at the time, availability of material etc.), authors background and training, historical debates that were going on, country of origin, authors standing and reputation.

Drafting section on an historian Write a summary of the historians view. With some supporting quotes look at an aspect of their argument and evaluate how convincing it is. Research and write about the historian and the context in which they wrote: Academic career When and where they wrote Part of a historical debate or movement Personal links to the history they are writing about (involved in the Civil Rights movement, son of a holocaust survivor etc.)

Model: ‘The collapse of Tsardom in Russia was the result of Russia’s participation in the First World War.’ Assess the validity of this view with reference to the years 1825 to 1917. The views of Orlando Figes in his book A People’s Tragedy and those of Kochan and Abraham in their book The Making of Modern Russia reflect the differences that exist amongst historians. Figes argues, when reflecting on the celebrations surrounding the tercentenary of the Romanov dynasty, that they took place against a ‘profound social and political crisis - some would even say a revolutionary one’. He argues that the celebration itself reflected just how out of touch Tsardom had become with developments in Russia in the preceding 100 years. He asserts that the tercentenary was an attempt to reassert the image of, ‘a monarchy with mythical historical legitimacy and an image of enduring permanence at this anxious time when its right to rule was being challenged. The Romanovs were retreating to the past, hoping it would save them from the future’. In short, Nicholas II was attempting to resist social and political forces formed by economic change which would overwhelm the feeble attempt to assert the Tsarist system. In contrast, Kochan and Abraham present a picture of Russia on the eve of the war which does not suggest such a profound crisis or revolutionary situation. They argue that, ‘the Tsarist state entered the war in fairly good order. The inefficiency and incompetence of large parts of the bureaucracy did not show through immediately. The call-up was successfully conducted; the old men and women left in the villages responded to the challenge and maintained agricultural production at its previous level. Had the war been the short one universally predicted, the demise of the old order might have been postponed’. Thus, whilst recognizing that the Tsarist state faced significant problems, the interpretation does not suggest a crisis, nor that a revolutionary situation existed.

It should be noted that these differing interpretations were written at different times. Kochan and Abraham’s book was first published in 1962, at a time when access to the Soviet archives was restricted. Moreover, their interpretation forms part of the book which deals with 700 years of Russian history which provides an overview as opposed to detailed investigation. Indeed, the book is more a synthesis of the views of a wide range of historians. Whilst both authors lectured in Russian history at university level, at the time the book was written, Abraham was Head of Social and Environmental Studies in a London school. Kochan’s specialism is in European History, especially of the Jews in Russia. Nevertheless, although a synthesis of the views of others, it is based on the work of highly reputable specialists, although the views advanced, as summarised above, are conclusions based on the appreciation of the work of others. In contrast, Orlando Figes was writing in the 1990s and had access to the new materials which were available following the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the time of writing he was a member of the History Faculty at Cambridge University and was an academic, practising historian. His is more a monograph study of events from the 1890s, based on his individual research and gives much more detailed consideration as a result. As he points out in his introduction, his is a particular approach to the study of Russia at this time, seeking to link grand developments to the lives of ordinary people. This may be seen as both a strength, in that he thoroughly captures the mood of the period through his analysis of the views he cites and a weakness of the book, in that the links with national developments are not always convincingly established. Moreover, Figes has received criticism for an overly narrative style, simply dependent on vast research. Left wing critics see him as a conservative because his interpretation is on individual testimony and ‘the random successes of chance events’ rather than the collective actions of the masses’. Others claim he is a revisionist of the revolution who tries to explain its political development in terms of social history.

Referring to MS summary Where and how well is the Understanding of the interpretations demonstrated? Where and how well is there Evaluations of the interpretation demonstrated? Where and how well is Evaluation of the context in which the interpretation was produced demonstrated?