| University of Tennessee-Knoxville | Dr. Robert Stolz |
History 476 - Fall 2007 |
2829 Dunford Hall - 6F |
Office Hours: M 1-3pm |
|
rstolz@utk.edu |
|
Course Description
HIST 476: Remembering the Asian-Pacific War (1931-45) This course will examine how memory either constructs and authorizes or conceals and represses specific histories. In exploring the politics of remembering and forgetting we will also pay attention to the ethical burden placed on the writing of history, especially as it pertains to trauma and atrocity in the Asian-Pacific war from 1931-45. The course will be divided into three parts. Part I will look at theoretical and conceptual questions of history and memory. Part II will include looks at issues such as the Nanking Massacre, sexual slavery, and colonialism. Part III will be an extended look at both the history and historical memory of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a special emphasis on public commemoration struggles in Japan and the United States. This is not a course on the war itself. If you feel weak in this area, a list of background reading will be available. |
Course Objectives
This course is likely different from many history courses you may have had in the past. We will spend a great deal of time on questions of historical narrative, interpretation, facts, memory, as well as history's ethical challenges. In some ways, for many of these issues there may be no absolutely right answer. Even so, the issues of war, history, and memory are pressing ones that demand some kind of response. At the end of the course you should not only be able to appreciate the depth and complexities of the questions we face, but you will also be required to take a intellectually informed personal stand in a student-devised project that neither glosses over the complexity nor retreats to pure relativism. You should also be familiar with the different “work” that our different categories of analysis can do. The other goal of this course is to help you learn to think historically. Below are some general historical skills you will learn in this course: |
|
Interpreting historical sources—mainly texts but also artifacts, art, etc.—as evidence to make an argument about what happened in the past. History is imagination disciplined by evidence and cogent explication. Historians want to know not only what happened, but how, and occasionally, why. Analyzing historical sources on their own terms. This means avoiding anachronism, projecting our present into the past, and teleology, which means seeing the present as the inevitable result of the past—this slights real historical struggles and reduces past actors to merely ” keeping appointments”. Every human society, past and present, has its own values and ways of thinking—often different from our own. In our case, this is further complicated by studying a non-Western nation where it is often inappropriate to project our “common sense” onto the motivations of the historical actors: When Oshio Heihachirô rebelled in 1837 his banners did not read “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” but rather, “Sincerity—Truthfulness.” You must learn to read analytically to identify these terms and then determine what those terms meant to him and his contemporaries. |
Exercising critical judgment about what you read and hear. “Critical judgment” does not mean being negative. Rather, it means that you should always weigh and consider the validity of what you are being told, in terms of factuality, strength of argument, and possible biases. It is not enough to merely identify a bias; you must still look at historical sources like legal testimony and judge how and why it is, or is not, convincing. Evaluating the work. Give your thoughts on the pros and cons of the text’s arguments. Does it have any factual errors? False assumptions? Does the conclusion follow from the premises? What issues does it address and what issues does its language ignore? Creating “historical knowledge.” Themes and concepts like “modernity,” “nationalism,” and “colonialism/imperialism” are developed through historical investigation in a way that they would not be in fields like economics or law (though they may have some things in common with philosophy or literature). |
| To reach these goals, you will have to engage in active learning. You will not only be asked to read and understand, but to apply those skills to analyzing, interpreting, and, finally, evaluating both primary and secondary sources. You will have to demonstrate these skills by critiquing primary and secondary sources and communicating your interpretation clearly in writing. | |
| Important This method requires that you make a temporarily sympathetic reading of the text. Since we are going to be reading texts that are sometimes in favor of war, colonialism, racism, or sexism this temporary moment can be offensive to many readers. In these cases it is important to keep in mind the difference between being descriptive and being prescriptive. We need this temporary sympathy if we wish to offer a more complete and convincing critique of not only the author’s conclusion, but also the categories, structure, and assumptions. If in class discussions or lectures you are ever unclear if someone is being descriptive or prescriptive please stop and ask. |
|
| Tips for Success: When reading primary sources, keep in mind all these authors are writing because they feel some sense of crisis so your first step should be to identify this crisis; second, identify the author’s concepts and categories and their relation to each other. (In the interpretation of historical sources, it is rare that an opinion depends solely on factual details). Reading for categories is difficult because the author may not always explicitly announce them—or may even consciously hide them. Very few examples are as straightforward as Oshio Heihachirô marching about with a flag and shouting “Sincerity—Truthfulness!” |
| Important This method requires that you make a temporarily sympathetic reading of the text. Since we are going to be reading texts that are sometimes in favor of war, colonialism, racism, or sexism this temporary moment can be offensive to many readers. In these cases it is important to keep in mind the difference between being descriptive and being prescriptive. We need this temporary sympathy if we wish to offer a more complete and convincing critique of not only the author’s conclusion, but also the categories, structure, and assumptions. If in class discussions or lectures you are ever unclear if I am being descriptive or prescriptive please stop me and ask. |
Requirements and Grading Grading On the “A” Grade Late Policy Academic Integrity |
Required Texts Le Goff,
History and Memory |