'The topics were the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and the First World War. ... I noticed that these three topics created one story. (Of course they did! That’s what history is about.)'
a) what is the 'one story' that you noticed and, b) why is that what history is about?
Thank you, Tom. I appreciate your reading and your candid responses, even the ones that make me bristle, (especially the ones that make me bristle).
The nitrogen idea is kind of interesting too, no? I’m sure I remember something a bit shady about the explosives maker’s diversification into agro-industry when their market collapsed after the war?
a) I've forgotten so I asked AI and got two stories.
Claude says, "It's essentially about Nitrogen" with an interesting explanation which I'm certain was not the angle of the homework. The Google result was less entertaining but a bit more like it: "The Agricultural Revolution provided the food and labor that built the Industrial Revolution, which in turn provided the machinery and chemical power that defined the First World War."
So ,,, "a web of stories" might be better way to frame it.
b) I should avoid pontificating and express my preference. I find this 'tidal' approach to history more engaging and memorable than the great man theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory)
So the Industrial Revolution was required for the development of the machine gun which then had to be deployed in a world war. Were other developments and outcomes not possible?)
Thanks, David. I apologise for the sweeping nature of my initial response which injected a meaning into your text that wasn't there. And Google's version of the connections seems very plausible.
The 'Great Man's theory of history has long been discredited I understand but may be making a comeback with Trump. Although he, too, seems reined in by economic indicators.
Yes, of course. I think the point I found engaging is that history obviously joins up. Not in predictable ways. (Is that a silly thing to say about history?) That's the natue of complexity. You can't know what will emerge. There's a lot more going on than people taking decisions.
Drifting sounds a bit aimless. Am I not being flexible? I’m still exploring the same territory and I know my map is incomplete. So I’m happy to fill in gaps and correct errors. I don’t want to get dug in defending a position.
Well, you make a statement but when asked to explain/expand on it, you don't, instead shifting ground. So your poor readers don't know how much thought has gone into the initial statement if it can be jettisoned so readily.
The temptation for this reader is to say come back when you have a thesis you have thought through and can defend. Or else, invite people to develop a first draft with you, interactively.
Oh dear! My poor readers! I'm so glad to have any, I certainly don't want to hack them off.
Let me try a thesis I might like to defend.
1. During the course of our lives we develop a way of seeing the world, depending on our background, education, experience and luck. It's a complex process, impossible to predict.
2. The way we see the world may differ from the way the world is. It's easy to forget this. (Hence the importance of opening up our theses to scrutiny!)
3. When we remember the limitations of our knowledge, we may find it easier to engage with others who hold different views. This is the process I'm interested in.
This post is about the development of my world view and its shaky foundations. I suppose I'm not the only one with shaky foundations under my world view so it fits in my Topics 2 (not v good at dealing with complex issues) and 3 (we can get better at this and urgently need to).
You write:
'The topics were the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and the First World War. ... I noticed that these three topics created one story. (Of course they did! That’s what history is about.)'
a) what is the 'one story' that you noticed and, b) why is that what history is about?
Thank you, Tom. I appreciate your reading and your candid responses, even the ones that make me bristle, (especially the ones that make me bristle).
The nitrogen idea is kind of interesting too, no? I’m sure I remember something a bit shady about the explosives maker’s diversification into agro-industry when their market collapsed after the war?
Haha! Thank you, Tom.
a) I've forgotten so I asked AI and got two stories.
Claude says, "It's essentially about Nitrogen" with an interesting explanation which I'm certain was not the angle of the homework. The Google result was less entertaining but a bit more like it: "The Agricultural Revolution provided the food and labor that built the Industrial Revolution, which in turn provided the machinery and chemical power that defined the First World War."
So ,,, "a web of stories" might be better way to frame it.
b) I should avoid pontificating and express my preference. I find this 'tidal' approach to history more engaging and memorable than the great man theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory)
So the Industrial Revolution was required for the development of the machine gun which then had to be deployed in a world war. Were other developments and outcomes not possible?)
Thanks, David. I apologise for the sweeping nature of my initial response which injected a meaning into your text that wasn't there. And Google's version of the connections seems very plausible.
The 'Great Man's theory of history has long been discredited I understand but may be making a comeback with Trump. Although he, too, seems reined in by economic indicators.
Yes, of course. I think the point I found engaging is that history obviously joins up. Not in predictable ways. (Is that a silly thing to say about history?) That's the natue of complexity. You can't know what will emerge. There's a lot more going on than people taking decisions.
You seem to have drifted quite a way from your initial observations.
Drifting sounds a bit aimless. Am I not being flexible? I’m still exploring the same territory and I know my map is incomplete. So I’m happy to fill in gaps and correct errors. I don’t want to get dug in defending a position.
Well, you make a statement but when asked to explain/expand on it, you don't, instead shifting ground. So your poor readers don't know how much thought has gone into the initial statement if it can be jettisoned so readily.
The temptation for this reader is to say come back when you have a thesis you have thought through and can defend. Or else, invite people to develop a first draft with you, interactively.
Oh dear! My poor readers! I'm so glad to have any, I certainly don't want to hack them off.
Let me try a thesis I might like to defend.
1. During the course of our lives we develop a way of seeing the world, depending on our background, education, experience and luck. It's a complex process, impossible to predict.
2. The way we see the world may differ from the way the world is. It's easy to forget this. (Hence the importance of opening up our theses to scrutiny!)
3. When we remember the limitations of our knowledge, we may find it easier to engage with others who hold different views. This is the process I'm interested in.
This post is about the development of my world view and its shaky foundations. I suppose I'm not the only one with shaky foundations under my world view so it fits in my Topics 2 (not v good at dealing with complex issues) and 3 (we can get better at this and urgently need to).