The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads This blog is on fire!.

Crunchy numbers

The average container ship can carry about 4,500 containers. This blog was viewed about 18,000 times in 2010. If each view were a shipping container, your blog would have filled about 4 fully loaded ships.

In 2010, there were 7 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 116 posts. There was 1 picture uploaded, taking a total of 43kb.

The busiest day of the year was May 17th with 288 views. The most popular post that day was Would the real Anne Boleyn Please Stand UP?.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were facebook.com, en.wordpress.com, search.aol.com, mycrazyreader.info, and google.com.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for anne boleyn, ann boleyn, anne boleyn pictures, agincourt, and medieval battle.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

Would the real Anne Boleyn Please Stand UP? July 2009
1 comment

‘Historians reassesses the battle of Agincourt’ (New York Times, 24 October 2009) October 2009
1 comment

E.H. Carr on the relationship between Historians and Facts August 2009
4 comments

Sum Up Of My Research June 2009

Tacitus, the Annals, and Agrippina July 2010

1. The critical contributions of Themistocles
2. The official leadership of the Spartans
3. Home ground advantage (i.e. lack of logistical challenge)
4. Greek “unity” and “unity” within Athens
5. The hubris of Xerxes
6. Other comparative factors, such as
   • Armour
   • Terrains

Nearly all ancient sources point to the critical role played by Themistocles’ leadership.  When you are asked to assess any historical characters’ contribution to Greek victory, bear in mind their relative importance in comparison to Themistocles.  An important point to make is that both critical sources and sources relatively sympathetic to him all point to the importance of his leadership in leading Greeks to victory.  Plutarch, for example, was known to be relatively sympathetic towards conservative Athenians.  For him, the likes of Aristides were virtuous heroes, while Themistocles was criticized by his lack of integrity.  Nonetheless, he was willing to concede that without Themistocles’ leadership, the Greek cause would have been doomed.

Themistocles’ contributions can summarised into the following categories.

1. Master strategist
   • He foresaw the coming of the second invasion, and that it would require a sustained sea supply route.  He foresaw the necessity of a powerful Athenian navy to cut off the Persian sea supply route.
   • He also foresaw the importance of Greek unity in resisting the Persian invasion.  His willingness to concede Greek leadership to the Spartans was driven by a strategic need for Greek unity.
2. Political leadership
   • Domestic (Athenian)
     • He overcame domestic resistance to the idea of building a naval fleet.  He engineered the exile of domestic opponents like Aristides who opposed his naval vision.  He tricked the Athenian assembly into building a fleet for the purpose of fighting Aegina.
     • He convinced the people to abandon the city in favour of a battle in Salamis.
   • Greek unity
     • He was willing to concede leadership to the Spartans, in order to preserve some degree of Greek unity.
     • When the Spartans were considering retreating to the Isthumus, he threatened to switch side to the Persians.  His political leadership proved timely prior to the battle of Salamis.
3. Master tactician
   • Critical role at the battle of Artemisium.
   • Critical role at the battle of Salamis.

I shall write without indignation or partisanship; in my case the customary incentives to these are lacking. (Annals, 1.1.)

It seems to me a historians’ foremost duty is to ensure that merit is recorded, and to confront evil words and deeds with the fear of posterity’s denunciations. (Annals, 3.65)

The purpose of this short blog post is not to go over Tacitus’ portrayals of Agrippina.  These can be easily covered by the HSC study notes.  Instead I want to deal with Tacitus’ purpose behind the Annals, thus providing a richer perspective than the usual one-dimensional ‘Tacitus is biased against Agrippina’ argument.

For all the usual complaints against Tacitus, it is important to appreciate that as far as he was concerned, he was writing from a non-partisan perspective.  He claimed to hold no grudges.  However, as the second excerpt clearly illustrates, Tacitus is in fact driven by a strong sense of moral indignation about what he perceived to be the excesses of the imperial system.  He was nostalgic about what he saw as the virtues of republican Rome, and despised how it has fallen to the dictates of the power of an emperor.  He was disgusted with how the Senate had become sycophantic, powerless and corrupt over time.  For Tacitus, dictatorship and moral decline goes hand in hand.  This is how historian Michael Grant explains it,

… when state is unified under an omnipotent ruler, human happiness hangs by a thread.  When the emperor is a bad man, and rules badly, there is misery.  Oppressive rule causes – and is caused by –  moral degeneracy. (Grant, M., Tacitus: The Annals of Rome. Penguin, Harondsworth, 1997.)

It is important to appreciate this point when you examine Tacitus’ portrayal of Agrippina.  For Tacitus, the deeds of Agrippina are merely one of the symbols of the moral degeneracy of the empire.  So regardless of how ‘biased’ Tacitus might be against powerful women or not, Agrippina’s deeds as a power-driven woman was always going to be judged negatively by Tacitus.  For Tacitus, virtuous women are the bonds that held the old republic together, and Agrippina was anything but that.

This leads me to my next point.  Tacitus was a gifted writer, but he tended to cast characters into stagnate molds whose nature remain unchanged.  For instance, Nero was always a violent and morally depraved man whose vices were only held in check when his mother had some degrees of control over him.  Once he came out of her shadows, Nero’s vices knew no bound.  Agrippina was a power-driven woman who would murder and seduce to gain imperial power.  She made up her mind to kill Claudius even before they married.  Character development was not Tacitus’ strong point.

I hope this short blog post has shown there is more than one way to read Tacitus as commonly taught in many high school classes.  Yes, it is true that like many ancient writers, Tacitus came from a patriarchal world and there is no doubt that feminist historians have done much to deconstruct Tactius’ portrayals of the women of imperial Rome.  However, you should also be able to step away from the usual one-dimensional critique of Tacitus and see it from the perspective of the author’s purpose and style.

‘Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes‘ (Washington Post, 18 March 2010)

In New South Wales and to some extent the rest of Australia, the content of Australian history textbooks is often caught up in the broader context of the cultural war between the ‘neo-conservatives’ and the ‘progressives’.  The neo-conservatives in Australia tends to see Australia’s past (and this is admittedly a broad stroke) as a history of triumphal progress, from settlement, exploration to nationhood, world wars and nation-building.  This view has been expressed by historians like Keith Windschuttle and politicians like the former prime minister John Howard.  The progressives, on the other hand, have argued that such view of Australia’s past swept a lot of dark stuff under the carpet, such as massacre and discrimination against Aborigines and white Australia policy, as well as a lot of social history that traditional historians do not focus on, such as women’s history and multiculturalism.  Historians like Stuart McIntyre have been outspoken advocate of such viewpoint, and have been heavily involved in the latest draft of the national curriculum.

Political contest over history is nothing unusual.  However, there are several points that makes the Texan example interesting from an Australian perspective.

Each subject in Texas’s curriculum is revised every 10 years, and the basic social studies framework was introduced by a panel of teachers last year. But the elected state board of education, which is comprised of 10 Republicans and five Democrats, has made more than 100 amendments to the curriculum since January.

In Australia, the Board of Studies is largely a non-partisan statutory body.  Their curriculum is largely informed by professional teaching bodies, such as the NSW History Teachers Association.  There is no doubt that politicians get heavily involved.  For example, one cannot forget the impact of the former NSW premier Bob Carr on the Year 9/10 History syllabus in NSW.  Nonetheless, the input from professional historians is genuine and appears to be well-considered.  However, this article from Washington Post seems to suggest that the changes to the Texan curriculum is overwhelmingly political, and is not largely endorsed by historians or professional bodies.

Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln’s (yes).

Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that “the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.”

The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet involvement in American government.

Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular.

Historians are well-known for disagreeing among themselves, and I am sure the conservatives in America can dig up some historians who can echo their viewpoints of America’s past.  Yet what appears to be quite remarkable from this article is the strength of the consensus among American historians over the proposed changes to Texas’ curriculum.  One cannot help but wonder whether viewpoints of academic historians have been considered by the Texas board of education in their latest amendment to their history curriculum.

This is a summary of the movie which I watched called “Libertarias”, made in 1996, written and directed by Vinvent Aranta.

The movie is set during the Spanish Civil War, it is about a nun who was recruited into an anarchist group run by feminists. The movie reveals the Spanish Civil War through the perspective of a feminist. It explains ideas about revolution and what the group “mujeres libres” believed in.

The Director Vinvent Aranda was born in Barcelona on November 9th 1926. He is one of the most renowned Spanish film directors and is known for exploring difficult social issues.  He came from a big family which took the republican side during the Spanish Civil War. Aranda never finished his studies and began working in film at an early age against the wishes of his family.

That’s my research summed up.

During holidays, I spent a time on reading book “the Anglo-french clash in Lebanon and Syria, 1940-45″, written by A. B. Gaunson, and reading other online sources.

chapter 7 ” the Lebanese crisis” , page 123, had answer   many questions   about french discipline in Lebanon, after the Lebanese government refuse   the  french colonize( for two reasons :1. France became weak country when axis soldiers  arrived to Paris and took over, 2. Lebanon found french rulers did not help Lebanese society)  and Lebanon should get  it’s independence. in the other hand, I found a great source about British perspective about Charles de Gaulle  and his strategy in the Levant, which is even France and British were partner and parts of allies, but they are conflict and had many differences such as British ideology is to use the power more than diplomatic path, french ideology was diplomatic intelligence and Lebanese supporters (by giving special Privileges to the big families ) were better than the military ways.

also, British’s ambitious was to take over all Levant ans special the grand Syria ( Lebanon & Syria ), consider Charles de Gaulle is  the first cause of the Lebanese crisis because he took decisions  the french colonies in the Levant. British had target to get  special  authority in french colonies while free France government  was sick  of axis -  they should  beat Charles de Gaulle and also be supported by Lebanese parts.

Delegate-general Helleu was  an official represented, don’t have any power to make decisions,   just have to obey the orders, this was great British  arguments to attract the Lebanese attention, and get their upheld.But  they have also problem on hide  the Anglo-french clash, because it was the weak point could be useful by the axis and their supporters.

I am proposing that we make a group visit to the library this coming Wednesday.  I suggest that we meet outside Redfern station at 10.30am.  This should give us a chance to borrow some books, return some books, and perhaps touch base as well as discuss.

Please email me (aston.kwok@det.nsw.edu.au) if you can come.  Let me know also if you prefer a different date/time.

• Feminism (in relation to history) can be described as a perspective with which one approaches historical evidence. Feminist history seem to intertwine with other theories or approaches and often involves a combination of two theories (from example the combination of Marxism & Feminism)
• The first objective of feminist historians was to make women visible within history.  History (specifically in modern Europe) has been written through a male perspective as at the time most if not all nations adopted a patriarchal society.
• Women were “hidden from history” and the essay provides a possible reason for this. The passage suggests that women were ignored by historians because they were not seen to be connected with any significant historical aspects of society so women’s contributions were also neglected.
• Another important objective in Feminist Histography is to uncover the lost voices of women throughout history. This is done by researching the history of women and giving them a place in history (“restoring women to history”)
• Feminist histography challenges assumed truths and encourages historians to deconstruct and questions what is known. The introduction of this form of history has assisted in developing a more accurate version of events.
• The essay suggests that there is a connection between social change and the emancipation of women, which seems to be the case in Spain.

In conclusion, Feminist Historaphy challenges the traditional male-centred interpretation of history and encourages historians to reassess assumed truths.

This is my understanding of Feminist Histography so far, I hope to develop it a little further and connect it with the Spanish Civil War.

The book in question is James G Blight, Janet M Lang & David A Welch, Vietnam if Kennedy had lived: Virtual JFK (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2008))

The book is available from the State Library.  It is also available from Amazon.com in Kindle format, and a documentary based on the book has also been made.

Virtual history has had a chequered past.  Many serious historians in the past have dismissed it.  E.H. Carr dismissed counter-factual history as a parlour game.  However, Niall Ferguson has recently revived it as a serious historiographical approach in his book, Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (Basic Books; New edition edition, 2000)

What Vietnam if Kennedy had lived proposes is nothing less than getting close to the noble dream of historiography.  That is, objective understanding of how Kennedy approached the emerging conflict in Vietnam.  In that sense, this book will deserve my time during this coming holiday.

You made a competent attempt at composing a reading list.  It would be more ideal if you had categorise your reading into two.  One would be related to the general aspects of the Spanish Civil War.  The other would relate to the feminist historiography of the Spanish Civil War.

I am somewhat concerned by the shortness of your proposed reading list.  A quick subject search for ‘Spain — History — Civil War, 1936-1939 — Women’ in Sydney University Library yields sixteen books, some of which I know you have borrowed, but you failed to mention them in your proposed reading list.  Not really sure why. I would suggest that you consider including them in your final bibliography.

I have taken the liberty of listing some of these books.

• José Blasco y Pablo Cistué de Castro, A nuestro glorioso ejército y a la España de Franco: recuerdo de un homenaje (Zaragoza : Asociación de la Prensa, 1937) (Fisher Microform   946.081 201)
• Dolores Piera, La aportación femenina en la guerra de la independencia ([Barcelona?] : Ediciones del Departamento de Agitación y Propaganda del P.S.U., [1937]) (Fisher Microform   946.081 201)
• Dolores Ibárruri, Dolores,  Addresses and reports given during the Spanish Civil War [microform] : selected pamphlets (Madrid, etc., 1937-38) (Fisher Microform 946.081 201)
• Comité Nacional de Mujeres Antifascistas de España, Calendario, 1939 (Barcelona : S.G. de P. (E.C.) 1938?) (Fisher Microform 946.081 201)
• Commission d’aide feminine du Ministère de la Défense Nationale de la République Espagnole (Barcelona : S.G. de P. (E.C.) 1938?) (Fisher Microform 946.081 201)
• Consejería Femenina, Consejo Nacional de Educación Física, Cultural y Sanitaria de la Juventud ([Spain?] : Ediciones “Alerta”, 1937) (Fisher Microform: 946.081 201)
• Angela Jackson, British women and the Spanish Civil War (London ; New York : Routledge, 2002) (Fisher Research: 946.081092 17)

Notice that some of them require you to go to the library and access their microform collection.

Also, you will need to have a basic understanding of feminist historiography, which is a different genre from women’s history.  You wouldn’t need to read a book on this, since there are enough internet resources that give you the required basic reading.  If you type ‘feminist historiography’ in the Google search engine, the first search result will be a link to a journal article on feminist historiography in a University of Queensland journal.  The first three paragraphs of that article will give you a pretty good idea.

• Laura Chandler, ‘Feminist Historiography of Early Modern European Women’ (Access: History, Vol.2, No.2), pages 11-20 (http://www.uq.edu.au/access_history/two-two/feminist.pdf)

Your suggested steps are largely satisfactory, although I would prefer that you set clear time goals.  For instance,

• What do you expect to achieve by the middle of the holiday?
• What do you expect to achieve by the end of the holiday?
• What do you expect to achieve by the middle of Term 1?  (Keep in mind, half-yearly is near the end of Term 1.)

My suggestion is that you try to, as quickly as possible, get enough of a decent overview of the Spanish civil War, so that you can free yourself up to focus on the feminist perspectives on the conflict.

With regards to primary sources, I think you should have little problems in locating them.  Many books refer to primary sources.  Female fighters, like their male counterparts, wrote letters home about their experience in war.  One promising source, which you can access directly from Sydney University library, is

• Lois Orr, Letters from Barcelona: an American woman in revolution and civil war (Basingstoke [England] ; New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) (electronic resource from Fisher Library)

You will need your library card to access the book electronically.

Note that the book on your reading list by Gerd-Rainer Horn would contain many extracts from primary sources also.

Mark: 15.5/20