Two important, but simple History EE question

[dkartoleksono]

Hi, umm i need some help with my ee. when i read the markscheme for History EE 2009 session, there is a section whose description is similar to "demonstrate appropriate language to the subject". Is there any history specific terminologies for IB History EE? Oh and is there a need to follow the MLA format of referencing (especially in the footnote), since i followed the footnote from an exemplar, (eg "Nasution, AH. Sekitar Perang Kemerdekaan Indonesia, p 34). Is this ok? or should i change it?

thanks in advance

[Vvi]

Historical terminology probably includes things like "As a result of...", "According to Source B...", "This supports the conclusion of _____ (historian), who argued that...". Just argumentative language.

Historiography (different historical analyses of the situation by historians) and the different schools of thought (if there are any) are what you need for a good History EE. For example, when talking about the Cold War, there are 4 different schools of thought: Orthodox (Russians started the Cold War), Revisionist (Americans started it), Revisionist (Both were to blame) and Real Politik (which says that ideology wasn't important).

You might not be able to find different schools of thought for your issue, especially if it's not a major issue like WWII, but Real Politik can probably be used most times. If there's supposedly an ideological reason for a dictatorship/war, you can always find examples that contradict that. E.g. America attacked Iraq primarily because of ideological reasons, as they didn't believe in the idea of dictatorship and wanted to replace it with democracy. Counter-argument: America attacked Iraq because they were convinced there were nuclear weapons and wanted oil.

And any citation style is fine. I use Chicago Manual, but Turabian, Harvard and MLA are all fine. The IB doesn't care, as long as it's accepted worldwide. Your school might care though, so check with them. Our school only wants Chicago Manual.

[dkartoleksono]

ah i see... thanks for your reply.. one quick question though, for the historiography, do you need to explain the counter argument as well? eg. in your previous example, i can say that "USA invaded Iraq because of ideological reasons, which include, blah blah blah, however, there is a debate over the intention of USA in invading Iraq because of blah blah blah" or should i just state the counterargument without analyzing it?

your help is greatly appreciated, thank you!

[CodeRed15]

[quote name='dkartoleksono' post='33948' date='Jan 18 2009, 10:43 AM']ah i see... thanks for your reply.. one quick question though, for the historiography, do you need to explain the counter argument as well? eg. in your previous example, i can say that "USA invaded Iraq because of ideological reasons, which include, blah blah blah, however, there is a debate over the intention of USA in invading Iraq because of blah blah blah" or should i just state the counterargument without analyzing it?

your help is greatly appreciated, thank you![/quote]

Our teacher said that in the essay, you can either use historiography OR a counter - argument. I'm doing my EE on history too. I think you should pick one of the two. Since historiography strengthens your argument, I don't think you would want to add a counter - argument after it.

[Vvi]

Historiography is basically counter-arguments. All historians disagree with each other.

So if I was doing the Cold War, I would pick about 3 different historians and present each of their arguments. Then provide more evidence for the one that you believe is right, and state that therefore, you believe that this is the main cause for the Cold War. Or, you could combine some of the reasons and say that the two seem equally important.

Historiography is different theories for the same event, but with differing importance as to the main cause. And even if you can't come find historians theories, I'm sure you can still come up with other possible reasons. You should aim to back up your theories with those of historians, but if you can't then just argue for it anyways. Don't leave it out because you can't find someone who thinks like you (unless it's a completely wacky theory about aliens causing WWII. Then there's obviously a reason why no on else has said it before, and why you shouldn't either).

[dkartoleksono]

but my topic is somewhat a niche, hence there arent many historians commenting on the issue. according to Vvi, i just need to include a differing point of view, even if it's not backed up. does that make my essay less persuasive and less scholarly?

[Vvi]

If it's a war or historical event that isn't of global significance, it may not have any historians views. Your topic is to do with Indonesia, right? So unless you can find a local historian who has something to say about it and has published a book that you can quote, there's not much anyone can do for you not having any specific historiography.

If you could find even one book that's been written on it, that would be great. My friend had only one book to use for her history EE on the British mandate in Palestine, it was about some very specific aspect that other historians weren't bothered with.

Otherwise, change your topic if your biggest concern is historians' analysis, and if you're really that worried about it.

[dkartoleksono]

thanks for the fast reply (10 minutes ), umm but it's way too late to change my topic. i only have couple of weeks before the ultimate submission of my EE, so it's out of the viable options. I did though, managed to find some historian comments, mostly from Indonesian source (no language barrier there haha). What if my EE is composed of many analysis, and that analysis was obtained from examining and juxtaposing different sources, which to a certain extent might not be backed up by historians' comments?

[Vvi]

Juxtaposing different sources is what you're supposed to do. That's how you come up with your own thesis argument and demonstrate to the examiner that you know something about what you're writing by analyzing it.

There's a thing called "perfect plagiarism". It's what happens when people use others' analysis only and don't do any of their own. This results in an EE that has every single sentence with a citation at the end. It's plagiarism because you didn't actually do any of your own work. You paraphrased other people's arguments. So if you're coming up with your own analysis, then points for you. That's what you should be doing. Our coordinator told us as a rough guide that there shouldn't be more than 40 citations for an English EE, probably around 60 for a History one (give or take).

If you have 100 citations and have to scroll for pages before you find a sentence you came up with on your own, 1) your EE is too narrative and 2) You need to go think of some things yourself.

So don't worry about not having historians left, right and centre.