History 307

Yes, this post is very, very late.  This is what I get for accepting a full-time job with one week left in the semester.  I will enjoy my brain wasting away in the depths of the Census bureaucracy this summer.

Anyways…I’m quite encouraged by Dr. Sacco’s discussion with us.  I’ll have to put on some thick armor for the defense, but I’ m rather confident in my ideas.  The research is a little worrisome, especially since Sacco wants us to “put our hands on paper.”  I mean, most of the papers I’ll be looking at are online (minus Tyler, whose are in a two-volume set in Special Collections), most of the newspapers will be online, and the popular magazines I’ll have access to from the nineteenth century are online.  I’m wondering what I can do with the stuff in archives close to us that will be relevant.  Perhaps the Jackson letters will be enough..I know part of my paper will be his perspective on Tyler’s presidency.

I really enjoyed digging into the Nullfication Crisis, even though I won’t be using it for my thesis.  It gives a deep perspective on Southern thought in antebellum America, especially how they defended and even ignored the impact of slavery on their lives.  In my primary document, Calhoun goes so far as to call it “peculiar labor,” which is absolutely ridiculous when part of his argument is that Northern businessmen are treating Southern plantantion owners as “serfs of the system.”  Overall, the conspiratorial tone of these documents is on par with some milder conspiracy theory stuff out there today.  Some of the Southern politicians thought that Northerners wanted to destroy their lives and make them slaves.

I am happy that the magazine articles are easy to find, especially Niles Quarterly Review.  It is one of the more valuable sources of public thought I’ll have since the newspapers of the time were almost always partisan papers. Of course, filing through 1100 magazines will be “fun” and “exciting”, but I think its much better than not having access to the information at all.  And with that, adios for the summer!

Yes, this post is very, very late.  This is what I get for accepting a full-time job with one week left in the semester.  I will enjoy my brain wasting away in the depths of the Census bureaucracy this summer.

Anyways…I’m quite encouraged by Dr. Sacco’s discussion with us.  I’ll have to put on some thick armor for the defense, but I’ m rather confident in my ideas.  The research is a little worrisome, especially since Sacco wants us to “put our hands on paper.”  I mean, most of the papers I’ll be looking at are online (minus Tyler, whose are in a two-volume set in Special Collections), most of the newspapers will be online, and the popular magazines I’ll have access to from the nineteenth century are online.  I’m wondering what I can do with the stuff in archives close to us that will be relevant.  Perhaps the Jackson letters will be enough..I know part of my paper will be his perspective on Tyler’s presidency.

I really enjoyed digging into the Nullfication Crisis, even though I won’t be using it for my thesis.  It gives a deep perspective on Southern thought in antebellum America, especially how they defended and even ignored the impact of slavery on their lives.  In my primary document, Calhoun goes so far as to call it “peculiar labor,” which is absolutely ridiculous when part of his argument is that Northern businessmen are treating Southern plantantion owners as “serfs of the system.”  Overall, the conspiratorial tone of these documents is on par with some milder conspiracy theory stuff out there today.  Some of the Southern politicians thought that Northerners wanted to destroy their lives and make them slaves.

I am happy that the magazine articles are easy to find, especially Niles Quarterly Review.  It is one of the more valuable sources of public thought I’ll have since the newspapers of the time were almost always partisan papers. Of course, filing through 1100 magazines will be “fun” and “exciting”, but I think its much better than not having access to the information at all.  And with that, adios for the summer!

Well its finals week now and to catch up on last week discussion I thought I go ahead and have one more post. I enjoyed Dr. Sacco's visit - it cleared up things over the thesis paper for next year. Not sure if I'll be doing it but I know if I do decide to continue history honors that I need to come up with a topic and question before August rolls around. No matter what topic anyone one of us chooses, online archives - even the Tennessee Virtual Archive - will be of value to us in our research and writing. While I have mentioned writing on the Civil War in Eastern Kentucky as a possible topic - if I do take 407, I'll be focused on Northern Ireland. I know that access to sources located nearby will be difficult but so would writing on a war that happened more than a century and a half ago in a ignored and then largely illiterate part of the country.

Hope everyone has an awesome summer and continues to consume a healthy dose of history during our break. Keep on making (or reading) history. - Andrew

A few thoughts on what’s to come + a relevant link:

I was actually more reassured than intimidated by Dr. Sacco’s visit and talking about next year as well. (Except for the defending the thesis part, like Drew. I think I will need to invest in some of the full armor or at least a noticeably thicker skin.) But overall, I’m actually looking forward to it.

All things considered, I’m more concerned with the research than the writing. I have full faith that once the research is done, patterns and themes will emerge and I’ll be able to organize them, and the paper will essentially write itself. (My job will be adding the footnotes.)

What can I say, I’m an optimist.

But the research part is a little scary, in part because I’m still not entirely sure where I should be looking. I have a few starting points, but they all seem to be pointing in different directions at times. I guess this summer will be my opportunity to just pick a path and start walking, and turn around if I hit a dead end. I figure if I get into it early, I’ll have time for a couple of false starts. And Dr. Sacco has also assured me that the paper does not have to be anything earth-shattering in the end, and it may be that I end up writing on something a little different than what I set out to do, and that won’t be the end of the world. It’s a good thing to believe.

In a way I can’t believe we’re already at the end of the semester. It has definitely been a learning experience for me (and sometimes a humbling one) but I’m overall excited about what’s coming next. And I hope that most of you are too, so that there will be ample other people to discuss dead ends and stumbling blocks and general panic with next year, because misery loves company.

On that note, an article that popped up on my browser this evening about Stephen Ambrose that also mentioned Michael Bellesiles: kind of a final warning about the importance of documenting sources, and you know, not making things up:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100426/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1787

…Of at the semester anyway.  We still have a long way to go to complete the thesis work required and Dr. Sacco definitely made me feel a little more at ease about next semester.  The defend your thesis part worried me a little, because I know there are so many more experts that are far more knowledgeable of our topics  that might try and literally destroy our papers after we get to the end.  I am looking forward  to meeting with my faculty member who will help me complete the process.  I spoke with him last week and we are meeting soon to try get a more detailed topic for me to address.

As I was searching for an online primary source for our final assignment, I was really glad to see how easy is it access the information thanks to internet.  Granted we still have to do the research and find the documents, but I would hate to be doing this class without the  internet like in the old days.  The archive searches kept making me think about other topics I could use as my thesis, which kept delaying my last paper because I would start looking at something else instead of what originally was searching for.

This semester has laid a great foundation for the work to be done over the course of the Fall and Spring and I am anxious to complete the process.  This summer I hope to get some of my research out of the way.

As someone else said, it was unclear whether we were supposed to blog this week since there were no readings, but given that we had class and had an interesting discussion about things we should all be thinking about, I'm going to assume we are.

Following the discussion from last Wednesday's class, I'm going to write about where I'm at concerning a topic for my thesis project (assuming I decide to go ahead with it).

When I first signed up for this class, I assumed my project would be something about post-WWII labor and economic history. I was interested in the shift from economic upsurge in the 50s and 60s to economic decline since the mid 70s, and particularly in the role that the move toward a more finance-dominated economy played in this change. In one sense, my topic has grown more specific: I've narrowed in on the 1970s as my period of interest given the immense significance of that decade as a transitional period in the US in many ways.

But in other ways I've just grown more uncertain. I've realized how difficult it is to find a way to make large-scale financial history an appropriate field for a 30-40 page research project without having more than a cursory familiarity with statistical economics. Maybe the solution is to focus on a specific institution, but how to choose one and how to relate it to my broader interests is equally unclear. Furthermore, I've become more and more interested in exploring the intersectionality between financial institutions and racial issues, for example the ways that financial domination of the economy has limited access to economic advancement for people of color, as well as the ways that financial tools like debt have been used to shape urban (and national) geographies along racial lines. But once again, sorting through all of this to find a workable thesis topic is daunting.

As a secondary choice for topic, I've considered doing something in labor history, specifically something in the southeast in the 70s. As Dr. Sacco mentioned during our last class, this was the period when industry began moving to the South (both the southern US and the global south) as part of the process of neoliberalization and union-busting, and this had huge significance for labor in both North and South. It would be much easier to find a workable topic along these lines, and even to include race or gender issues. And, given that I'm likely to have a career working in labor in the south, it seems a fitting topic. For some reason, though, the other topical area just seems more interesting to me...but maybe that's shortsightedness.

From my short time in looking for primary sources to write about, it has been exciting and frustrating.  Exciting because the more work I do, the more interesting events I learn about that while they may not involve the Teamsters, still involve unions and race relations.  But it can also be frustrating as an event may seem significant but only has a quick brief on it and nothing else.  Also as I am quickly realizing, there just isn’t much involving the Teamsters Union in the South in the 1930s.  At that point, the Teamsters was still a mostly northern union that had yet to launch its nationwide consolidation campaign.  So while the Teamsters may not be an option if I want to focus on the 1930s, there are plenty of other unions like the AFL and longshoremen unions.  Reading through the Chicago Defender is quite fascinating because as a black newspaper, there are plenty of articles on race issues that would not be covered otherwise.  It also illustrates how certain unions are viewed and just how engrained discriminatory practices are at unions like the AFL.  I came across an article blasting the AFL’s leader for passing yet another worthless resolution against discrimination at the yearly convention, calling it a “farce” and saying he will forget about it for the next 12 months like he does every year.  Some of the articles deal with issues I do not have an interest in but are nevertheless still great to read.  So through my primary source research, it seems if I want to do a prewar look at union race relations, the Teamsters will not be involved.  So during the summer I will have to do some more research deciding if I want to stick with the Teamsters but in the 1950s or skip them and move to the 1930s with a different union.  That seems to be my problem at this moment because I certainly would like to study the Teamsters yet would prefer to study an earlier decade.  Hopefully I can come across some primary sources that can help me make a decision between now and when I come back here in August.  The reassuring thing is that there certainly appears to be plenty of specific issues in either direction but nothing overwhelming yet.  Still, my interest continues to grow.

I am not completely sure if we are responsible for a blog post this week, but the syllabus does say we need to post twelve blogs. If this is the case, I still have to post 2 more after completing this one. If am wrong, feel free to clarify this issue for me.

This weeks class could be described as gearing up for the long haul. I feel as if Dr. Sacco could have easily scared several people from completing this honors program. When I decided to enter the history honors program, I was fully aware that it was going to become difficult with time. Honestly, I thought that history 307 was going to be more difficult. All in all, Dr. Sacco was very informative about what we are going to be facing in the next year of our academics. I am fully dedicated to completing this and look forward to the challenge.

I also think Dr. Sacco brought up a good point about my perspective topic. While I am honing in on the 1960s Vietnam War protest in the Knoxville area, it might be worth while to look in to possible race relations at this time as well. For instance, was the historically black Knoxville College more prone to protest than the historically white UTK. I think this is a very worthwhile challenge. Currently, I am hoping I can easily find a professor who thinks these topics are as interesting as I do.

The main problem presented is the finding of sources. Are the Knoxville are archives going to suffice for my information? I would think they probably would. I am also hoping the UTK special collections are going to be of assistance to my topic.

In class we also discussed the importance of backing up our files. The immediately makes me think of the horror stories we read in Historians in Trouble. I think backing up one’s files is merely a task most everyone should do upon completing any assignment of any significance. When it can be as easily done as purchasing and using a flash drive, there is no excuse to not back up your files. The digital pictures that Dr. Black showed were also eye-opening. Utilizing a digital camera in the archives, with no flash, may eventually become a very important tool. 

Like Alex, I’m not sure how I could write a full-length post about Che without getting repetitive and stating the obvious multiple times, so instead I’m taking my favorite frustrating approach of asking questions I have no real way of answering. (This may also be a plot to distract from the fact that i totally forgot to blog until twenty minutes ago.)

We’ve talked a lot about the responsibilities of historians in class, from “not plagiarizing” to “not displaying bias and/or altering the historical record to further your own ideology.” But the frustration of the redacted files got me thinking about other responsibilities: responsibilities to historians.

Obviously, some information has to remain classified and restricted, particularly during wartime or if it involves sensitive materials. (Some of you may remember that many of the Abu Ghraib photos were not published because of their upsetting nature and fears that they would incite even more violence.) Then there are files that are delayed for a period of time after their collection or the end of whatever project or subject matter is addressed; six months or seventy years, it’s still a long time.

But do governments or other organizations have a responsibility to keep records? And then to release them when it’s politically feasible? (Does the Bush administration have a right to destroy email records?) Should they be held accountable to historians and political scientists or ethnographers as well as to courts of law? Should we be frustrated that FOIA records are so incomplete and redacted, or should we be grateful to have access to anything? Both?

How are we supposed to represent historical truth when faced with such incomplete and contradictory information?

I intended to write about Che and last week's discussion, but thinking about it I found I just don't have that much to say that wouldn't be forced and redundant. I agree with some of the sentiments expressed in other folks' posts about it being disturbing and frustrating that these (finally unclassified) documents are still heavily censored with black marking and so on. I just don't think I can write a whole post about this.

What I've been thinking about more is the thesis project, graduate school, and next year's research, and so, following Kat, I want to talk about that.

First, graduate school. For a long time I've been moving back and forth on whether I want to go to graduate school and hopefully end up in academia. I've always seen a lot of pros and cons. On the plus side, a tenure-track position is relatively stable and relatively well-paying (especially after tenure). It would allow me a career exploring the things that interest me, and the idea of teaching college level courses is appealing to me. I enjoy reading and writing and so on and I think I'm at least fairly good at these things. But there are a lot of negatives too--tenure-track jobs are becoming increasingly hard to find; five or more years of graduate school does not sound at all appealing when I'm already totally burned out on school; I don't really like the idea of spending many years on a single topic and researching it exhaustively.

Recently, I think I've become fairly confident that I don't want to be a professional academic. The deciding factor in my mind at this point is simply that the life of academia no longer seems very appealing to me. I don't want to be sucked into a world that prioritizes professional standards and institutional correctness above social change and the freedom to explore life. I'm not necessarily saying that these things should not be prioritized in academia (actually, I guess I am, but I don't mean to imply that rigorous standards for research are not important), just that that life doesn't appeal to me. I want to be able to go where I want and do what I want, and have the flexibility to change my mind about how I live my life and make a living at any given time. I don't want to be stuck into a life-long path that is, in its basic structure, pre-determined.

I've always had artistic aspirations as a musician, and recently in film, that I might pursue, but realistically those things are not likely to blossom into a career. More likely I will end up doing rank and file work for a labor union, or staffing for a political organization.

But if I'm not going to graduate school, where does that leave me as far as this research project? I expect I'm not the only one in this class who intends to finish this project but not to enter academia as an historian, and I would like to hear thoughts from others in this camp about why we're doing it. Is it just for our own satisfaction? I think there's definitely some personal benefits to doing this research and finishing a fairly large-scale writing project, but are they great enough to cause us to spend a year of our time devoted to doing it? Or is the reason for doing it primarily to prove credentials--to add to a resume so to speak? I'm trying to figure out what situation this credential would be beneficial in outside of applications to graduate schools in the liberal arts and I'm sortof drawing a blank. Maybe the reason I'm doing it is just because I don't want to eliminate for myself the choice of applying to graduate school at a later time.

I'm not sure of the answers partly because I'm not sure exactly what kind of commitment this will be. I don't really have a clear idea of how many hours per week of my time this research will consume, how much stress it will add to my life. I'm already sacrificing a course I really want to take because it's taught at the same time as the class meeting time for the 407 class, and increasing the overall courseload I have to take next year by at least three credit hours, maybe six. It would be nice to be able to breeze through my last year of school without any major academic stresses, only taking the courses I want to be taking (which I would be able to do since the only requirements I have left to take are within my majors/minor). I've flirted with the idea of dropping the 407 courses, but shied away from it because it somehow seems like giving up or 'chickening out.' But if I can't figure out exactly why I need to write a 40 page research paper, is there anything wrong with not writing it? Maybe I just don't want to be an undistinguished UT graduate without anything special to show for my time as an undergraduate.

Week 13

After attending the Orange and White game Saturday to watch Dooley’s squad, I have to say the team performed offensively, as I expected which was bad.  I expected this because of a whole new system with just a few starters from last year.  The reviews were mixed and it was interesting to hear the local sportscasters say it was a good day for the new team, but then the regional sports reporters say the team looked bad.  A fan near me got mad about how a certain player dropped two balls, but there was another fan that defended this player, I later found out the fan defending the player was his father.  The point I am trying to make is biases are everywhere and happen every day.   I have noticed myself as the semester has progressed becoming more and more aware of biases and trying to more objectively discover what the real meaning behind things are.  While I was reading the Che Guerava documents, it was very frustrating that some of the words and sentences were hidden. All semester long we have been on a quest for historical accuracy, and when things are blotted out it impedes our search.  Che was unique in that he moved around to different countries to try and start a revolution, which struck fear in the hearts of the United States government and agencies.  These documents were very interesting read about and the timeline definite aided my reading.  Topics like Che have helped to broaden my historical perspective.  I began to think about previous History classes that I have taken, even all the way back to high school and how some professors let their own bias’ influences their lectures.  I continue to research various topics for my thesis and try to remain objective when my pre conceived ideas are brought into question.

The whole time I read the documents from the “Death of Che Guevara” vault at George Washington University’s National Security Archive one phrase kept entering my mind over and over from another prophet who was killed for his revolutionary ideas, although be it peaceful ones: “live by the sword, die by the sword”. I believe Che often thought long and hard over those very words. From what the documents show and the mentality expressed by Che at the time of his death, Che knew exactly his fate and I believe it was one he had chosen for himself. In a world that is too often diluted with endless entertainment, pleasure, and hypocrisies Che’s death suited a man of his caliber and authenticity perfectly.  Satre once said that Che “was the most complete human-being of our age.” In my opinion, and whether you agree with his politics or not, this still reigns true. Che’s death was perhaps mercy for a revolutionary of his stature. Perhaps he too would have fallen to the Soviet-model or worse yet the true death nail to any revolutionary, revisionism and moderation. If Che had grown old, many in the “West” may have written him off as a has-been, a wash-up, a faded flag of revolution, but instead Che died on his feet; literally.

In his death Che has been a key inspiration to communist, nationalist, anarchist, and revolutionaries of all types. Through Guerrilla Warfare Che has given inspiration to countless warriors against oppression, whether they’ve put his words into action or have just held them in the hearts, Che has been the spiritual leader of revolution for over fifty years and will be for many years to come. Like Marion, Giap, Gelayev, and Mao, Che showed that the classic style of conventional warfare, with its seemingly endless supplies, political pawnbroking, and a-typical tactics could be defeated by bands of men, and women, whose dedication far outweighed there abilities, and could defeat and cripple the most powerful of adversaries. These ideas and practices that Che epitomized give testament to the legacy and to the man Che Guevara was.

In my opinion, I’m not so sure a man like Che could have realized his potential as he did had he lived in a post-Cold War world. The romanticism and passion Che expressed for revolution long out lived most of the revolutions of the 1960′s. This old-vanguard style of intellectual militancy, now a days, would sadly be lumped into our post-modern newspeak “War on Terror”. Today’s political-economic-military climate would have not given Che justice as a man of the people and would have simply made him into a tug of terror. Che’s death marked the end of classical revolutionary types, but like I’ve said before has been the catalyst in which all revolutionaries, peaceful or militant aspire to: total revolution – no peace for them until we have peace for ourselves.

Last week for class we read various government documents concerning the capture and death of Che Guevara that been partially de-classified from the National Security Archives. In class we read over the documents, contrasted them, and a created a time line and story based on the information given in the documents. While some details have been clearly left out or aren't clear due to conflicting versions presented in the documents, a basic story of Che's death can be told. This shows that even with a sizable number of primary sources including accounts by those who were at the communist revolutionary's execution, the entire "truth" can't always be pin pointed.

What was so interesting in the documents was the United States' involvement and more importantly attempts by some American authorities to keep Che alive. Exactly who gave the order for his killing is not known for instance even though the CIA had previously stated they wanted him alive. With the photo of Che's body with two American agents, we were asked whether historians should take a ethical stand. I say they should but am learly of applying it to Che's death. I see nothing immoral in his capture and death - leaving dictatorships and shadowy killings of others aside. Historians should write an objective understanding of Che and if they choose to write through the filter of morality, they should take in account greater contexts and Che's record of involving himself in other countries' internal affairs and killing of prisoners. After all his business was killing so it came with the territory that people would likewise repay the favor.

We concluded class a couple of days ago with the question of ethical duty to history. We asked if certain topics require an ethical stand. I said that if nothing else, it would be more entertaining to have an ethical position. That got an eyebrow, but I think that if I explain the way I feel about historical duty more fully, it may not.

I view history as a tool for understanding the present, albeit a circumlocutory one, at times. Understanding more, hopefully, will lead to better decisions, which will be judged ethically. There are two keys to writing history relevant here, then. First, the historian much approach his material honestly. (Duh.) This means that any argument, however polemical, must account for as many facts and opposing interpretations as possible. Second, he must engage the reader of history. With engagement comes useful knowledge and understanding.

An ethical position is one way to encourage such active reading. Take Jon Wiener’s book from earlier this semester as an example. He could have presented the same set of cases and drawn the same conclusions without recommending certain changes and ethical standards. Though his book concerns our times, he could have avoided anchoring it in the present, drawing our attention to our responsibility. However, without this polemical stance, it would have taken more effort to for us enter the debate. This would have been contrary to his specific objectives of raising awareness, encouraging debate, and changing historiographical standards. Thus, an ethical stance was one effective way to engage the reader.

This is a question of audience. He wrote history to directly encourage action. If he had been writing to establish what happened in order to come to a more thorough understanding of the past, a more detached analysis would have been preferable. His audience would have been academics, his venue a journal. Sparking their interest would have been unnecessary; the topic would have been their field.

However, that is not to say that a general audience requires an ethical stand. Many times it would detract from the focus of the argument. Remote historical topics, such as the ways Classical thought influenced our Founding Fathers, are a perfect example. The people concerned had vastly different cultural values, stores of knowledge, and historical contexts. Applying our own ethical standards to such distant time is notoriously slippery. The place for ethical commentary in this case would be somewhere like the epilogue or the introduction, given that ethical lessons for our time would not be related to the subject as directly as in something like Wiener’s book.

So, the question of ethical commitment depends on three factors: the subject, the reader, and the goal of the work. If an ethical stand is relevant to the goal of the work, appropriate for the readership, and connected to the subject, it is perhaps appropriate in order to attain the ultimate goal of sparking a critical debate.

I forgot to actually put this online last week:

In our previous class we touched on language’s limits. Diaz del Castillo’s first sight of Tenochtitlan was the instance that perked my ears. He could only describe the city, first, in Spanish, and, second, in the ideas that Spaniards possessed. In some sense, he might have conveyed the meaning of the ‘cities’ and ‘villages’, ‘roads’ and ‘cues‘ accurately. Spaniards could understand, roughly, what he meant. Yet, he could not possibly have touched the meaning these objects had for the Aztecs. As we discussed in class, ‘road’ would conjure completely different images for the Spanish than Diaz del Castillo saw. Yet, even if he had enumerated all possible differences–materials, color, width, curvature, and on–he would still not have approached the meaning of their native word for the same object.

Can the English word ‘road’ as used in America today be rendered in another language and retain its gas stations and Holiday Inns, Kerouac and McCarthy? It does not even connote these things in England where they speak the ‘same’ language. The objects associated with this thing, and give it meaning, are not the same. Neither does it exist in the same web of words. ‘Hit the road’ is a distinctly American idiom. As a result, ‘hit’ is not associated with ‘road’ in England in the same way it is here. Gulfs even exist in America from one subculture to another, as a previous post wrote.

If these are the barriers contemporary language places between us and meaning, how are we ever to write about the past? Diaz del Castillo was one degree removed the Aztecs’ conceptions. Then, Spanish changed over several hundred years as the technology developed, as cars replaced the horse, and on. Then, someone translated the document into English. Finally, we read it. Consequently, I don’t think I have the slightest clue about what he was actually talking about.

I have not taken post-structuralist critiques of history all that seriously. We read about them in class and saw how they effected writing historiography. I think I understand the thrust of their ideas and the response to their concerns: well, what do you want us to do about it? In essence, I’m agreeing with both parties, accepting the critique’s legitimacy while acting otherwise. The distance between us and the past is huge, but I think it’s too much to say that we aren’t interacting with it at all. Thus, we still write history.

(Side note: I was talking to a math major friend, and they operate in the same way. For instance, pi can exist theoretically, but not in reality. Yet, the most complex sciences need it to mathematically describe things that exist in reality.)

In a practical sense, though, I’m a bit worried about how well I’ll be able comprehend the primary sources I use for this senior thesis. So much lies in subtlety and in references much more local than I will probably understand. Just getting at their general ideas seems like a problem, much less the values and other abstractions that lie under the surface of language. If grasping this subtlety is what truly great historians do so well and if they achieve this only through many years of long days, I’m a little frightened for the possible limits on my work.

One aspect of the Che documents that we did not discuss in class is the motivations of the different organizations within the US government that were involved in the death of Che.  Clearly, the State Department was in favor of keeping Guevara alive in order to get information from him and keep him from being a martyr.  Some of the State Department documents suggest that they saw the Communist revolutions as a way to keep the peaceful, Soviet-sponsored local Communist parties from gaining strength, since many nationalists would be drawn to the revolutionaries.  The Army officials seem to have few interests besides stopping the insurgency in Bolivia and capturing the Cubans behind it.

The CIA’s motives in the Guevara murder are strangely conflicting.  On one hand, Felix Rodriguez was told to do everything in his power to capture Che and keep him alive, and he acted upon these orders in Bolivia when he asked the Bolivian officers to spare Che’s life due to the orders he received from the United States government.  On the other hand, the Bolivian officers got an order to kill Che over the radio from an unidentified source, and it can be assumed that the officers would not be confused if it were a Bolivian official that they normally received orders from.  Thus, this could indicate that the CIA changed their mind and ordered the killing, or it could indicate that there were several factions within the Bolivian government that wanted to see Guevara dead notwithstanding the Americans’ opinion.

These documents show some of the problems in dealing with government sources.  Names are redacted to protect people who committed illegal activities.  Also, Felix Rodriguez’s deposition was taken during a Congressional investigation into international assassinations, so he had a motive to make his actions and those of other operatives appear in the best light possible.  Overall, it is hard to tell whether the government as a whole would have preferred to see Che alive or dead.  The State Department saw value in keeping him alive for geopolitical purposes, but this might not have overcome the desire of many to kill an ideological enemy.

the events leading up to Che Guevara's death are quite interesting. the acts seem very covered and many of the documents are covered with whited- out and blacked-out areas which conceal much of the, possibly, most important information as to what occurred. the things which are revealed are quite interesting in the way in which the US operatives cut off Che's hands to prove it was actually him when they caught him. burying Che in a mass grave to avoid seemed an effective tactic to avoid a martyrs grave and pilgrimage site. though eventually Che was later exhumed and reburied by the government under control of Fidel Castro, the time period between the death and reburial however allowed time for the glory and heroic view of Che to wear off enough for him to no longer be a threat or a rallying point. the picture showed in class was quite amusing because it looked as if it would have been taken directly out of an eighties espionage flick. both men looked like stereotypical "spooks" one in foreign military drab and the other in a white pressed shirt and sunglasses. they may have blended in their era but due to Hollywood's portrayals they stick out like a sore thumb. the events leading up to the actions and death of Che are very muddled and confusing, especially with the withdrawn information. it is difficult to get a full view of what may have occurred. it seems the biggest scare from the existence of Che was that unlike Mao or Lenin he did not aim to convert merely one nation. he was a professional revolutionary, moving from country to country trying to incite revolution. the fear of communism which swept through the United States during the time gave more than enough reason for those in charge to go after a revolutionary whom was not loyal to a single country but to the cause in a broader aspect. he danger from such an individual can be extensive when he holds a view opposite to what u believe in.

the events leading up to Che Guevara's death are quite interesting. the acts seem very covered and many of the documents are covered with whited- out and blacked-out areas which conceal much of the, possibly, most important information as to what occurred. the things which are revealed are quite interesting in the way in which the US operatives cut off Che's hands to prove it was actually him when they caught him. burying Che in a mass grave to avoid seemed an effective tactic to avoid a martyrs grave and pilgrimage site. though eventually Che was later exhumed and reburied by the government under control of Fidel Castro, the time period between the death and reburial however allowed time for the glory and heroic view of Che to wear off enough for him to no longer be a threat or a rallying point. the picture showed in class was quite amusing because it looked as if it would have been taken directly out of an eighties espionage flick. both men looked like stereotypical "spooks" one in foreign military drab and the other in a white pressed shirt and sunglasses. they may have blended in their era but due to Hollywood's portrayals they stick out like a sore thumb. the events leading up to the actions and death of Che are very muddled and confusing, especially with the withdrawn information. it is difficult to get a full view of what may have occurred. it seems the biggest scare from the existence of Che was that unlike Mao or Lenin he did not aim to convert merely one nation. he was a professional revolutionary, moving from country to country trying to incite revolution. the fear of communism which swept through the United States during the time gave more than enough reason for those in charge to go after a revolutionary whom was not loyal to a single country but to the cause in a broader aspect. he danger from such an individual can be extensive when he holds a view opposite to what u believe in.

At the end of class, we discussed where everyone was on their thesis topics.  It seems most have changed what they said they were planning to do on the first day of class.  I know I changed, from early American history to labor union history in the Southeast.  Finding a topic to research and write about is probably the most difficult thing to do.  At the start of the semester, I had no idea what I wanted to do so I said early American history because I had been looking into Alejandro O’Reilly, the governor of Louisiana in the mid-1700s.  But that wasn’t very feasible as one of the things I am looking for in a topic is relatively easy access to the sources/archives I would be using.  That’s why I am limiting myself to the Southeast although more precisely, probably just Tennessee.  Now moving from colonial history to labor history seems like a strange leap to make but it really had to do with the first paper in this class.  I had no idea where to get anything on Alejandro O’Reilly so I decided to use a book I had read previously a year and a half ago, one on the Teamsters.  It was one my mom recommended as probably the best book she read on union expansion as she studied labor relations in graduate school.  While I ended up using a different book on the Teamsters for that paper since it was far more recent, my interest in that topic was confirmed.  Reading that book and the journal article, I learned two important things.  First, there just isn’t much written on labor union history and that it is a topic I could find many interesting and new things to write about.  Second, as the author stated in my journal article, race relations is very rarely covered.  Living in the Southeast, that would be a very prevalent issue for the locals.  Some locals were segregated while others weren’t.  There is just so much to go with in that specific topic alone.  I could also look into unionizing activities and how residents responded to those efforts.  While I have yet to dive into the archives to know just what is available and where it would be located, the Teamsters is a topic that I would certainly like to pursue.  But of course I could always change my mind again over the summer and in the Fall.

I can say, without a doubt, that the topic of Che Guevara was the most interesting we have explored. When I think about it, this man’s life was truly amazing. The fact that he led revolutionary movements in at least three different countries is remarkable. Most revolutionaries are solely dedicated to their country of origin; but Guevara felt inclined to export this revolution concept. He became so confident in his tactics, he felt as if he perfected the art of guerrilla warfare.

Of course, his perfection guerrilla warfare came short. This is clearly evident in his failure in Bolivia. Regarding the issue in Bolivia, the picture of Guevara laying down with his captors hovering over him was striking. To me, it reminded me of some-Vietnam era photo.

As far as my topic goes, I feel like this class has helped me trim down my options. While living in Knoxville, it makes great sense to begin researching Vietnam protest in Knoxville. The comment was made that maybe there was no protest in this neck of the woods. While I find that hard to believe, it could definitely be possible. This could possibly deflect my topic in to another direction, the lack of Vietnam protest in the city of Knoxville. But going back to my initial topic, with UTK and Knoxville College both being quite active during this time, I am sure protest took place. If anyone has any suggestions, I am definitely open to all. I am looking forward in to progressing in the History Honors coursework and I am looking forward to hearing Dr. Sacco.

The time line from the George Washington University sight regarding Guevara was very informing. By chronologically setting up Guevara’s journey to Bolivia, it allowed the reader to grasp the situation. Without the firm structure, it would have been easy to get bogged down with dates and countries. I was somewhat disappointed that the time line did not mention any of Guevara’s dealings while in Africa. It seems to me that Guevara’s time in Africa goes somewhat unnoticed. For instance, I never knew Guevara had crossed any river in Africa which boosted his reputation. This could have easily fit in the GWU time line.

Continuing with our discussion on Wednesday, I would like to affirm the point that I would not ride my bike through east St. Louis at any time of day. I understand crime occurs most everywhere, but certain places are more prone to this crime. This is simply my opinion.