In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Some things never change, but the presentation of American history is not one of them. According to Frances FitzGerald, in her recent analysis of nineteenth- and twentieth-century history texts, these works have variously tucked away unpleasantries and wrapped up with high-minded moralizing the facts and figures that make up our American heritage.
This demonstrates her control over both logos and pathos. She starts out almost lamenting the changes that have happened in history textbooks: He is a minor character now. She isn't outlining her personal opinions about the changes that have occurred in history textbooks; she's just looking at them from the perspective of a person educated in the 50s.
Her tone is multifaceted, which just adds to the depth of her stance. She is able to be both personal and objective, an ability which really improves any writing.
This strengthens her argument because she is able to construct a tangible argument for her audience, instead of just using hypothetical examples. It forms a strong ethos and logos argument, by making her argument more credible and using examples to follow a logical train of through throughout her piece.
I also think her range of different examples the stories contained, the artwork used also helped support her argument as they were able to show how history textbooks have changed so much in pretty much every aspect.
So, I will discuss what I found most unique about this piece, and to me it was the dynamic tone. Yes, like Collin said, Fitzgerald maintains both a personal and objective point of view, but the way that she writes is quite dynamic. She keeps the reader interested and involved with her informal description of historical events throughout the entire writing.
In fact, her tone is almost comical. This merely adds to the effectiveness of her work. The entire essay is about the pessimistic views of history acquired by new generations. She definitely was not laughing about it.
In some aspects, it appears as though she's writing to the "50ies Kids," in order to share with them how the times have changed. But in other places, it seems like she's addressing younger generations. For example, when she was talking about the use of fancy images and photographs in newer textbooks, it seemed to me like she was criticizing the images and warning those who are exposed to them school kids to not allow the images to dehumanize the subjects they depict.
I find it interesting that she really does not maintain a clear audience throughout the essay. I mostly think that she is addressing anyone who has ever taken a history class though.
By not addressing a clear audience she leaves it to be more open-ended and this allows her to have a wider audience. She discusses how "modern scholarship and modern perspectives have found their way into children's books.
I agree with a lot of what she is saying. Obviously I was not raised on textbooks from the 50s but even by simply comparing what my parents and grandparents were taught in school to what I learn now, it is easy to see how history is taught has changed and also morphed different generations' views of it differently.
I agree with her that the way history textbooks are written has a major impact upon the students and how they perceive history. I also agree that there is no perfectly objective way to write a textbook since we all have our biases as human beings.
However, I would disagree with her on the extensiveness of harm that it causes. She seems to greatly exaggerate her point to make it more effective. I think you've definitely figured out the core of her message. I also like how you included your on experience with history in order to agree with her point.
For instance, if we start teaching our youth gradually that communism is good and capitalism has a lot of faults, we would see a major change in how elections go and how much of a political swing it would cause Reply.Get an answer for 'Frances FItzgerald "Reading American History""Rewriting American History" concerns how history is represented to modern readers.
ABOUT US. BibMe Free Bibliography & Citation Maker - MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard. · Essay paper ias mains zip Jayden: ; Deborah; a [verse] brown and essays momaday play Abercrombie. We value excellent academic writing and . FitzGerald likens the physical appearance of new history books to Architectural Digest or Vogue.
What has not changed throughout all the repackagings the American past has endured in the textbooks, FitzGerald tells us, is the regrettable mediocrity inherent in the conception of these texts. Below is an essay on "Analyze Rewriting American History" from Anti Essays, your source for research papers, essays, and term paper examples.
Destiny Roberts The story “Rewriting American History” By Frances Fitzgerald is not really a revelation into the way history books have changed/5(1). FitzGerald likens the physical appearance of new history books to Architectural Digest or Vogue.
What has not changed throughout all the repackagings the American past has endured in the textbooks, FitzGerald tells us, is the regrettable mediocrity inherent in the conception of these texts. Frances FItzgerald "Reading American History" "Rewriting American History" concerns how history is represented to modern readers.
While “frances fitzgerald’s essay rewriting american history record is available of any speech she ever made on behalf of the eighteenth amendment”, in and world leaders sought peace by convening an innovative and influential peace conference at The Hague.