historiography

Revolutionary Style: A Review of Caroline Weber’s Queen of Fashion

by

For decades, scholars have attempted to capture the circumstances that led up to the French Revolution. In The Coming of the French Revolution, for instance, Georges Lefebvre explains the causes of the French Revolution with a socioeconomic interpretation. In particular, Lefebvre argues that the rising dominance of the bourgeoisie produced the political turmoil of the revolution.[1] In other works, scholars, such as Francois Furet, Robert Darnton, and Keith Michael Baker, underscore the importance of political ideologies and culture for understanding the causes of the revolution.[2] Still others historians, such as Timothy Tackett, contend that the ineptitude of the royal family also helped to bring about the war. Tackett, for example, insists that the salacious and careless actions of the royal family before and during the war undermined the public’s perception of the family as a symbol of sacred authority.[3]

Similar to Tackett’s analysis, Caroline Weber also draws attention to the significance of the royal family in Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution.[4] The central aim of Weber’s study is to show how Marie Antoinette used the appeal of court fashion to exert political power. Through a comparison of Marie Antoinette to her famous ancestor, Louis XIV, Weber argues that the queen “identified fashion as a key weapon in her struggle for personal prestige, authority, and sometimes mere survival.”[5] In all, Weber concludes that Marie Antoinette fought her political adversaries with style.

Read more

DROPPING THE BOMB: The Myths and Legacies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

by

This past August marked exactly 70 years since American bombers dropped an uranium gun-type bomb (nicknamed Little Boy) on Hiroshima; this was an event that witnessed the obliteration of a large city in the blink of an eye.[1] Hiroshima did have a military presence, since it contained a naval base and the home of the Second General Army Headquarters. Nonetheless, American strategic planners aimed the bomb not at the army base, but at the very center of the civilian part of the city in order to maximize the bomb’s devastation.[2] On August 6, 1945, Little Boy exploded 1,900 feet above the courtyard of Shima Hospital with a yield equivalent to 12,500 TNT. The temperature at ground zero reached 5,400 degrees Fahrenheit, which immediately created a fireball within half a mile. The absolute devastation roasted many people alive; thousands of charred bundles were strew in the streets, sidewalks, and bridges. The instant destructive power of the bomb also vaporized many others. The bomb, for instance, left only the shadow of one man imprinted onto the granite steps of a bank; he had been waiting for the bank to open before the bomb hit. The blasts that followed the original explosion obliterated thousands of houses. Of 76,000 buildings in the industrial city, 70,000 were destroyed.[3] Altogether, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima killed around 90,000 to 100,000 persons instantly; by the end of 1945, the number of those lost had risen to 145,000 (only about 20,000 of them soldiers).[4]

Read more

Exorcising the Past: The Historiography of Witchcraft Cases in England and New England

by

 

I have been fascinated by witchcraft trials since I was a child. This fascination is partly rooted in a childhood that was filled with my Grandma’s stories of our ancestor who was hung as a witch during the Salem Witch Trials.[1] Today, I am more drawn to understanding the array of interpretations historians have developed to explain the phenomenon of witchcraft accusations. It is believed that the last legal execution of an alleged witch occurred in 1782 at Glarus, Switzerland.[2] Astonishingly, even before the last execution took place skepticism surrounding witch hunts developed among educated European elites. In an attempt to rationalize witch hunts, these early interpretations enlisted “monocausal” explanations blaming the trials on the alleged bigotry and ignorance of the clergy and judges. Essential to these explanations was the assumption that witch hunts occurred because of a pre-enlightened past in which irrationality and a lack of science enabled persecution. This Crucible- like interpretation is still the most widespread understanding of witchcraft trials in popular culture. [3]

Read more

FACING A HERITAGE OF HATE: The Charleston Church Massacre and its Historical Implications

by

 

In response to Dylann Roof’s massacre of nine black Americans attending bible study during the night of June 17, 2015, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina commented, “I just think he was one of these whacked-out kids. I don’t think it’s anything broader than that.” In a similar vein, South Carolina Governor Niki Haley asserted that “we’ll never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another.”[1] These comments mistakenly suggest that Roof’s motivations are somehow inscrutable and unknowable. Yet, in several different instances, Roof explicitly expressed his reasons for committing such a heinous act of violence. During the actual massacre, for example, Roof exclaimed to his victims: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.”[2] As well, in the months leading up to the massacre, Roof posted on several social media outlets pictures of himself proudly displaying the Confederate battle flag in addition to a manifesto that outlined his desire to start a race war in the hopes of reclaiming what he believed to be the rightful domination of white Americans over black Americans.[3] 

Read more

Divided, Middle, and Native Grounds: The Redskins Controversy and its Historical Implications

by

By Terumi Rafferty-Osaki and Rebecca DeWolf, Ph.D.

On September 25, 2014 of the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, beat reporter Jason Jones interviewed fans of the Washington Redskins on one panel and a group of Native American activists on another. During the last few moments, Jones brought both panels together to create more of a dialogue. Long-time fan Maurice Hawkins, however, protested the move; he argued that he would not have worn his Redskins jacket had he known about the upcoming encounter.[1] This segment also came on the heals of the South Park episode, “Go Fund Yourself,” a satire that questioned the use of the Redskins name to promote a new start up company. During the episode, creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone made light of the fact that the US Patent and Trademark Office canceled the Washington Redskins’ trademark registration this past June. These are only a few examples of the firestorm over the decades-long struggle to change the Redskins team name.

Read more