Fact: You need to memorise entire lines of historians' opinions for the exam.
False! Writing out long passages will gain the same marks as a short or snappy sentence. The examiner's report always stresses the preference for short and, more importantly, relevant quotes or short snippets to support an argument.
1 of 15
Should you use historiography in introductions?
Yes! Try and include two names in your introduction to set any debate or give background summary if possible (eg. Blake views this period as a golden age... Marr has described this era as a lost paradise...).
2 of 15
Should I throw in every historian I remember?
No, as this runs the risk of losing relevance. Qualify each opinion with your writing. Use short quotes or supporting historians to augment your argument (eg Blake similarly agrees, as does Hobsbawm, citing the key figures of...).
3 of 15
Name as many historians as you can.
Not a comprehensive list but here are some of the main names: Blake, Hobsbawm, Hennessy, Morgan, Marwick, Rowe, Barnett, Marr, Murphy and More! (More as in more, not another M historian).
4 of 15
Key Left Wingers:
Peter Hennessy: Social Democratic (left wing) outlook. Marr: Centre Left. Thomas, Hobsbawm: Marxist/Far Left. Elliot, Blake, Hobsbawm: Golden Age historians.
5 of 15
Key Right Wingers:
Correlli Barnett: Thatcherite historian. Niall Ferguson: Right wing.
6 of 15
Objective Historians:
Rowe, Murphy, Jeremy Black. All write textbooks so try not to be overly bias (you can briefly comment on this in the exam).
7 of 15
Who should I refrain from over-using?
Rowe, Murphy, Marr and other 'TV' historians such as Paxman etc. While they are useful if you forget others, over-use looks bad as examiners will think you've read the textbook and nothing else.
8 of 15
Social Historian
Marwick, Thomas. Use these when making general social points as such: "Marwick charts how anger over immigration acted as a simmering release from frustration at economic failure. This was manifsted by the growing youth crime culture..."
9 of 15
What do Golden Age historians believe?
That 51 - 64 was a great period, with rationing over, consumerism rising and 72% wage increases compared to 42% price increases. Attlee's Consensus was great. (Elliot, Blake, Hobsbawm).
10 of 15
What do Thatcherite historians believe?
The Post War Consensus was flabby, Butskellism was bad, lead to over mighty trade unions and a lack of actual planning left 'victorian infrastracture'. Thatcher's neo-liberal approach was necessary to turn Britain's economy around. (Barnett)
11 of 15
What do Right Wing Historians believe?
Post War Consensus was OK at best, but over time began to cause Britain to lag behind. Keynesianism wasn't working due to a lack of long term planning, it lead to stop-go whilst Germany/Japan were actively rebuilding their economies.
12 of 15
What do Left Wing Historians believe?
Labour and consensus was good, although opportunities may have been missed along the way. Roy Jenkins' liberalisation was great for example, but Thatcher then took to the 'Victorian stance of blaming the victim' (Thomas).
13 of 15
Should I name each historian's specific side, or stick to left and right wing?
If making a general point use 'left wing' or 'right wing', but using more in-depth terms such as Marxist, Social Democratic, Thatcherite looks far more impressive as you've got to grips with historiography.
14 of 15
Will I pass my exam?
YES! NOW GET REVISING!
15 of 15
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Should you use historiography in introductions?
Back
Yes! Try and include two names in your introduction to set any debate or give background summary if possible (eg. Blake views this period as a golden age... Marr has described this era as a lost paradise...).
Comments
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report