Welcome to Mr. Kirby's AP Euroblog. This site is for all CHS students and guest to comment on topics relating to AP Modern European history.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Period 8 - Brilliant Approach or ADD History??
Take a look at The James Burke Institute's Knowledge Web. Is Burke on to something or just, in the words of Tom "suffering from History ADD." Both? What does he share in common with David McCullough? (Make the Connections, ha...ha).
James Burke is certainly onto something. In its most broad definition, history is the chronology of the universe and its current state. History is the biography of the universe. It is used both to say what has happened and help predict what will happen. Every single science, concept, idea, everything, absolutely everything has a history. The core beliefs of Burke are that everything in history is dependant, and thus everything in history must be taught. Ideas are a product of a person and a person is a product of their past experiences and beliefs, a.k.a. their culture. Burke showed the path of how the word filioque directly led to and through the Renaissance and beyond. A single step, if removed, will cause the entire chain of development to crash. That is how delicate the web he weaves is. However, by following this web, one cannot fall off it. The very way Burke teaches history shows the dependence of everything on everything else. If anything, Burke’s History ADD is only perceived that way due to the fact that we try to limit everything into tiny bits. Schools teach history as “this happened after this,” with so many of the cultural factors missing. A political, economic, or artistic idea can and will alter culture in its own way so that everything flows in a never-ending river. Saying that B follows A isn’t history. The more one goes into one event, the easier it is to understand why another occurred. “A” is not just “A” but rather is a diagonal line up, a diagonal line down, a horizontal line in the middle, and than if the script is to be more complicated than the explanation must also be more complicated. Only by completely understanding “A” can it be seen that “B” was unavoidable. McCullough’s major complaint is that the cultural parts of history are not being taught. Burke fixes this and takes it a step further. Not only does he take into account the cultural connections, but he explains how every one of them causes a different culture or cultural event occurs. For example, one cannot fully explain the nineties culture without explaining the computer, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Nirvana, Bill Clinton (Monica Lewinsky), and Columbine. All of these have played and continue to play some part in American culture, even if their rippling effects no longer resemble their cause. Burke’s style of teaching history is a way to teach complete history. As every idea, discovery, and person create a ripple effect, history is most comprehensive this way. The difficulty in this is that not everyone can follow these intricate paths. However, not everyone can be an astrophysicist either, so it seems plausible that not everyone can be a historian. History is noticeable for culture, and culture is constantly changing. Culture has ADD, Burke just points it out.
Although James Burke is definitely “onto something” I would still have to say that he also might suffer from history ADD. His particular work demonstrates the various relationships that exist between technology, science, and social change throughout history. One of his quotes that really struck me was, “People tend to become experts in highly specialized fields, learning more and more about less and less.” This particular quote struck me mainly because of the part that said, “Learning more about less and less.” This was significant because, although I had never thought of it before, Burke is definitely correct in making this statement. The more specialized that someone becomes in a particular subject, the more knowledge and experience that they will have in this field.
James Burke is using his extensive research to help and create the Knowledge Web. This Knowledge Web is an incredibly useful tool, particularly to teachers and students. It puts different aspects of history into an easy to use format so that students will receive greater benefits from education on these subjects. Burke simplifies his research to make it interactive and interesting for students. The main purpose of his Knowledge Web is to show these learners that all of the actions of our past, present, and future is interconnected and all has a relative effect upon one another. But, based on the video that we watched in class I originally did believe that Burke did have history ADD. He is a very creative and intelligent man; however, his flamboyant and dynamic ways are apparent in this video and before you fully understand the connections he is trying to make it just seems as if he is comparing topics that completely opposite of one another. At first I was extremely confused as to how Burke was relating Little Red Riding Hood to any of these topics. Nevertheless, Burke definitely is a brilliant man with very innovative ideas for relating different historical figures, events, places, and time periods with one another.
James Burke does share a few similarities with David McCullough, the first being the love that they have for history and the pleasure that they receive from being involved with it. Just like Burke, McCullough is also extremely interested in the past and is constantly relating the past back to the present and future within his works. Both of these men use the technique of having one of their subjects lead them into another subject. By doing this, they create a connection between each of these events or places or people, and therefore this shows a correlation between a great deal and variety of elements within history. Overall, both of these intellectual men strongly believed in relating elements in history to create one vast picture.
Although some may find James Burke to have historical ADD, it is impossible to ignore the genius behind his concepts and ideas. His theory of “The Knowledge Web” opposes the general educational idea of specialized learning and thinking, stating that these people “are learning more and more about less and less”. Rather than learning that one event happened after another, his “Knowledge Web” allows a person to understand the connections between all historical ideas and concepts by linking a single concept to thousands of others. However, the links between the events are sometimes insignificant, making it difficult for the average person to understand. He may not be the person to instate this new way of learning into educational programs but he has set the standard for a person in the future to continue with his concept. It is possible for Burke to be a genius; however, a genius who can not have a lasting impact on his field can become irrelevant. His connections can not be easily understood by a student; they can sometimes be seen as random pieces of history put together. If Burke does not strengthen the connections between the historical events or make it clearer to the average student, his genius concept will be entirely ignored. He is without a doubt onto something, something that could change the way history, and possibly all other fields, are taught, but just being onto something may simply not be enough.
David McCullough presents James Burke’s way of looking at history in a more understandable way. His books have varied from discussing presidents to the Brooklyn Bridge, and he has even taken part the in movie “Seabiscuit”. These topics seem to be random as are Burke’s topics, however, a person who simply reads a short interview of why McCullough chose the topics that he did can understand the connections between all of the concepts. On the other hand, a person could spend hours reading essays written by Burke and find themselves entirely lost. McCullough’s long list of achievements and awards does not mean he is any more of a genius than Burke, rather he has found a way to explain his ideas to the people. If Burke hopes to have a lasting effect on society as has McCullough, he needs to get past his historical ADD and allow the world to see his genius idea as he does.
I know that James Burke is a brilliant mind and his and will forever inspire generations to love, acknowledge, and respect history; because history is our past, present, and future. Burke is definitely on to something remarkable and has already made is place in history books for making ludicrous connections in history, yet they make sense and help educate the masses about what our past held so we can know what our future hold. His work demonstrates the various relationship between technology, science, and social advances throughout history. Burke presents knowledge in a highly consistent, natural way that makes it possible to follow an almost countless number of paths of exploration among people, places, things, and events. His approach may seem like historical ADD, but not everyone can learn history and about the world through chronological events listed in boring textbooks, where kids count the number of pages until the next picture (I do it all the time and I know everyone else does it too). It is easier for people to learn connections before facts because a person can easily remember connections which then spark the remembrance of core facts. Burke’s History ADD is only perceived in a negative wasy becausese we try to limit everything into tiny bits. Schools teach history with the culture missing. A political, economic, or artistic idea can alter culture but school books do not pick at that idea because history won’t be going in a chronological order. Critics of Burke are just too conservative with learning history one way, the boring way, which hinders our worldliness and respect for others cutures and ideas. Knowledge web will begin to get the respect it needs and wants and children will learn to be open minded and not thick headed like their predecessors and learn that history is not just one way, it goes forward, back, side to side, and diagonal. David McCullough and James Burke do share similarties in the way they love history and the pleasure that they receive from presenting it. Like Burke, McCullough is interested in the past and is constantly relating the past back to the present and future in his works. The only difference between the two is the fact that McCullough focuses on specific events, ideas, and people in history, which makes people focus on specific aspects of history instead of the broad picture. McCullough does believe in the same values of Burke in terms of learning history, but Burke did state that “Learners may study either history or physics, or perhaps only Renaissance history and astrophysics. People tend to become experts in highly specialized fields, learning more and more about less and less.” David fits this quote because he is teaching the masses about a specialized event in history, but does try to relate that event to the world. I have a total respect for McCullough and I am a huge fan, but sometimes after reading some of his works, I get the feeling and the impression of him glorifying one event when he should be glorifying or calling out a person, idea, or event that occurred. People may say that Burke has ADD, which isn’t surprising because apparently everyone has ADD and ADHD these days because some doctors think diagnosing someone with the disease solves problems, but Burke can totally pull off his tangents which help people learn about history in a new exciting light, and his new approach will continue to help change and better our society.
While it is true Mr. Burke might be suffering from a bit of “History ADD” it is just as true that this has led all of us to look at history in a new light. In fact it is easy to argue that his history ADD is actually quite helpful in navigating the intricate passageways of our history. So I think Burke is on to something truly important with his Knowledge Web and the structure of his shows because he is showing the true nature of history. People seem to think that history is the study of old people and what they did and some events that happened long ago, few of which have any effect on our lives today. Mr. Burke is clearly proving the preconceived notion of history wrong through his ideas because he sees history for what it truly is; alive. History is truly a study of actions since every person, place, or thing has its own distinct history that influences the history of others. In this way history follows a ripple effect where everything affects something else through huge chains, which is why I think the Knowledge Web being designed is such a great idea. A great description of this is the Butterfly effect which in essence describes that it is a compilation of little, seemingly insignificant events which cause momentous things to happen, and not truly huge events. A common example of this phenomenon is that a beat from a butterfly’s wings might be the last bit needed to start a hurricane winds spinning. However in a more historical sense the battle of New Orleans was pointless from a militaristic point of view but it was that battle that made Andrew Jackson a hero, or if we had invaded Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis we most assuredly would have lost due to the fact that the USSR already had installed battlefield grade missiles, ready to take out an incoming army. Burke’s Web points out these small changes in history that made all the difference and goes even farther to show how these events effect one another. This describes another famous theory, the Ripple Effect. This effect describes how a single event will affect everything else surrounding it sort of like when you throw a rock in a pond and though it may be a small stone its ripples end up affecting the entire surface. Burke draws on these examples to help us realize that everything is connected and history is the analysis of these connections which shape our world and is going farther than any other historian has gone before. Burke insists on looking at history from above and takes in how seemingly unrelated things ended up working together to create what we have now. While Burke takes an overhead look on the structure of history, McCullough takes historical events under a microscope and view what put them together. Despite the difference in styles between the two, both are trying to enthusiastically accomplish the same things. Both are attempting to show history is more than just memorizing names, dates, and places; it’s actually everything that affects us, has affected us and will affect us. They are trying to show history is not boring and unnecessary to learn but it encompasses many facets and seemingly unconnected events end up effecting us every day. However while Burke shows the complexity of the facets by looking above, McCullough delves deeply into specific events. By scrutinizing specific events he sees how everything works together to create bigger events; similar to Burke’s Web, however on a much smaller scale. McCullough does show how different events and people relate to one another by basing his next book of a tangent in his previous one. While this method is not all encompassing as Burke’s it still can show how things like the Brooklyn Bridge and Theodore Roosevelt are connected. In all honesty neither way is better than another in this case because both end up showing that history is the study of connections and that everything is intertwined. A metaphor for the differences in style can be that both historians are viewing the workings of an organism; McCullough concentrates on how a specific being works while Burke views how the Earth is an organism and how those beings together make the Earth work. Both still prove that history is alive, affects us every day, and is most certainly not boring, even though it may seem like the effects are random at first glance.
James Burke has certainly a different approach to history, and is brilliant in his own way. His style of quick paced presentations based on seemingly loose ties creates an interest for the audience. Both his rapid presentations and switching between topics, creates appeal for the modern youth audience. The current generation is, after all, termed the “ADD Generation.” Personally I believe that his presentations would create interest in the viewers and compel them to either learn about the topic(s), or to at least think seriously about the topics being discussed. By spending only a brief amount of time exploring a new perspective on these topics, it creates further interest in the audience, and firmly plants these ideas that are shown. Burke manages to display history as it is, flexible, and always being changed. He shows how each person’s actions as well as the smallest of events can spread its influence throughout the world. Burke’s shows are certainly creative, however he does seem to be stretching with a few of the connections, as well as some which seem to be loosely based off of evidence which may or may not be credible. Overall he created an intriguing and creative way to display some of the influences of certain events in history, in an engaging manner which will definitely appeal to younger audiences. In terms of whether Burke is suffering from History ADD, or simply is on to something, I would say a little of both. His presentations do seem to be an effective tool in aiding the learning process; however the rapid jumps are more characteristic of ADD. But given the current generation’s learning styles, Burke may just be an effective teacher. I find that Burke shares a lot in common with McCullough and his works. They both are attempting to present history in a more acceptable fashion, which will be easier for modern generations to take an interest in. McCullough also makes connections in his works, or rather his process of finding interest in the topics which he writes on. He explained that in writing his works, which he apparently researches thoroughly, he finds something that piques his interest. So in creating these detailed accounts of certain historic events, McCullough is led to his next project, which can evidently be connected back to his previous work. In accordance with Burke, who believes that “People tend to become experts in highly specialized fields,” McCullough focuses on the specific event which he is working on. He creates his works to be full of detail, and scrutinizes them to make sure that he can be as accurate as he can. McCullough is clearly similar to Burke in many ways, perhaps just lacking that particular “history ADD” quality.
James Burke’s interpretation and analysis of history is incredibly unique in comparison to the historical studies of others. The connections and explanations provided by Burke do greatly in showing how events that at first appear to have no relation whatsoever are in fact interconnected. When one examines causes in history, it is typical to trace events through the most logical and likely course of events, showing how one major event led to another. This method explains the evolution and progression of groups, be it a culture, race, field, etc. Burke’s study in the field of history differs in the fact that he crosses these boundaries and shows how an event in one given group had an underlying impact on an event in another, in essence proving that all cultures and fields are intertwined and are in fact not secularized as it is so believed. The concept in itself is apparent genius and provides a creative and very interesting perspective on why historical events occurred as they did. However, some of the connections Burke has made appear to be somewhat stretched and the extent to which each event actually had an impact upon another could be questioned. For example, crediting the creation of the tales of the Brother’s Grimm to the study of San Serif writing seems slightly illogical. Though who is anyone to question the impact one event has upon another? Each event that occurs during one’s life has a direct impact upon the choices and experiences they will have in the future; even the most minor of alterations could cause an event to have a completely different outcome. As a result, it is not too bold to state that even the most minor of events that appear to have almost not connection could in fact have some sort of correlation. If the connection can be made, then it should be upheld, even if it appears unlikely. We as historians, as humans, cannot completely judge the full impact an event had upon another simply due to the fact that we do not have that power. We cannot enter the minds of others and examine every single detail and thought that was judged and calculated in making a decision. At most, we can come to a logical conclusion of why something occurred based upon previous knowledge and experience. No matter how hard we may try however, we will never fully understand the reasoning behind the actions of others, and at times, even our own. As a result, any connection made between events, no matter how seemingly insignificant, cannot be discredited. Burke’s methods may seem illogical at times, but they provide an interesting perspective at history that should if nothing else be examined along with traditional historical examination methods.
The most prominent connection that can be made between Burke and McCullough is their love for history and desire to increase interest in history among those do not feel the subject is worth the merit to indulge in. Burke feels that due to the specialization of modern fields, people are learning “more and more about less and less” while McCullough has stated that interest in history has greatly lessened due to the fast paced, future-driven American culture. Both Burke and McCullough try to combat this disinterest in historical study by tackling the information in an interesting and creative way. It is their hope that if historical context is presented in a manner that unique and shies away from the typical memorization of names and dates, their audience’s curiosity will be aroused and will thus be more enticed to learn about events of old. In addition, both Burke’s and McCullough’s work is a built-on product of their previous work. The cornerstone of Burke’s findings is the connections he makes between one event to another, and McCullough often relies upon his most previous historical fiction novel as a launching pad for the topic of his next novel. Both of these men are dedicated to the passing of historical knowledge to those around them, a trait which is highly evident in their work.
James Burke, while obviously eccentric in his approach to history, is also definitely on to something. If, indeed, he does have “history ADD”he uses it to maximum effect, making history more interesting and appealing to the average person. It is true that Burke’s approach to history involves him skipping from topic to topic, drawing obscure and odd connections between them, in a way that suggests some type of attention deficit disorder. However, in a way, our culture has ADD. In this modern age of internet, cell phones, and reality television, the average American seldom pays attention to one topic or idea for more than a few minutes at a time. This often makes the study of history tedious to an average citizen, since it usually involves one pursuing a specific topic for an extended period of time. Burke, however, frenetically skips from one topic to the next, never giving his viewer (or, in the case of the Knowledge Web, reader) time to lose interest.
Also, as Burke points out on the Knowledge Web website, there is method to his madness. By quickly moving from topic to topic through apparently random connections, he reminds us that the study of history is not just memorizing chronological lists of events. He forces us to see that everything is connected, and find the connections between them. In his eccentric approach to history, James Burke also helps his viewer or reader learn that history effects and is effected by all fields, from literature to science to philosophy. By using his ‘history ADD” approach, Burke tries to combat the narrow specialization of fields that is so prevalent today.
In this, and many, ways, Burke is a lot like David McCullough. Like Burke, McCullough does not think that history should be the memorization of chronological events. He believes, like Burke, that in order to study history, one needs perspective, and that history cannot necessarily always be confined to its own field. In addition, McCullough, though in a radically different way from Burke, also attempts to make the study of history more appealing to a wide audience. Even though McCullough chooses to write popular books about a single topic while Burke chooses to create frenetic, widely varied television shows (and now a website), both historians’ aims are to make history more approachable to more people.
James Burke most certainly has a unique way of looking at one event in history and connecting it to another event that seems to be completely irreverent. While it may seem impossible to connect different text fonts to folk stories, Burke has the ability to make this comparison and is able to explain it in an understandable way so that his audience can also see the connection. Some may say that he has “history ADD” the way he skips from one topic to another, but when you think about it what he is saying makes perfect sense. Burke has developed this idea called the Knowledge Web. This is a cosmopolitan way of relating people, places and events. The web is able to demonstrate how history is interrelated and interdependent. Also, it contracts with how history is taught today. Many people focus on memorizing names and dates but don’t really see the connection between one event to another. Also how one aspect of a time period influence many other events and acts that follow it. This is the main idea in the Knowledge Web. Burke has created a tool that is interactive and allows its users to not only get information on the topic they are researching but also other related topics. Another use of this Web is that it allows people to branch out and learn more information. Burke had mentioned how today more people are focusing on learning a lot of information on just one specific topic and are not really exploring any other information. By doing this it is limiting their knowledge, not only in other aspects of history but also the topic they are studying because they are unable to see how it is connected to other aspects of history or affected them. The first time I saw one of Burke’s shows I thought that he was absolutely crazy. To me his web seemed to make no sense and it annoyed me that he would jump around from one topic. However, now that I look back at his ideas and think about it his connections make complete sense and are very interesting. I think that the Knowledge Web that he is using is a new tool that is very helpful in understanding history. He is able to link together topics that seem to be extremes in a way that makes sense and is clear enough that you can see the relationship. I found myself to be paying extremely close attention to what was going on so that when he made a connection to his next topic I would be able to understand it fully. For me, I found his way of connecting information to be insightful and entertaining because I was always wondering what connections he would make next. The Knowledge Web seems to be a very useful way of learning information, and Burke certainly does know what he is talking about and does not have “history ADD”. James Burke approach to history is similar to that of David McCullough. Both men have similar ideas about how history should be taught. They both feel that history is more than just memorizing dates and people. In order to understand and learn history you need to learn about an event and see how it affects events that follow it. Both men show this in their work. Their main goal is to enforce this idea. While Burke does this by using his Knowledge Web, McCullough has a different approach. He picks an event and writes a popular book about the event and how it affect the time era and still has an effect on us today. An example of this is his story on the Brooklyn Bridge. He not only talks about how the bridge was built but how it is still up today and shows how much work and though the men who built in had to put into it and how he feels proud every time he looks at it. Both men also share a love for history and truly want to make sure that their audience is able to understand it and love it as much as they do.
Although James Burke’s unique approach to history can leave you with a sense of “History ADD”, I think he may be onto something brilliant. His theory of “The Knowledge Web” offers a way for people to make connections between very different fields of historical study. Burke thinks that people are “learning more and more about less and less”. His approach to history attempts to remedy this. Instead of learning history as a series of sequential events, Burke wants his readers to understand the connections between different historical ideas and concepts by linking a single concept to many others. He doesn’t believe that a general education should be extremely specialized, which goes back to the idea of the well-rounded “Renaissance Man”. He covers a vast range of historical topics by making unique and unlikely connections between them in order to cover what he considers to be gaps in knowledge. Burke’s “Knowledge Web” is similar to the concept maps I made for Dr. Trifone’s biology class. For every unit, we had to create a web connecting different key terms from that unit. Making these maps helped me to understand the subject mater more clearly by demonstrating how different things were connected. The “Knowledge Web” can have a similar effect for students by helping them see how different historical topics, although different, are related and share areas of overlap.
My only criticism of James Burke’s work is the actual links that he makes between topics. They are often insignificant, which may make it difficult for students to follow. However, this approach to learning definitely makes his programs appealing to watch and give students a learning experience quite unilke their textbooks. I think James Burke’s greatest contribution to education is the actual method he uses, rather than the specific historical connections he makes. He has introduced an idea that will inspire teaching methods in all different fields in the future (such as the use of concept maps in biology). David McCullough uses James Burke’s approach to history in a less confusing way. He has written books on topics ranging from presidents to the Brooklyn Bridge, and even contributed to the making of “Seabiscuit”. It seems that both McCullough and Burke explore seemingly ramdom areas of study, but both have been able to make the connections between them. However, a student would be much more likely to feel lost after reading Burke’s work than after reading McCullough’s. McCullough has been better able to communicate his historical connections to his readers and viewers, as reflected by the many awards he has received. Burke has the same potential to be as effective for his viewers; he just needs to overcome his historical ADD.
The underlying differences between genius and insanity are more often than not subject to personal interpretation. What may seem brilliant to one man can very likely appear absurd to the next. Personally, I think James Burke walks the fine line between lunacy and pure genius. History has long been disregarded by high school and college students due to its seemingly irrelevant subject matter. The average student often finds it difficult if not impossible to draw connections between foreign monarchies dating back hundreds of year to their lives as they know it today. The common approach of introducing events played out in history in chronological order, though proven relatively effective, often prevents students from understanding just how interrelated and dependent every aspect of history is on prior events. Though I agree with Tom’s diagnosis of James Burke’s “History ADD,” there is unquestionably genius behind his madness. James Burke’s “Knowledge Web” breaks from the conventional method of teaching history chronologically, approaching it instead by drawing connections between seemingly random people, places, and events throughout history, connections historians of time past might never have considered. Through a sequence of obscure connections, James Burke manages to tie otherwise random topics together such as Napolean to the development of the modern computer. The sporadic and seemingly illogical jumps in time periods, places, and events often leave onlookers dazed and confused. Through a link of seemingly ambiguous links, the “Knowledge Web” illustrates how every aspect of our culture, government, and world came about because of events of the past. Though audiences of James Burke’s television series “Connections” are often subject to question Burke’s thought process, one cannot ignore how ingenious his method is. The correlation between his fast paced, constantly changing programs and our on the go society compliments our culture as it is stands today. David McCullough and James Burke both approach history with similar tactics, similar motives, similar convictions, and a common love. These two historians share in writing methods in that they both use figures, events, and places they’ve previously explored as springboards to other subjects. They diverge in that though McCullough’s process in choosing a topic may seem “random,” once a topic is chosen, attention is focused on it. Burke on the other hand allows his brain to draw connections seemingly without restraint. Though their writing style varies, these two men share a common love for history and a desire to spark a flame of interest in future generations. Through the recreation and organization of certain fragments of history, McCullough and Burke’s shared hope is to alter history’s notorious reputation for being irrelevant and dry and to make history more appealing to our twenty first century generation.
Is having ADD in the subject of history necessarily a bad thing? Why does one have to “suffer” from ADD? The excitement, the never-ending thirst for knowledge…these traits should be craved for. ADD can in fact help some; many find history boring, endless torture, but a person with ADD may see history as a channel for their irrepressible liveliness. On The James Burke Institute's Knowledge Web Burke is quoted about specialization; how people are trained in only one subject and as a result ‘learn more and more about less and less’. He doesn’t want people to be educated about one thing. What’s the point of learning about one thing when a person is surrounded by infinite choices of knowledge? That’s boring, he believes. The first thing the audience notices about James Burke is his uncontainable energy when it comes to history. He can be seen a dark, dingy study in one shot and on a theatre stage in the next. To him, history is not just about chronology of events—science, technology, and society also play significant roles. Burke strongly believes that history has and always will be connected, and proves his theory in the ever popular series Connections on PBS. He may “suffer” from History ADD, but he can’t help it. History excites him, and just like David McCullough, he is drawn to history, and passionately fights for the integrity of what he considers the most fascinating subject.
Burke begins his show with a small, conversational introduction then leads his episode by referring to one word: filioque. He explains a whole conflict surrounding that one word then changes gears and effortlessly goes into a topic that directly ties to the previous. It takes a little while for the audience to register what he does. They may not see the small facts he gives them as important because they don’t specifically look for them. Plus, Burke doesn’t reveal the whole picture until the end of his show.
The eccentric historian who is viewed on Connections enforces the idea that history is all about…well, connections. Everything in the books people are taught from exists in the pattern of causes and effects. For example: Why did Henry VIII leave the Catholic Church? England didn’t want to be controlled by Spain. And how did this situation affect events that occurred after? England and Spain became power hungry rivals. History is a collection of stories; not just one (No one wants to hear a story over and over again). If one wants to learn about one thing, he/she must learn about everything else that affected it. Burke also works to emphasize technology (like printing in Italics and the telegraph), literature (how today’s children friendly stories derived from myths and the original stories by the Grimm Brothers), and linguistic anthropology. Essentially, Burke may have history ADD—by moving from one topic to another and never staying in one place—but he chooses to channel his “disease” into a worthwhile adventure.
Looking at James Burke and David McCullough, they can definitely be connected. For one thing, their styles are the same. Both had one subject lead them to many others. McCullough and Burke fluently weave stories and hold up their titles as narrative historians. They also love playing with perspective—there’s not just one witness to an event or one person important enough to have changed a sequence in history. Their interests can easily be seen by the way they present themselves. McCullough can answer a question about history in more than a paragraph, while Burke never stops talking until the end of his show. These men, so unique in their own ways, truly want to share the art of history through as many mediums possible. Their techniques have been helpful to many other teachers and students, and if people can learn from Burke and McCullough, history will never fall under unpopular eyes.
James Burke is truly “on to something”, that is, he has a true understanding of what history, science, technology, and everything on earth is all about. In an increasingly specialized society where everyone has one job and one job only, isolation is clearly more visible as technology becomes more refined. It could be said that because our society has evolved so much, and so much has already been discovered, researchers or specialists need to become more specialized. Yet, according to Burke, that is not the true point of innovation and learning. By delving too deeply and specifically into a subject, many lose sight of the real picture. Only by connecting and utilizing different fields of study would anyone, whether it be scientists, or teachers, be able to create something new and truly original. As Burke wrote, “Unfortunately, so much specialization falsely creates the illusion that knowledge and discovery exist in a vacuum, in context only with their own disciplines…Without an ability to see these connections, history and science won't be learnable in a truly meaningful way and innovation will be stifled”. Burke offers a truly different view at history. In school, most of what we learn is on a specific topic with very few crossovers between different classes. Of course, different classes within the same subject may intertwine, but there is little or no interaction across subjects. Now, the prevalent path of great innovation is a Bachelor’s degree, a Master’s degree, and perhaps a Professional degree based on a specific field of study. By mastering more knowledge, these scientists narrow their point of view on their study even more though they are focusing more on a specific area of study. This, essentially, is what Burke believes is wrong in our approach to innovation. Without the ability to see the big picture, many are blinded by the specifics. Without drawing information from other areas of study, it narrows the possibilities for novel ideas. However, it is also true to describe James Burke as, essentially, “suffering from history ADD”. His connections from the video are often so obscure and “jumps” too quickly at times that there cannot be a truly more well-rounded understanding of the subject at hand. At the end, I was left to wonder about what the exact point of the whole video was all about. Yet, this criticism of Burke only highlights his message that the way we learn, which is much more specific, does not reflect the true meaning of history and learning. Looking at Burke’s work from the perspective of someone who has viewed history by sections but never as a whole makes his message seem a little less than scholarly, and perhaps even crazy. Yes, it is true that his “Knowledge Web” may not be specific, nor is it the things we normally would learn in history. It is also true that it does not offer the full, detailed description of everything tiny bit of history. Yet, Burke’s “Knowledge Web” does make sense in that it offers a truly comprehensive view of the different aspects of everything on earth, and perhaps even an idea for the future.
James Burke has a unique approach to history that he explains in the work and documentaries he has produced. While some (me) might call his work historical ADD, he is reading between the lines and seeing the pervading connections throughout history. Burke is able to separate out a single line of history and trace it through the centuries to effects being felt today, making history a very real and modern topic. He shows a lucidity rarely found in some dry historians, and is able to connect the topics he studies directly to his audience. I found myself very attentive to the documentary that we watched, and while it began in a not particularly exciting way, with a Latin word of Church doctrine, I found myself intrigued as to why “filioque” was important. Burke true genius is in following a single line of history. While this may seem surprising to those who see Burke as a generalist, he is able to track a single thread for a long time. Burke does go on to some very odd tangents while he traces a cause and effect, and this is his weakness. David McCullough is a more traditional historian in that he picks out a topic and researches information to synthesize. McCullough does do this very well, and he brings to light many things missed by others, however, the approach he brings to history is not groundbreaking. Burke uses a “Wikipedia” approach to history, looking at a topic and immediately clicking on the blue links. His is fascinated not by what happened in history, but by the connections between events. His view of history is of a web that must be untangled one thread at a time. As he picks apart the knot, this thread may turn out to be a short one with little new information, it may be a long and detailed one that may overturn the current thinking. And, with such a wild, shotgun approach, the thread will often lead to nothing at all, no information, no dazzling discoveries, and no documentaries. However, when Burke strikes gold, he can truly overhaul the status quo of history for whatever wild collection of events he has connected.
Burke is truly a very unique man. The fact that he would come up with a project to show the connections between, say, ice cream and the Renaissance shows how eccentric of an individual he is. He truly has devised a new way of thinking, but whether it may be useful or not is questionable. When it comes to far out things like connecting bubble gum and the cold war, I would say that Tom’s phrase “History ADD” definitely comes into play. But, to use this web to connect actual historical facts, like the fall of the Catholic Church with the rise of the Renaissance, would definitely be useful to a teacher or a student. His creation of this web project is truly ingenious and they could definitely be useful to both teachers and students alike. McCullough said that, in too many cases, history is just a side subject given to a “coach” as something that they can teach so they can be part of a sports organization. He feels that much of history is just memorizing dates and taking tests. Not too many teachers take the time to go in depth with their students on the cultural aspects of what they are studying. He feels they don’t make the “connections” between important periods in history. With Burke’s new method, teachers could be able to give students a better foundation of what they are learning by showing the “connections” between large historical events. By doing this, it would help get rid of the problem that McCullough says plagues so many teachers and their students. With this, some may say that this method produced by Burke could revolutionize the way to teach history.
Although Burke may be suffering from History ADD, it may be suprisingly resourceful. James Burke has compiled information on history that focuses on how one thing led to another, or was somehow effected by one event. He developed a sort of cause and effect notion that is certainly clever and well thought out. At first when watching the documentary I didn't quite understand how he traveled from filioque and the church to South American culture (Aztecs and whatnots). However, after pondering over the seemingly randomness of the film, I began to realize that he wasn't a lunatic after all (at least not fully) but rather was making a revelation known to us. Connections of one culture, event, person and idea to others in seemingly unrelated aspects was ingenious. His way of thinking was revolutionary, and I for one think that he is onto something incredible, that could eventually change how history is viewed and taught. David McCullough believes that in most cases history today is being given to the sports coach who needs a teacher job in order to coach. He says that today history is taught widely as memorization of dates and the like. He also is looking for a better way of presentation for the history so that it strays far from this bandwagon form of instruction. Burke seems to have found one solution to it, but much by accident. If history was taught as the wide scope, connecting the dots if you will, then it could make history more interactive and interesting as well. I would certainly love seeing how seemingly obscure details in history actually cause a great deal of change or adaptation throughout the world.
James Burke is most definitely an interesting character and an eccentric educator. His so called “history a.d.d.” is evident but it is also this odd characteristic that makes his teachings and lessons so intriguing. The fact that he is able to make connections between events in history and other modern aspects of life is ingenious. Although it seems odd, connecting Einstein’s confusing theories with ice cream or chewing gum to the cold war is a brilliant idea which I believe could be extremely beneficial to education for teachers and students alike. In James Burke’s Knowledge Web it is evident that he has truly devised a new way of thinking and educating the people of today in history and other walks of life. David McCullough’s views on history teachers today and the teaching of the subject are of low quality. He feels that anyone could become a history teacher because all society is requiring of students is to memorize some major names and dates. He is a firm believer in restoring the student’s desire and interest in learning about history and the teachers desire to teach their students this knowledge. Burke has taken the study of history and has made it into an interactive experience exploring all aspects of the human race through the years, whether they are big or small, and their impact on society and the outcome of these events in history.
Some may argue that James Burke has history ADD and I agree that he does, but it doesn't lessen the fact that his theories and ideas are genius and that he is onto something. Sure he digresses and jumps from one topic to another, but the ideas that he presents are just brilliant. He supports his ideas by relating back to history and suggests that every concept or idea that we think of has history behind it and the way we approach that history makes a difference. Burke introduces ideas such as "filioque" and it's importance in history. Also, he takes a more in depth approach to history that we are not well informed about and uses that history to explain the process of technology and how they are all intertwined and although different, they have this similarity. We were taught the basics of history and the textbook analogy of history, but Burke gives us a whole new light and gives us an understanding that you cannot get out of a textbook. What I found amusing was how Burke could pick up any idea and intelligently conjure up a historical background that we probably didn't know existed. And he does this in such a spontaneous manner that we're sitting in our seats speechless and confused, but strangely enough they are all interconnected. For an example, Burke goes from Reformation to letters to religion and all of a sudden gets to the Grimm Brother, Little Red Riding Hood and then to Disney. They seem to have no connection what so ever, but I think that is the genius behind Burke's works. McCullough expresses the same idea, but he stresses the relationship of history with culture in a more general form. And what Burke does is expand that thought by explaining the cultural background but also how these events causes a difference.
In my eyes James Burke most certainly is on to something, his ideas on history and his views on historical happenings are very thought provoking and extremely brilliant in his own way. However, it is hard to ignore the problem “History ADD” that was so comically diagnosed by Tom. This “History ADD” is not all that bad though; it brings history to life by connecting a discovery or event led to another in history and how that led to another and so on until we get to the modern day. It is very similar to a cause and effect chain, this idea is very clever and well planned.
Burke’s Knowledge Web is a very brilliant idea that connects different fields of historical study. Burke’s Web is intended to fight the idea that people are “learning more and more about less and less.” He uses his web to teach readers and scholars the connections between historical happenings, ideas and concepts. He doesn’t agree with how people are beginning to be very specialized in certain fields and are now failing to grasp history as a whole, as he thinks it should be. This Knowledge Web really helps people understand how almost all things are directly related in history, how all things are connected some way or another. This idea of the Knowledge Web is a good concept but sometimes lacks the connections needed to make it spectacular. The connections Burke makes are sometimes extremely insignificant and do a very poor job explaining the connection between the two topics. However, other than this problem I find the Knowledge Web a useful and fun way to learn about history.
There are a few connections that can be made to David McCullough, the first obviously being their love of history. Both of these men love history and have devoted their lives to it; researching, studying, teaching, writing about, and talking about history. They both enjoy being a part of history and making it a part of their lives. One of the other connections is that McCullough and Burke are both trying to make history more interesting for the masses; I find that both men are trying to make history more enjoyable and easy to learn for the average person. McCullough and Burke both draws connections in their work and both are trying to mainstream history so that their love of it can be shared by millions of others.
19 comments:
James Burke is certainly onto something. In its most broad definition, history is the chronology of the universe and its current state. History is the biography of the universe. It is used both to say what has happened and help predict what will happen. Every single science, concept, idea, everything, absolutely everything has a history. The core beliefs of Burke are that everything in history is dependant, and thus everything in history must be taught. Ideas are a product of a person and a person is a product of their past experiences and beliefs, a.k.a. their culture.
Burke showed the path of how the word filioque directly led to and through the Renaissance and beyond. A single step, if removed, will cause the entire chain of development to crash. That is how delicate the web he weaves is. However, by following this web, one cannot fall off it. The very way Burke teaches history shows the dependence of everything on everything else. If anything, Burke’s History ADD is only perceived that way due to the fact that we try to limit everything into tiny bits. Schools teach history as “this happened after this,” with so many of the cultural factors missing. A political, economic, or artistic idea can and will alter culture in its own way so that everything flows in a never-ending river. Saying that B follows A isn’t history. The more one goes into one event, the easier it is to understand why another occurred. “A” is not just “A” but rather is a diagonal line up, a diagonal line down, a horizontal line in the middle, and than if the script is to be more complicated than the explanation must also be more complicated. Only by completely understanding “A” can it be seen that “B” was unavoidable.
McCullough’s major complaint is that the cultural parts of history are not being taught. Burke fixes this and takes it a step further. Not only does he take into account the cultural connections, but he explains how every one of them causes a different culture or cultural event occurs. For example, one cannot fully explain the nineties culture without explaining the computer, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Nirvana, Bill Clinton (Monica Lewinsky), and Columbine. All of these have played and continue to play some part in American culture, even if their rippling effects no longer resemble their cause.
Burke’s style of teaching history is a way to teach complete history. As every idea, discovery, and person create a ripple effect, history is most comprehensive this way. The difficulty in this is that not everyone can follow these intricate paths. However, not everyone can be an astrophysicist either, so it seems plausible that not everyone can be a historian. History is noticeable for culture, and culture is constantly changing. Culture has ADD, Burke just points it out.
Although James Burke is definitely “onto something” I would still have to say that he also might suffer from history ADD. His particular work demonstrates the various relationships that exist between technology, science, and social change throughout history. One of his quotes that really struck me was, “People tend to become experts in highly specialized fields, learning more and more about less and less.” This particular quote struck me mainly because of the part that said, “Learning more about less and less.” This was significant because, although I had never thought of it before, Burke is definitely correct in making this statement. The more specialized that someone becomes in a particular subject, the more knowledge and experience that they will have in this field.
James Burke is using his extensive research to help and create the Knowledge Web. This Knowledge Web is an incredibly useful tool, particularly to teachers and students. It puts different aspects of history into an easy to use format so that students will receive greater benefits from education on these subjects. Burke simplifies his research to make it interactive and interesting for students. The main purpose of his Knowledge Web is to show these learners that all of the actions of our past, present, and future is interconnected and all has a relative effect upon one another. But, based on the video that we watched in class I originally did believe that Burke did have history ADD. He is a very creative and intelligent man; however, his flamboyant and dynamic ways are apparent in this video and before you fully understand the connections he is trying to make it just seems as if he is comparing topics that completely opposite of one another. At first I was extremely confused as to how Burke was relating Little Red Riding Hood to any of these topics. Nevertheless, Burke definitely is a brilliant man with very innovative ideas for relating different historical figures, events, places, and time periods with one another.
James Burke does share a few similarities with David McCullough, the first being the love that they have for history and the pleasure that they receive from being involved with it. Just like Burke, McCullough is also extremely interested in the past and is constantly relating the past back to the present and future within his works. Both of these men use the technique of having one of their subjects lead them into another subject. By doing this, they create a connection between each of these events or places or people, and therefore this shows a correlation between a great deal and variety of elements within history. Overall, both of these intellectual men strongly believed in relating elements in history to create one vast picture.
Although some may find James Burke to have historical ADD, it is impossible to ignore the genius behind his concepts and ideas. His theory of “The Knowledge Web” opposes the general educational idea of specialized learning and thinking, stating that these people “are learning more and more about less and less”. Rather than learning that one event happened after another, his “Knowledge Web” allows a person to understand the connections between all historical ideas and concepts by linking a single concept to thousands of others. However, the links between the events are sometimes insignificant, making it difficult for the average person to understand. He may not be the person to instate this new way of learning into educational programs but he has set the standard for a person in the future to continue with his concept. It is possible for Burke to be a genius; however, a genius who can not have a lasting impact on his field can become irrelevant. His connections can not be easily understood by a student; they can sometimes be seen as random pieces of history put together. If Burke does not strengthen the connections between the historical events or make it clearer to the average student, his genius concept will be entirely ignored. He is without a doubt onto something, something that could change the way history, and possibly all other fields, are taught, but just being onto something may simply not be enough.
David McCullough presents James Burke’s way of looking at history in a more understandable way. His books have varied from discussing presidents to the Brooklyn Bridge, and he has even taken part the in movie “Seabiscuit”. These topics seem to be random as are Burke’s topics, however, a person who simply reads a short interview of why McCullough chose the topics that he did can understand the connections between all of the concepts. On the other hand, a person could spend hours reading essays written by Burke and find themselves entirely lost. McCullough’s long list of achievements and awards does not mean he is any more of a genius than Burke, rather he has found a way to explain his ideas to the people. If Burke hopes to have a lasting effect on society as has McCullough, he needs to get past his historical ADD and allow the world to see his genius idea as he does.
I know that James Burke is a brilliant mind and his and will forever inspire generations to love, acknowledge, and respect history; because history is our past, present, and future. Burke is definitely on to something remarkable and has already made is place in history books for making ludicrous connections in history, yet they make sense and help educate the masses about what our past held so we can know what our future hold. His work demonstrates the various relationship between technology, science, and social advances throughout history. Burke presents knowledge in a highly consistent, natural way that makes it possible to follow an almost countless number of paths of exploration among people, places, things, and events. His approach may seem like historical ADD, but not everyone can learn history and about the world through chronological events listed in boring textbooks, where kids count the number of pages until the next picture (I do it all the time and I know everyone else does it too). It is easier for people to learn connections before facts because a person can easily remember connections which then spark the remembrance of core facts. Burke’s History ADD is only perceived in a negative wasy becausese we try to limit everything into tiny bits. Schools teach history with the culture missing. A political, economic, or artistic idea can alter culture but school books do not pick at that idea because history won’t be going in a chronological order. Critics of Burke are just too conservative with learning history one way, the boring way, which hinders our worldliness and respect for others cutures and ideas. Knowledge web will begin to get the respect it needs and wants and children will learn to be open minded and not thick headed like their predecessors and learn that history is not just one way, it goes forward, back, side to side, and diagonal.
David McCullough and James Burke do share similarties in the way they love history and the pleasure that they receive from presenting it. Like Burke, McCullough is interested in the past and is constantly relating the past back to the present and future in his works. The only difference between the two is the fact that McCullough focuses on specific events, ideas, and people in history, which makes people focus on specific aspects of history instead of the broad picture. McCullough does believe in the same values of Burke in terms of learning history, but Burke did state that “Learners may study either history or physics, or perhaps only Renaissance history and astrophysics. People tend to become experts in highly specialized fields, learning more and more about less and less.” David fits this quote because he is teaching the masses about a specialized event in history, but does try to relate that event to the world. I have a total respect for McCullough and I am a huge fan, but sometimes after reading some of his works, I get the feeling and the impression of him glorifying one event when he should be glorifying or calling out a person, idea, or event that occurred.
People may say that Burke has ADD, which isn’t surprising because apparently everyone has ADD and ADHD these days because some doctors think diagnosing someone with the disease solves problems, but Burke can totally pull off his tangents which help people learn about history in a new exciting light, and his new approach will continue to help change and better our society.
While it is true Mr. Burke might be suffering from a bit of “History ADD” it is just as true that this has led all of us to look at history in a new light. In fact it is easy to argue that his history ADD is actually quite helpful in navigating the intricate passageways of our history. So I think Burke is on to something truly important with his Knowledge Web and the structure of his shows because he is showing the true nature of history. People seem to think that history is the study of old people and what they did and some events that happened long ago, few of which have any effect on our lives today. Mr. Burke is clearly proving the preconceived notion of history wrong through his ideas because he sees history for what it truly is; alive. History is truly a study of actions since every person, place, or thing has its own distinct history that influences the history of others. In this way history follows a ripple effect where everything affects something else through huge chains, which is why I think the Knowledge Web being designed is such a great idea. A great description of this is the Butterfly effect which in essence describes that it is a compilation of little, seemingly insignificant events which cause momentous things to happen, and not truly huge events. A common example of this phenomenon is that a beat from a butterfly’s wings might be the last bit needed to start a hurricane winds spinning. However in a more historical sense the battle of New Orleans was pointless from a militaristic point of view but it was that battle that made Andrew Jackson a hero, or if we had invaded Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis we most assuredly would have lost due to the fact that the USSR already had installed battlefield grade missiles, ready to take out an incoming army. Burke’s Web points out these small changes in history that made all the difference and goes even farther to show how these events effect one another. This describes another famous theory, the Ripple Effect. This effect describes how a single event will affect everything else surrounding it sort of like when you throw a rock in a pond and though it may be a small stone its ripples end up affecting the entire surface. Burke draws on these examples to help us realize that everything is connected and history is the analysis of these connections which shape our world and is going farther than any other historian has gone before. Burke insists on looking at history from above and takes in how seemingly unrelated things ended up working together to create what we have now. While Burke takes an overhead look on the structure of history, McCullough takes historical events under a microscope and view what put them together. Despite the difference in styles between the two, both are trying to enthusiastically accomplish the same things. Both are attempting to show history is more than just memorizing names, dates, and places; it’s actually everything that affects us, has affected us and will affect us. They are trying to show history is not boring and unnecessary to learn but it encompasses many facets and seemingly unconnected events end up effecting us every day. However while Burke shows the complexity of the facets by looking above, McCullough delves deeply into specific events. By scrutinizing specific events he sees how everything works together to create bigger events; similar to Burke’s Web, however on a much smaller scale. McCullough does show how different events and people relate to one another by basing his next book of a tangent in his previous one. While this method is not all encompassing as Burke’s it still can show how things like the Brooklyn Bridge and Theodore Roosevelt are connected. In all honesty neither way is better than another in this case because both end up showing that history is the study of connections and that everything is intertwined. A metaphor for the differences in style can be that both historians are viewing the workings of an organism; McCullough concentrates on how a specific being works while Burke views how the Earth is an organism and how those beings together make the Earth work. Both still prove that history is alive, affects us every day, and is most certainly not boring, even though it may seem like the effects are random at first glance.
James Burke has certainly a different approach to history, and is brilliant in his own way. His style of quick paced presentations based on seemingly loose ties creates an interest for the audience. Both his rapid presentations and switching between topics, creates appeal for the modern youth audience. The current generation is, after all, termed the “ADD Generation.” Personally I believe that his presentations would create interest in the viewers and compel them to either learn about the topic(s), or to at least think seriously about the topics being discussed. By spending only a brief amount of time exploring a new perspective on these topics, it creates further interest in the audience, and firmly plants these ideas that are shown. Burke manages to display history as it is, flexible, and always being changed. He shows how each person’s actions as well as the smallest of events can spread its influence throughout the world. Burke’s shows are certainly creative, however he does seem to be stretching with a few of the connections, as well as some which seem to be loosely based off of evidence which may or may not be credible. Overall he created an intriguing and creative way to display some of the influences of certain events in history, in an engaging manner which will definitely appeal to younger audiences. In terms of whether Burke is suffering from History ADD, or simply is on to something, I would say a little of both. His presentations do seem to be an effective tool in aiding the learning process; however the rapid jumps are more characteristic of ADD. But given the current generation’s learning styles, Burke may just be an effective teacher. I find that Burke shares a lot in common with McCullough and his works. They both are attempting to present history in a more acceptable fashion, which will be easier for modern generations to take an interest in. McCullough also makes connections in his works, or rather his process of finding interest in the topics which he writes on. He explained that in writing his works, which he apparently researches thoroughly, he finds something that piques his interest. So in creating these detailed accounts of certain historic events, McCullough is led to his next project, which can evidently be connected back to his previous work. In accordance with Burke, who believes that “People tend to become experts in highly specialized fields,” McCullough focuses on the specific event which he is working on. He creates his works to be full of detail, and scrutinizes them to make sure that he can be as accurate as he can. McCullough is clearly similar to Burke in many ways, perhaps just lacking that particular “history ADD” quality.
James Burke’s interpretation and analysis of history is incredibly unique in comparison to the historical studies of others. The connections and explanations provided by Burke do greatly in showing how events that at first appear to have no relation whatsoever are in fact interconnected. When one examines causes in history, it is typical to trace events through the most logical and likely course of events, showing how one major event led to another. This method explains the evolution and progression of groups, be it a culture, race, field, etc. Burke’s study in the field of history differs in the fact that he crosses these boundaries and shows how an event in one given group had an underlying impact on an event in another, in essence proving that all cultures and fields are intertwined and are in fact not secularized as it is so believed. The concept in itself is apparent genius and provides a creative and very interesting perspective on why historical events occurred as they did. However, some of the connections Burke has made appear to be somewhat stretched and the extent to which each event actually had an impact upon another could be questioned. For example, crediting the creation of the tales of the Brother’s Grimm to the study of San Serif writing seems slightly illogical. Though who is anyone to question the impact one event has upon another? Each event that occurs during one’s life has a direct impact upon the choices and experiences they will have in the future; even the most minor of alterations could cause an event to have a completely different outcome. As a result, it is not too bold to state that even the most minor of events that appear to have almost not connection could in fact have some sort of correlation. If the connection can be made, then it should be upheld, even if it appears unlikely. We as historians, as humans, cannot completely judge the full impact an event had upon another simply due to the fact that we do not have that power. We cannot enter the minds of others and examine every single detail and thought that was judged and calculated in making a decision. At most, we can come to a logical conclusion of why something occurred based upon previous knowledge and experience. No matter how hard we may try however, we will never fully understand the reasoning behind the actions of others, and at times, even our own. As a result, any connection made between events, no matter how seemingly insignificant, cannot be discredited. Burke’s methods may seem illogical at times, but they provide an interesting perspective at history that should if nothing else be examined along with traditional historical examination methods.
The most prominent connection that can be made between Burke and McCullough is their love for history and desire to increase interest in history among those do not feel the subject is worth the merit to indulge in. Burke feels that due to the specialization of modern fields, people are learning “more and more about less and less” while McCullough has stated that interest in history has greatly lessened due to the fast paced, future-driven American culture. Both Burke and McCullough try to combat this disinterest in historical study by tackling the information in an interesting and creative way. It is their hope that if historical context is presented in a manner that unique and shies away from the typical memorization of names and dates, their audience’s curiosity will be aroused and will thus be more enticed to learn about events of old. In addition, both Burke’s and McCullough’s work is a built-on product of their previous work. The cornerstone of Burke’s findings is the connections he makes between one event to another, and McCullough often relies upon his most previous historical fiction novel as a launching pad for the topic of his next novel. Both of these men are dedicated to the passing of historical knowledge to those around them, a trait which is highly evident in their work.
James Burke, while obviously eccentric in his approach to history, is also definitely on to something. If, indeed, he does have “history ADD”he uses it to maximum effect, making history more interesting and appealing to the average person. It is true that Burke’s approach to history involves him skipping from topic to topic, drawing obscure and odd connections between them, in a way that suggests some type of attention deficit disorder. However, in a way, our culture has ADD. In this modern age of internet, cell phones, and reality television, the average American seldom pays attention to one topic or idea for more than a few minutes at a time. This often makes the study of history tedious to an average citizen, since it usually involves one pursuing a specific topic for an extended period of time. Burke, however, frenetically skips from one topic to the next, never giving his viewer (or, in the case of the Knowledge Web, reader) time to lose interest.
Also, as Burke points out on the Knowledge Web website, there is method to his madness. By quickly moving from topic to topic through apparently random connections, he reminds us that the study of history is not just memorizing chronological lists of events. He forces us to see that everything is connected, and find the connections between them. In his eccentric approach to history, James Burke also helps his viewer or reader learn that history effects and is effected by all fields, from literature to science to philosophy. By using his ‘history ADD” approach, Burke tries to combat the narrow specialization of fields that is so prevalent today.
In this, and many, ways, Burke is a lot like David McCullough. Like Burke, McCullough does not think that history should be the memorization of chronological events. He believes, like Burke, that in order to study history, one needs perspective, and that history cannot necessarily always be confined to its own field. In addition, McCullough, though in a radically different way from Burke, also attempts to make the study of history more appealing to a wide audience. Even though McCullough chooses to write popular books about a single topic while Burke chooses to create frenetic, widely varied television shows (and now a website), both historians’ aims are to make history more approachable to more people.
James Burke most certainly has a unique way of looking at one event in history and connecting it to another event that seems to be completely irreverent. While it may seem impossible to connect different text fonts to folk stories, Burke has the ability to make this comparison and is able to explain it in an understandable way so that his audience can also see the connection. Some may say that he has “history ADD” the way he skips from one topic to another, but when you think about it what he is saying makes perfect sense. Burke has developed this idea called the Knowledge Web. This is a cosmopolitan way of relating people, places and events. The web is able to demonstrate how history is interrelated and interdependent. Also, it contracts with how history is taught today. Many people focus on memorizing names and dates but don’t really see the connection between one event to another. Also how one aspect of a time period influence many other events and acts that follow it. This is the main idea in the Knowledge Web. Burke has created a tool that is interactive and allows its users to not only get information on the topic they are researching but also other related topics. Another use of this Web is that it allows people to branch out and learn more information. Burke had mentioned how today more people are focusing on learning a lot of information on just one specific topic and are not really exploring any other information. By doing this it is limiting their knowledge, not only in other aspects of history but also the topic they are studying because they are unable to see how it is connected to other aspects of history or affected them.
The first time I saw one of Burke’s shows I thought that he was absolutely crazy. To me his web seemed to make no sense and it annoyed me that he would jump around from one topic. However, now that I look back at his ideas and think about it his connections make complete sense and are very interesting. I think that the Knowledge Web that he is using is a new tool that is very helpful in understanding history. He is able to link together topics that seem to be extremes in a way that makes sense and is clear enough that you can see the relationship. I found myself to be paying extremely close attention to what was going on so that when he made a connection to his next topic I would be able to understand it fully. For me, I found his way of connecting information to be insightful and entertaining because I was always wondering what connections he would make next. The Knowledge Web seems to be a very useful way of learning information, and Burke certainly does know what he is talking about and does not have “history ADD”.
James Burke approach to history is similar to that of David McCullough. Both men have similar ideas about how history should be taught. They both feel that history is more than just memorizing dates and people. In order to understand and learn history you need to learn about an event and see how it affects events that follow it. Both men show this in their work. Their main goal is to enforce this idea. While Burke does this by using his Knowledge Web, McCullough has a different approach. He picks an event and writes a popular book about the event and how it affect the time era and still has an effect on us today. An example of this is his story on the Brooklyn Bridge. He not only talks about how the bridge was built but how it is still up today and shows how much work and though the men who built in had to put into it and how he feels proud every time he looks at it. Both men also share a love for history and truly want to make sure that their audience is able to understand it and love it as much as they do.
Although James Burke’s unique approach to history can leave you with a sense of “History ADD”, I think he may be onto something brilliant. His theory of “The Knowledge Web” offers a way for people to make connections between very different fields of historical study. Burke thinks that people are “learning more and more about less and less”. His approach to history attempts to remedy this. Instead of learning history as a series of sequential events, Burke wants his readers to understand the connections between different historical ideas and concepts by linking a single concept to many others. He doesn’t believe that a general education should be extremely specialized, which goes back to the idea of the well-rounded “Renaissance Man”. He covers a vast range of historical topics by making unique and unlikely connections between them in order to cover what he considers to be gaps in knowledge. Burke’s “Knowledge Web” is similar to the concept maps I made for Dr. Trifone’s biology class. For every unit, we had to create a web connecting different key terms from that unit. Making these maps helped me to understand the subject mater more clearly by demonstrating how different things were connected. The “Knowledge Web” can have a similar effect for students by helping them see how different historical topics, although different, are related and share areas of overlap.
My only criticism of James Burke’s work is the actual links that he makes between topics. They are often insignificant, which may make it difficult for students to follow. However, this approach to learning definitely makes his programs appealing to watch and give students a learning experience quite unilke their textbooks.
I think James Burke’s greatest contribution to education is the actual method he uses, rather than the specific historical connections he makes. He has introduced an idea that will inspire teaching methods in all different fields in the future (such as the use of concept maps in biology).
David McCullough uses James Burke’s approach to history in a less confusing way. He has written books on topics ranging from presidents to the Brooklyn Bridge, and even contributed to the making of “Seabiscuit”. It seems that both McCullough and Burke explore seemingly ramdom areas of study, but both have been able to make the connections between them. However, a student would be much more likely to feel lost after reading Burke’s work than after reading McCullough’s. McCullough has been better able to communicate his historical connections to his readers and viewers, as reflected by the many awards he has received. Burke has the same potential to be as
effective for his viewers; he just needs to overcome his historical ADD.
The underlying differences between genius and insanity are more often than not subject to personal interpretation. What may seem brilliant to one man can very likely appear absurd to the next. Personally, I think James Burke walks the fine line between lunacy and pure genius.
History has long been disregarded by high school and college students due to its seemingly irrelevant subject matter. The average student often finds it difficult if not impossible to draw connections between foreign monarchies dating back hundreds of year to their lives as they know it today. The common approach of introducing events played out in history in chronological order, though proven relatively effective, often prevents students from understanding just how interrelated and dependent every aspect of history is on prior events. Though I agree with Tom’s diagnosis of James Burke’s “History ADD,” there is unquestionably genius behind his madness. James Burke’s “Knowledge Web” breaks from the conventional method of teaching history chronologically, approaching it instead by drawing connections between seemingly random people, places, and events throughout history, connections historians of time past might never have considered. Through a sequence of obscure connections, James Burke manages to tie otherwise random topics together such as Napolean to the development of the modern computer. The sporadic and seemingly illogical jumps in time periods, places, and events often leave onlookers dazed and confused. Through a link of seemingly ambiguous links, the “Knowledge Web” illustrates how every aspect of our culture, government, and world came about because of events of the past. Though audiences of James Burke’s television series “Connections” are often subject to question Burke’s thought process, one cannot ignore how ingenious his method is. The correlation between his fast paced, constantly changing programs and our on the go society compliments our culture as it is stands today.
David McCullough and James Burke both approach history with similar tactics, similar motives, similar convictions, and a common love. These two historians share in writing methods in that they both use figures, events, and places they’ve previously explored as springboards to other subjects. They diverge in that though McCullough’s process in choosing a topic may seem “random,” once a topic is chosen, attention is focused on it. Burke on the other hand allows his brain to draw connections seemingly without restraint. Though their writing style varies, these two men share a common love for history and a desire to spark a flame of interest in future generations. Through the recreation and organization of certain fragments of history, McCullough and Burke’s shared hope is to alter history’s notorious reputation for being irrelevant and dry and to make history more appealing to our twenty first century generation.
Is having ADD in the subject of history necessarily a bad thing? Why does one have to “suffer” from ADD? The excitement, the never-ending thirst for knowledge…these traits should be craved for. ADD can in fact help some; many find history boring, endless torture, but a person with ADD may see history as a channel for their irrepressible liveliness. On The James Burke Institute's Knowledge Web Burke is quoted about specialization; how people are trained in only one subject and as a result ‘learn more and more about less and less’. He doesn’t want people to be educated about one thing. What’s the point of learning about one thing when a person is surrounded by infinite choices of knowledge? That’s boring, he believes. The first thing the audience notices about James Burke is his uncontainable energy when it comes to history. He can be seen a dark, dingy study in one shot and on a theatre stage in the next. To him, history is not just about chronology of events—science, technology, and society also play significant roles. Burke strongly believes that history has and always will be connected, and proves his theory in the ever popular series Connections on PBS. He may “suffer” from History ADD, but he can’t help it. History excites him, and just like David McCullough, he is drawn to history, and passionately fights for the integrity of what he considers the most fascinating subject.
Burke begins his show with a small, conversational introduction then leads his episode by referring to one word: filioque. He explains a whole conflict surrounding that one word then changes gears and effortlessly goes into a topic that directly ties to the previous. It takes a little while for the audience to register what he does. They may not see the small facts he gives them as important because they don’t specifically look for them. Plus, Burke doesn’t reveal the whole picture until the end of his show.
The eccentric historian who is viewed on Connections enforces the idea that history is all about…well, connections. Everything in the books people are taught from exists in the pattern of causes and effects. For example: Why did Henry VIII leave the Catholic Church? England didn’t want to be controlled by Spain. And how did this situation affect events that occurred after? England and Spain became power hungry rivals. History is a collection of stories; not just one (No one wants to hear a story over and over again). If one wants to learn about one thing, he/she must learn about everything else that affected it. Burke also works to emphasize technology (like printing in Italics and the telegraph), literature (how today’s children friendly stories derived from myths and the original stories by the Grimm Brothers), and linguistic anthropology. Essentially, Burke may have history ADD—by moving from one topic to another and never staying in one place—but he chooses to channel his “disease” into a worthwhile adventure.
Looking at James Burke and David McCullough, they can definitely be connected. For one thing, their styles are the same. Both had one subject lead them to many others. McCullough and Burke fluently weave stories and hold up their titles as narrative historians. They also love playing with perspective—there’s not just one witness to an event or one person important enough to have changed a sequence in history. Their interests can easily be seen by the way they present themselves. McCullough can answer a question about history in more than a paragraph, while Burke never stops talking until the end of his show. These men, so unique in their own ways, truly want to share the art of history through as many mediums possible. Their techniques have been helpful to many other teachers and students, and if people can learn from Burke and McCullough, history will never fall under unpopular eyes.
James Burke is truly “on to something”, that is, he has a true understanding of what history, science, technology, and everything on earth is all about. In an increasingly specialized society where everyone has one job and one job only, isolation is clearly more visible as technology becomes more refined. It could be said that because our society has evolved so much, and so much has already been discovered, researchers or specialists need to become more specialized. Yet, according to Burke, that is not the true point of innovation and learning. By delving too deeply and specifically into a subject, many lose sight of the real picture. Only by connecting and utilizing different fields of study would anyone, whether it be scientists, or teachers, be able to create something new and truly original. As Burke wrote, “Unfortunately, so much specialization falsely creates the illusion that knowledge and discovery exist in a vacuum, in context only with their own disciplines…Without an ability to see these connections, history and science won't be learnable in a truly meaningful way and innovation will be stifled”. Burke offers a truly different view at history. In school, most of what we learn is on a specific topic with very few crossovers between different classes. Of course, different classes within the same subject may intertwine, but there is little or no interaction across subjects. Now, the prevalent path of great innovation is a Bachelor’s degree, a Master’s degree, and perhaps a Professional degree based on a specific field of study. By mastering more knowledge, these scientists narrow their point of view on their study even more though they are focusing more on a specific area of study. This, essentially, is what Burke believes is wrong in our approach to innovation. Without the ability to see the big picture, many are blinded by the specifics. Without drawing information from other areas of study, it narrows the possibilities for novel ideas.
However, it is also true to describe James Burke as, essentially, “suffering from history ADD”. His connections from the video are often so obscure and “jumps” too quickly at times that there cannot be a truly more well-rounded understanding of the subject at hand. At the end, I was left to wonder about what the exact point of the whole video was all about. Yet, this criticism of Burke only highlights his message that the way we learn, which is much more specific, does not reflect the true meaning of history and learning. Looking at Burke’s work from the perspective of someone who has viewed history by sections but never as a whole makes his message seem a little less than scholarly, and perhaps even crazy. Yes, it is true that his “Knowledge Web” may not be specific, nor is it the things we normally would learn in history. It is also true that it does not offer the full, detailed description of everything tiny bit of history. Yet, Burke’s “Knowledge Web” does make sense in that it offers a truly comprehensive view of the different aspects of everything on earth, and perhaps even an idea for the future.
James Burke has a unique approach to history that he explains in the work and documentaries he has produced. While some (me) might call his work historical ADD, he is reading between the lines and seeing the pervading connections throughout history. Burke is able to separate out a single line of history and trace it through the centuries to effects being felt today, making history a very real and modern topic. He shows a lucidity rarely found in some dry historians, and is able to connect the topics he studies directly to his audience. I found myself very attentive to the documentary that we watched, and while it began in a not particularly exciting way, with a Latin word of Church doctrine, I found myself intrigued as to why “filioque” was important. Burke true genius is in following a single line of history. While this may seem surprising to those who see Burke as a generalist, he is able to track a single thread for a long time. Burke does go on to some very odd tangents while he traces a cause and effect, and this is his weakness. David McCullough is a more traditional historian in that he picks out a topic and researches information to synthesize. McCullough does do this very well, and he brings to light many things missed by others, however, the approach he brings to history is not groundbreaking. Burke uses a “Wikipedia” approach to history, looking at a topic and immediately clicking on the blue links. His is fascinated not by what happened in history, but by the connections between events. His view of history is of a web that must be untangled one thread at a time. As he picks apart the knot, this thread may turn out to be a short one with little new information, it may be a long and detailed one that may overturn the current thinking. And, with such a wild, shotgun approach, the thread will often lead to nothing at all, no information, no dazzling discoveries, and no documentaries. However, when Burke strikes gold, he can truly overhaul the status quo of history for whatever wild collection of events he has connected.
Burke is truly a very unique man. The fact that he would come up with a project to show the connections between, say, ice cream and the Renaissance shows how eccentric of an individual he is. He truly has devised a new way of thinking, but whether it may be useful or not is questionable. When it comes to far out things like connecting bubble gum and the cold war, I would say that Tom’s phrase “History ADD” definitely comes into play. But, to use this web to connect actual historical facts, like the fall of the Catholic Church with the rise of the Renaissance, would definitely be useful to a teacher or a student. His creation of this web project is truly ingenious and they could definitely be useful to both teachers and students alike.
McCullough said that, in too many cases, history is just a side subject given to a “coach” as something that they can teach so they can be part of a sports organization. He feels that much of history is just memorizing dates and taking tests. Not too many teachers take the time to go in depth with their students on the cultural aspects of what they are studying. He feels they don’t make the “connections” between important periods in history.
With Burke’s new method, teachers could be able to give students a better foundation of what they are learning by showing the “connections” between large historical events. By doing this, it would help get rid of the problem that McCullough says plagues so many teachers and their students. With this, some may say that this method produced by Burke could revolutionize the way to teach history.
Although Burke may be suffering from History ADD, it may be suprisingly resourceful. James Burke has compiled information on history that focuses on how one thing led to another, or was somehow effected by one event. He developed a sort of cause and effect notion that is certainly clever and well thought out. At first when watching the documentary I didn't quite understand how he traveled from filioque and the church to South American culture (Aztecs and whatnots). However, after pondering over the seemingly randomness of the film, I began to realize that he wasn't a lunatic after all (at least not fully) but rather was making a revelation known to us. Connections of one culture, event, person and idea to others in seemingly unrelated aspects was ingenious. His way of thinking was revolutionary, and I for one think that he is onto something incredible, that could eventually change how history is viewed and taught.
David McCullough believes that in most cases history today is being given to the sports coach who needs a teacher job in order to coach. He says that today history is taught widely as memorization of dates and the like. He also is looking for a better way of presentation for the history so that it strays far from this bandwagon form of instruction. Burke seems to have found one solution to it, but much by accident. If history was taught as the wide scope, connecting the dots if you will, then it could make history more interactive and interesting as well. I would certainly love seeing how seemingly obscure details in history actually cause a great deal of change or adaptation throughout the world.
James Burke is most definitely an interesting character and an eccentric educator. His so called “history a.d.d.” is evident but it is also this odd characteristic that makes his teachings and lessons so intriguing. The fact that he is able to make connections between events in history and other modern aspects of life is ingenious. Although it seems odd, connecting Einstein’s confusing theories with ice cream or chewing gum to the cold war is a brilliant idea which I believe could be extremely beneficial to education for teachers and students alike. In James Burke’s Knowledge Web it is evident that he has truly devised a new way of thinking and educating the people of today in history and other walks of life.
David McCullough’s views on history teachers today and the teaching of the subject are of low quality. He feels that anyone could become a history teacher because all society is requiring of students is to memorize some major names and dates. He is a firm believer in restoring the student’s desire and interest in learning about history and the teachers desire to teach their students this knowledge. Burke has taken the study of history and has made it into an interactive experience exploring all aspects of the human race through the years, whether they are big or small, and their impact on society and the outcome of these events in history.
Some may argue that James Burke has history ADD and I agree that he does, but it doesn't lessen the fact that his theories and ideas are genius and that he is onto something. Sure he digresses and jumps from one topic to another, but the ideas that he presents are just brilliant. He supports his ideas by relating back to history and suggests that every concept or idea that we think of has history behind it and the way we approach that history makes a difference. Burke introduces ideas such as "filioque" and it's importance in history. Also, he takes a more in depth approach to history that we are not well informed about and uses that history to explain the process of technology and how they are all intertwined and although different, they have this similarity. We were taught the basics of history and the textbook analogy of history, but Burke gives us a whole new light and gives us an understanding that you cannot get out of a textbook. What I found amusing was how Burke could pick up any idea and intelligently conjure up a historical background that we probably didn't know existed. And he does this in such a spontaneous manner that we're sitting in our seats speechless and confused, but strangely enough they are all interconnected. For an example, Burke goes from Reformation to letters to religion and all of a sudden gets to the Grimm Brother, Little Red Riding Hood and then to Disney. They seem to have no connection what so ever, but I think that is the genius behind Burke's works.
McCullough expresses the same idea, but he stresses the relationship of history with culture in a more general form. And what Burke does is expand that thought by explaining the cultural background but also how these events causes a difference.
In my eyes James Burke most certainly is on to something, his ideas on history and his views on historical happenings are very thought provoking and extremely brilliant in his own way. However, it is hard to ignore the problem “History ADD” that was so comically diagnosed by Tom. This “History ADD” is not all that bad though; it brings history to life by connecting a discovery or event led to another in history and how that led to another and so on until we get to the modern day. It is very similar to a cause and effect chain, this idea is very clever and well planned.
Burke’s Knowledge Web is a very brilliant idea that connects different fields of historical study. Burke’s Web is intended to fight the idea that people are “learning more and more about less and less.” He uses his web to teach readers and scholars the connections between historical happenings, ideas and concepts. He doesn’t agree with how people are beginning to be very specialized in certain fields and are now failing to grasp history as a whole, as he thinks it should be. This Knowledge Web really helps people understand how almost all things are directly related in history, how all things are connected some way or another. This idea of the Knowledge Web is a good concept but sometimes lacks the connections needed to make it spectacular. The connections Burke makes are sometimes extremely insignificant and do a very poor job explaining the connection between the two topics. However, other than this problem I find the Knowledge Web a useful and fun way to learn about history.
There are a few connections that can be made to David McCullough, the first obviously being their love of history. Both of these men love history and have devoted their lives to it; researching, studying, teaching, writing about, and talking about history. They both enjoy being a part of history and making it a part of their lives. One of the other connections is that McCullough and Burke are both trying to make history more interesting for the masses; I find that both men are trying to make history more enjoyable and easy to learn for the average person. McCullough and Burke both draws connections in their work and both are trying to mainstream history so that their love of it can be shared by millions of others.
Post a Comment