Is Burke on to something or just, in the words of Tom Esty, "suffering from History ADD." Both? Take a look at the James Burke Institute's Knowledge Web. What does he share in common with David McCullough (Periods 7/8)? (Make the Connections, ha...ha).
One Word Part 1
One Word Part 2
One Word Part 3
Due Friday 10/29
68 comments:
A brief glance through James Burke's Institute Knowledge Web reveals the goal is to "counters the tendency of modern education to encourage specialized learning and thinking". Often, claims Burke, the pieces for an advancement are all in place far before that advancement actually occurs. Had there been collaboration, the discovery could have happened much earlier. As his 'connections' have proved, this could be very much true. History is really never one straight time line, but has multiple branching pasts, each open to interpretation. On his site Burke has listed six of his connections, varying from Mozart to Helicopter to Fredrick the Great to the bottlecap. Clearly he drew from diverse sources to make these connections. Most of the connections have legitimacy, however, like in the video we viewed in class, sometimes the connections seem to be a bit..lacking. For example connecting the name of an invention to the name of a star is not truly a connection; it's only etymology. Testy's description of ADD does have some merit though. Burke jumps quickly from one topic to the next, connecting them. However, calling it "historical ADD" is a bit extreme. While the connections fly by, most of them at least have some sort of logical connection.
Even when Burke's connections have legitimacy, they are slightly too simplified. While, yes, maybe Mozart really did lead to the bottle cap like it says on his site, it was not just the influence of Mozart cascading through the ages that caused the invention the bottle cap. There were an uncountable number of variables to account for besides Mozart. Although it is possible to connect the two, causation is another issue entirely.
Burke and McCullough do seem to have some mutual points of agreement and yet somewhat different. McCullough emphasizes the concept of empathy. Only through empathy, contends McCullough, can we truly hope to understand the actions of people in the past, and through them, history in general. Burke on the other hand seeks to use our hindsight and knowledge to try and correlate events that happened in the past and what sort of impact they might have had on the future. They both agree that the past can have an impact on future events, but not quite in the same way.
James Burke may not be completely mentally with it. Some actions and comments of his definitely leave questions about his sanity. However that being said he makes vary unique points and connections that many would not have the imagination or knowledge to make. So looking past his oddities and overly eccentric attitude you find true history genius. His connections are pretty amazing I myself could never have used 2 words and traced such a path through history. His link from sand script to German fairy tales to Disney must at least be admired. History has interesting connections undoubtedly but some of Burke’s connections were so random they really didn’t relate. Other ideas of his do make a lot of sense. I myself admire how he explains the beginning of the Renaissance, Greeks fleeing Turks and staying in Italy, his first three connections linking this and other aspects brings up a good point, history is connected in various ways. McCullough also suggests the idea of connections. In his works he often bridges of into other subjects to explain the subject at hand. This view of interconnected history is shared by both historians. Is Burke really a nut case? There is always a possibility though in the end his theories make sense and his proof is, for the most part, rational.
I believe that James Burke is on to something with his connection of events all throughout history. Burke believes that everything in history can be affected by a previous event if you dig deep enough. History affects the future in many ways, as people try not to repeat past mistakes of former rulers. Most of his connections between certain events in history are sound, but others like the connection of people being more interested in Sanskrit because of new ideas from the Puritans seems like a little bit of a stretch to me. I also don’t agree that every event has a direct affect on the next and that some of the connections in his videos are more implied connections rather than sound evidence of their affect on one another. With the flaws in his work however, Burke still is able to get across his message of the interconnectedness of most all events in history. Burke is also able to entertain while he is teaching history and make it interesting to his viewers, which is a remarkable skill. Some may watch to really learn or to just see what crazy connection he makes next, but he still is teaching his audience.
Burke is similar to David McCullough in that they both believe there are connections between many events in history. McCullough is different however in that he believes people should be looked at with empathy and historians should try to step into that persons shoes before deeming them a “bad person”, when times have changed and people’s views on society differ. Burke looks at the past by seeing how they affected the future before he makes his decision if that person was of quality or a “bad person”. Overall I believe both Burke and McCullough are right in their connections of different events in history, they just make their connections a little bit differently.
Both McCullough and Burke are very knowledgeable historians and they generally both agree on the same thing, which is that one thing leads to another. Though the only difference is really in the way they present their ideas. And it isn’t so much of a question of who is the saner, though it may seem to be from an initial comparison between the two, one just needs to observe and empathize with both parties to see what leads them to their conclusions. As I have clearly stated earlier the conclusions are congruent but the logic behind them are different. Burke has a very distinct style which seems comical to a skeptic but cohesive to an observer. In Burke’s technique he uses mostly observation, and a very detailed observation to make his connections. These connections can be very potent or very “iffy”, hence the need for details. In the video that was shown to the class, Burke made connections which made all of the students certain that he was most definitely crazy. Burke’s intro talked about filique, a word that the church was using to unify the people under a social norm, but then Burke made bonds from filique to greeks to writing in italics to books to scientists to naming an asteroid. We all began to think, “what do asteroids have to do with filique?” Well to tell you the truth they don’t have much in common, but it is all of the material/history in between which makes a very thin line leading from filique to the asteroid. One of the problems I think though was that we didn’t finish the whole video in class. The conclusion of the video was basically a connection to anthropology, which is the study of human nature showing how different we all are compared filique, the one word to rule them all so to speak. Though this ending doesn’t serve much of a purpose or come to a closing statement, Burke, as it seems, is just connecting dots from event to event just to show that one thing truly leads to another no matter how small the connection is. McCullough also shares the same ideas as Burke does but he has a more sturdy and “all-together-ness” in his examples of how one thing leads to another. His examples focus on personal accounts, not his own, but of famous people/events in the past. His examples ranged from the Brooklyn Bridge to the Panama Canal to Theodore Roosevelt. McCullough gave different articles on each of the topics instead of connecting them to each other. Focusing mostly on the context of the time of the event and what caused the thoughts of the people living in that time and the events produced from those trains of thought. So in contrast from McCullough and Burke, McCullough’s ideas are more centered on a specific topic that does have a significant impact on today, where as Burke makes connections that end up covering a lot of ground but without much purpose but to show that everything is connected, even if it is very slight. Both historians are geniuses, its just that they express their genius in different ways.
At first, I found James Burke a little hard to follow. His quick transitions and coverage of complex historical events in a matter of one minute or less had me reeling. As I continued to listen to Burke’s thoughts however, I found him to be a riveting man. His series, “Connections”, for the BBC is understandably one of their highest rated programs, and interest among the general public alone serves as proof that Burke is not just a nut job, but rather he is on to something. Burke has made history accessible to a very broad audience who might have otherwise never known about “filioque”, or early printing. More importantly, Burke has made history exciting and interesting again. His use of connections is quite fascinating, and in a way he has invented a new way we can view history. I must at admit that at times his connections were weak, but he kept me entertained throughout the entire program, never losing my attention once. It does seem a bit unrealistic to employ the ripple effect when looking at history, because so many factors often go into past events, and in most cases, Burke left many aspects out of his discussion of certain inventions and historical figures. However, for Burke’s purposes, which included creating excitement about history and captivating an audience, creating connections throughout history is completely valid. Burke may also enlighten people with a different view as to a certain event’s importance. That being said, Burke’s research should only be taken lightly; he only gives a glimpse into a piece of history, and sometimes he pushes the envelope with his interpretations.
Author David McCullough shares James Burke’s infectious love of history. McCullough, who writes nonfiction novels about historical events, is also very popular among the general public, becoming one of the highest-grossing nonfiction authors of the present day. McCullough expresses his purpose to be the reinvention of history as well; he too wants to excite people about the past. After looking at James Burke Institute’s Knowledge Web, and his message, it is apparent that Burke wants to inspire a love of history just as badly as McCullough does. Both men go about doing this in unconventional ways, and it is there approach that makes them so popular. McCullough believes in telling stories, most often personal, about historical figures, and through a story, he hopes to teach about an entire period. Burke too tells a story by drawing connections. Burke’s story is often not as specific as McCullough’s, and he therefore cannot cover an entire period as effectively. Instead, Burke gives small pieces of many different periods in order to paint a larger picture. However, both men profoundly believe in the importance of the past. McCullough, who believes there is no past, only a present, stresses how society must draw from history and empathize with people of the past. Burke’s belief in the past is obviously demonstrated by his connections, which show how one event can lead to another.
James Burke definitely has some good points in his discussions about history. It is true that history is not a series of individual events. It is logical to think that one event in the past caused another event, and that these events may even have an impact on the future. I can understand why James Burke decided to order history into a cause and effect system. However, I have a couple of problems with this system. To begin with, his historical map is far too linear. It’s not like every one event leads to exactly one other happening, and nothing more. Perhaps that’s not what Burke is trying to say, but his video makes it seem like it. Historians could probably come up with dozens of reasons for one event happening, and argue that that one event influenced a dozen others. I also get the sense that Burke does have what Tom Esty calls “ADD”. He seems to be jumping from one event to the next in an almost random manner. His jump from concluding one idea to introducing another seems a bit unrefined, and some of his connections lack basis or depth, and this leaves me second guessing a lot of his ideas. The way he jumps through events and skips over decades in history seems very unlike what a historian should do. He seems to be combining micro and macro history, by looking at events that are sometimes small and specific, and quickly correlating through time to try to get a look at the big picture of what happens in the long run because of all of the small and specific events.
Burke is similar to McCullough in the sense that both agree that events in history always have an impact on what happens next. However, Burke’s analysis seems to be based on looking at events in the past and using our hindsight to correlate them. McCullough, however, asks us to look at people in history with empathy. Instead of using what we know happened next to judge events, we should think about only what the people knew, and then consider how we would have acted based on their knowledge and circumstances. Using this approach, we can better understand why people acted a certain way and why things happened the way they did.
It seems more likely that James Burke is an educated and well-versed historian rather than a crazy man trying to connect any and every event in history. However, Burke does indeed exhibit symptoms of both. Some of his connections appear to be mediocre at best, the most obvious in the episode we watched being the connection between the element Cerium and the comet Ceres. The only thing these two events share is the name, and because of this either could quite easily exist without the other. I doubt that Burke looked at the connection and thought it was as viable as the others, but it is important to remember that Burke was producing a show and therefore on a deadline. In order to complete a successful chain of connections, Burke probably researched hundreds of different potential connections. Being the author, narrator, and host of the show, as the Burke website says, he would have had important time constraints on everything that he did. In any case, it seems as though Burke knew what he was doing, and didn’t jump from one event to another haphazardly, but rather was forced to by his set of limits. Outwardly, David McCullough appears to have a much more organized thought process than Burke does. He has an extremely clear focus in his connections, and presents them plainly. It seems that Burke and McCullough both have a similar knowledge base and intentions. Their differences lie in the desire to present the material. While Burke prefers a seemingly random style that is meant to surprise and amaze the public in short excerpts, McCullough is more straightforward and explanatory.
I definetly think that James Burke is on to something that is new and legitimate in the world of history, but his problem is that he is not able to make very strong and convincing connections. His whole concept of everything relating to something else in some way seems like a good argument because everything or everyone is influenced by at least one other person or event. However, Burke seems like he just takes two random things or subjects and finds some way he can say that they are connected to each other even if it is just a small coincidence. It seems like even if someone merely mentions another person's name, Burke would relate them together. At one point on his website, he connects cornflakes to communism and some of his connections are pretty strong with some of his people strongly influencing another person's next achievement, but there were some that were really weak. For example, he connects Carlyle and Whistler just because Whistler painted a portrait of Carlyle. He proves no influence on each other's impact on society and he could connect anything with anyone or anyone with anyone by doing that because we are all connected through like 6 people. So, he's not really convincing with these generic connections and he does seem to have some sort of ADD whether it's history related or not. He just can't stay on the same subject for very long.
David McCullough and James Burke both provided for a new way in looking at history, Burke through connections and McCullough through narrative writing and through a perspective of an individual from that period. McCullough also finds connections in history while he is researching different topics. He says that while he is researching one topic, another that is related to it will interest him. This happened when he was researching the Johnstown flood which led to the Pennsylvania railroad, which led to John Roebling, which led to the Brooklyn Bridge which led to the Panama Canal and then finally to Teddy Roosevelt. They both find connections within history, except McCullough seems to have more plausible ones. Burke just does need to focus a little more and take time on one connection rather than trying to do a million and one.
James Burke has amazed me with the many connections he has made within history. Some of his connections can be understood but others are beyond my understanding. For many of James Burke’s ideas to make sense you need to be on something or have history ADD to appreciate them. Although I understand his reasoning when he says every one of us contributes in a way and nobody is a nobody, I believe that many of the connections he is making may make sense in his mind but when looking at the big picture really don’t have any significance. McCullough and Burke both believe that to properly understand things in history you need to understand the history know during that time. McCullough believes that when looking at historical events you need to look at it from someone’s shoes during that time period and have empathy. McCullough acknowledges the fact that people during these times were affected by different things but he does not believe that these things have as much of an effect on historical events being studied as Burke does. Burke believes that many little details that somehow correspond with the event have an impact on the historical event and must be studied to completely understand. The way in which Burke is looking at it is almost like saying that a child is the direct product of his great great great great……. Grandparents. Although you’re great great great…. Grandparents do have an effect on who you are because of genes; it is really the more directly related parents and grandparents whom you are mostly a product of. So in the end James Burke is taking his connections to such a far out level that they don’t have much significance to me but may on some people who have a different mindset and look at these small details to such an extent.
I believe that Burke is both onto something and has a slight case of “history ADD”. His basis about events in the past linking to each other and causing somewhat of a domino affect is both a logical and interesting point. Although he is onto something with this idea, it is also a bit common sense. Burke was without a doubt not the first person to link events in history, starting with one point and ending with another. This is where the “history ADD” comes in; the connections he makes through history are both irrelevant and jumpy. Many of the events he links into a chain have relatively no impact on the world and if they did have an impact, it was a very minute and insignificant one. For example, in the movie we watched in class, one of the “events” he describes is the use of italics in writing during a certain period time. Although using italics was indeed convenient and effective, it had a very small impact on the world, at least in my perspective. Also, some of the links he makes during the video are very weak, such as the link between an invention and a star. I mean sure they have the same name, but how does that impact the world? These weak links and insignificant links lead me to believe that he has some good points, but it is mostly just “history ADD”. After viewing his Institute Knowledge Web, I have concluded that Burke is fascinated by the fact that there are so many connections throughout the past, rather than just one chain of events. This differs from McCullough who is more intrigued by specific events in history, their impact, and the actual people involved in them. He discusses the ability to have empathy for the people in these events, almost like putting yourself in their position. He believes that through this process, we will have a better understanding of our past and the people in it; whereas Burke believes the key to understanding the past is through the various chains linking events throughout history.
James Burke is a very interesting character. While at first, I thought him to be off his rocker a bit, I stood my ground on Tom Esty’s description of his being “historically ADD.” The concept of the knowledge web seems absolutely ridiculous! I do not want to imagine how many hours of hard work went into this “web of knowledge” when in reality one could take a trip to the library and read a few books. But, after hearing Burke’s explanation of his web, he does begin to make logical sense. I believe there are several similarities between James Burke and David McCullough, although I’m sure both have completely polar personalities. Both historians agree that history is not one entity; they believe that history is a living breathing thing. If everything is connected in one way or another, then in the words of Burke, history can change by the use of “just one word.” McCullough describes in his interview how people tend to study history as black and white. They have no empathy for the people of that time period, so in turn they do not understand the past, nor can justify the decisions made by past figures in history. For example, Thomas Jefferson has been accused of hypocrisy because he himself had slaves living with him at home. People will say they believe that it is appalling that such a great leader in our country would do such a thing, but what McCullough is trying to get through is, we should not judge these people, unless we truly understand and empathize their backgrounds, and in what environment they were raised in. Burke explains this phenomenon by describing this web of historical figures. He explains that because the ideas of these great philosophers are now connected to us in this web, it is not history. It is present, because we make it present. But, despite the logical thought of his theories, I do believe that Burke is utterly insane.
I believe it is completely unreasonable to call James Burke a lunatic, or to say he has “History ADD” (Sorry Tom). Although his methods are completely unconventional, they make the history of the world into an interconnected web. Not all of these connections are completely logical, and some can be a complete stretch, but they force the listener to think of them as connections all the same. Sure, corn flakes probably didn’t have any effect on Karl Marx or the development of communism, but anyone reading that automatically thinks through the chain presented by Burke, and can begin to recognize that there ARE odd connections in history. These connections, however subtle, have governed the course of history in every time period, and often snowball into huge changes over the course of centuries (such as the crazy insurance plans presented in the second half of the third video, which Burke relates to colonialism and privateers, among other things). Everything is interrelated, even if it’s only nominally, and understanding this can lead to a greater understanding of history as a whole. For this, I greatly respect James Burke and his idea.
David McCullough and James Burke are mainly united in their belief in the importance of history on the modern day; this is evidenced by McCullough’s stressing of the importance of teaching history, and especially the need to judge time periods in terms of the mindset of the time, and Burke’s tracing of seemingly isolated events or words through history, explaining interrelationships along the way, and connecting them to modern day practices. However, the methods each uses to have an effect on the reader seem to be incredibly different. McCullough takes particular interest in a subject or historical figure, and then builds a narrative around that focal point. Burke, as explained above, relates a historical event or figure to another, then another, and creates a chain flowing through history, making the world and all of history a web of related ideas. They may achieve the same ends, but these two historians seem, at least, to me, to be coming from entirely different schools of thought.
I think that James Burke has a good idea. It is just his execution that is somewhat questionable. There is no question that he is brilliant, it is just that I think ou have to be insane to be that intelligent. The video we watched was fascinating, many of the connection she made baffled me, yet some were way to big of a stretch for me, this is his “History ADD”. But the crazy connections he made in his investigation of what ‘fillioque’ led to do show his brilliance. His major ADD Moment, I think, was the connections having to do with the asteroid belt. This is way to big of a stretch.
I am really curious to know if he went forwards in time or backwards because I think that would affect his ADD if he was trying to get somewhere rather than just seeing where something ended up.
McCullough and Burke share this idea of making connections throughout history and that most all of history is connected. However McCullough looks at history with empathy and Burke judges the past with our standards today and connects them. McCullough believes we need to only interpret the past from their perspective not ours.
To be honest, I found James Burke not only boring but also hard to follow and understand some of his concepts. His pace is exasperating; he seemed to rush through a series of complex historical events within a minute or two. Not only do I believe that these historical events deserve to be discussed in more detail so the audience gains a better understanding of them but I also think history can not be enjoyed by the common man when someone as dull and dry as Burke is discussing it. However, this was only my first opinion of Burke, after watching a segment in class. After continuing to listen to Burke’s ideas I finally realized how intelligent this man actually is and why his BBC series is one of the highest rated programs by the general public. I even found him quite fascinating and dare I say it? Entertaining. I have always enjoyed history and found events and stories of the past fascinating, yet Burke managed to grasp my attention and strengthen my love of history even more. The same is true for the general public; people that may not necessarily know about early printing or another less known historical event are exposed to this information in an entertaining yet informative way. Burke makes history exciting! He makes the audience want to learn! Through his connecting of historical events, the audience becomes engrossed and it is evident that a new technique of learning history has been formed.
Within a few seconds, humans make a first opinion of someone. In all sincerity, my first opinions of Burke and many other classmates as well is that he is insane and that his ideas should not be taken seriously. Burke seems comical to the viewer and even hard to take seriously, however once the audience is able to look at him judgment free they do see that his arguments are interconnected and well thought out. His so called technique or method is that he uses detailed observations of history to make historical connections. Many may skeptically look at his connections because they seem to be a stretch, thus the need for the exasperating amount of detail. An example of Burke’s connections is relating “filiques” to Greeks writing in italics to scientists naming asteroids. It is no guess that any insane person hesitates to accept Burke’s ideas. Yet, Burke’s strong and a great deal of amount of historical content in between the connections makes these connections go from being a stretch to considerable. In addition, Burke failed to mention some aspects of events out of his discussion and historical figures as well. However, his presentation is entertaining, excites people over history, and forms new opinions of past events. Overall, Burke connects one historical event to another and proves there is a connection no matter how small or large it may be.
Continued (sorry!):
Another history nut we viewed is the author David McCullough. Similar to Burke, he also has an infectious love for history. McCullough is also very popular among the general public and has written numerous historical nonfiction books. Both McCullough and Burke hope to excite people about history. After viewing James Burke’s Institute’s Knowledge Web, it became evident how similar the two actually are. Both use unconventional methods to discuss history that excites and grabs the attention of the audience. McCullough hopes to teach the reader about a historical even through a story that is often personal about a historical figure. Burke also tells a story but through connections. However, McCullough’s ideas are more focused on the details of a historical event and more effectively covers a time period in general because when making connections, while Burke tends to create an overall picture that supports his connections. Yet both men realize how history is important, how not enough people love it, and that history is always in effect. Burke stresses that history is a series of connections while McCullough does not like to consider history in the past and would rather you to put yourself in that time period to understand at that moment those people did not realize they were creating history. This is similar because both stress we should not forget about history, it is never ending, and always connected to something today. Both of these men are important historians that should be honored for their efforts to make history entertaining and shown in a new light.
From a quick glance at James Burke’s work, one may view it as haphazardly organized, weakly supported, or even the ravings of an empowered lunatic. The manner and speed in which he covers vast amounts of historical knowledge can be both confusing and a mechanism of garnering disinterest, for those who don’t understand what is happening will likely stop listening. However, once I began to empathize with Burke’s philosophy that every historical event can be traced to be the result of another historical event, the gears fell in place and I was able to see Burke for the genius he is. Through intricate and complex connections, he is able to explain how, for example, “filioque”, a religious term meaning “and the son” in Latin, can be attributed to the eventual development of human anthropology. In this manner, Burke has not only invented a new way to analyze and observe history, but done so in a method that is far more interesting than classical instruction of history. It is thus no surprise that his series on the BBC is one of the network’s highest rated ever, and that he has gained such a following.
Mccullough approached the same issue tackled by Burke, but instead focused on the impact of a single event in history on the resulting era’s that followed. His thought processes are much more developed, and often chooses to teach about a time period through the muse of a single historical figure. Both historians believe that in order to truly understand history, we must be able to put ourselves in the situations and circumstances that generations past were faced with, and only then, make criticisms or observations. The two were also in agreement in the notion that one historical event leads to another, and chose to use this methodology to make to process of viewing history much more interesting. Overall, I believe both historians are intelligent and well-versed in their disciple, but each approaches the issue of looking at history in a different way, for better or for worse.
James Burke can either be considered man who is a genius with such radical connections and thoughts or a very eccentric person. Burke has been said to have history ADD to explain his incomprehensible theories. His thoughts seem to be completely random and unexplainable. He links so many insignificant “events” in history which makes him seem scatterbrained. The only thing he said that I agreed with and could relate to is that nobody is a nobody, we all make a difference. I believe in what he says here because everyone has a life, and each life should be used wisely to make a difference, which we are all capable of doing. However, Burke is a man with far more intelligence with me, and his fascination with the chain of events over history and his extreme knowledge in the history department do prove him to be extremely smart, but eccentric. When comparing James Burke to David McCullough, there are difference in the ways these two men look at history. Burke is intrigued by history as a whole and viewing how each specific event contributed to the future. On the other hand, McCullough looks at each event as its own. He says to approach history with empathy, putting yourself in their shoes. When evaluating a decision made in history, he says that you should put yourself in their perspective and only look at the knowledge known to them at that time, not anything that happened later that they would have no way of knowing. He claims that decisions made in history should always be viewed with empathy, because they were the right decision for the time. James Burke and David McCullough are both extremely intelligent and have exceptional understandings of history, but their viewpoints and purposes are extremely different.
The research and knowledge developed by both Burke and McCullough is truly remarkable and should definitely be considered ground breaking in the historical field. Burke does an amazing job at transforming the important dates, events, and people that we are so familiar with meaningful links that all tie then together. By tracing this history back by cause and effect relationships, it is much clearer to interpret the true meanings behind all these famous events. It’s a very thorough process that reveals much more about history than what is written in a textbook. However, he takes it a little too far at times. While most of his connections are build on reason and fact, and are quite believable, others are just too much of a stretch to be credible. The ones that are a little too overboard reveals a pretty loose interpretation of what really happened. He bends reality at times just to make particular connections, but those connections sometimes aren’t very valid. It’s easy to look at them are see the connections in retrospect, but back then you really never know what triggered certain events to occur. Coincidences are possible and very plausible. McCullough also does follow a similar belief that history is based off if connections, but he interprets those connections much differently than Burke. He looks at the story aspect of history. He believes that much can be told about the events that occured in that time by immersing yourself in the culture. Like a historical movie, the history is much easier to understand and very easy to relate to as well. I think we have a lot to learn from both historical perspectives.
What James Burke is saying is a huge stretch. Although his facts are true, Burke's arguments do not make much sense. For example, on his website he compares Cornflakes to Communism. The connections within are not very logical, because in one of them, he mentions that William Morris was related to Eleanor Marx because she went to singing events at his house. Now, although that may be true, that is not comparing something major about someone to others, yet it is just talking about the specifics. These could be actions that a person did for just a few minutes every once in a while. Therefore, mostly everyone could be related if enough was known about them. People could go to the same country in the same year, live in the same state at one time in their lives, or even both have the same type of animal. Burke does not really compare the vital aspects of people to others, and hence does not have too great of an argument. But what Burke says is somewhat similar to what David McCullough tells of in "There Isn't Any Such Thing as the Past." First off, McCullough argues that there are many people who believe that there is only one way to teach and learn history, and that there can be many other types of connections. These are shown in the work of James Burke. Finally, McCullough tells how people do not really know about history since they were not alive during the time when certain events happened. Burke explains, in a similar fashion, how it is tough to learn history and there is need for his type of connections so everyone can learn and understand more. Although Burke's arguments do not make the most sense, they do relate to the great ideas of David McCullough.
I believe that both Burke and McCullough are reliable historians. Burke maybe a little out of the ordinary but none-the-less a historian with a lot of insight and knowledge on many historical topics. He has a lot of theories that are very interesting to me like his butterfly effect theory that everything leads to another and basically all of history is interconnected with each other. McCullough also has a lot of reliable insight into the world of history. He teaches us to not just look at one viewpoint of a historical character; he states that we need to have empathy for these characters and look at their lives through their own eyes to really get a perspective on them. He also shows many different interconnections like Burke and has many different but well thought out theories.
Burke presents an interesting spin on history, one many people can surprisingly relate to. I personally believe he holds legitimacy in his claim that "the world is increasingly interlinked", as many of his connections prove valid relations. Some may be a little too far of a reach, like his connection to discovering the asteroid belt to an invention.
Like Burke, McCullough puts history into a new perspective, but relates everything together with a requirement of empathy towards the people of the past. This general connection of all ideas in history is valid and interesting, similar to the ideas presented in Burke's videos. Some of the ideas in each may label them as "suffering from History ADD", but it's an exciting new approach to normal history discussions, that actually works.
James Burke has many interesting theories as to how inventions and discoveries came to be. His theories do create acknowledgeable connections. Unfortunately, most of Burke’s reasons for the connections are not well developed or argued. Such as in his theory of how chewing gum came from the Notre Dame in France. One of his connections was when Robert Owens was refused permission by Santa Anna; Burke treats this as a logical step in his theory. That was clearly not the logical step that should have been done. Owens had no influence over Anna’s introduction of chewing gum to the Unites States. There is no evidence that by refusing Owens idea of creating a commune in Mexico that the chewing gum was introduced. That is a fatal flaw in Burke’s theory and he should have known this and put in place another step or steps to create a more solid foundation for his connections. Another “paper thin” connection of Burke’s is in his theory that Mozart indirectly created the idea of a helicopter in the 20th century. Burke writes that Thomas Jefferson was influenced by Cesare Beccaria during his time as the Virginia Governor. Almost everyone knows that Jefferson had been an incredibly influential man during his days and he had many connections to intellectual men. Jefferson’s decisions as governor may not have been solely influenced by Beccaria; he had plenty of chances to be influenced by other philosophies or ideas. There is another man who makes connections as Burke does, but not in the same manner.
David McCullough, a Pulitzer Prize winner, has several logical connections. McCullough, like Burke, finds connections in people and events. One of McCullough’s connections involves former President, Theodore Roosevelt. He suggests that Roosevelt was so eccentric about wars and participating in them because of his father, Theodore Roosevelt Sr.. McCullough is different than Burke in one aspect; McCullough chooses to focus on one event or person rather than tackling on a series of events and peoples. He thoroughly researches and compiles a book to be published. Whereas Burke chooses a wide range of peoples and attempts to find connections where there is little or none at all. Although Burke’s connections can still be given some kind of acknowledge. One must consider that his works and theories are still in the works as is also his Knowledge Web. Until his project is officially released, James Burke will still be viewed as a man who is suffering from a mild form of “history ADD”.
I think Burke is not really nutty at all. He has some idiosyncrasies that are unusual, yes, and he acts a little bit like a nutty professor, but his ideas make sense and are something that historians like McCullough tend to base a lot of their opinions off of. Burke focuses a lot on how history is connected to other events in history, and shows it by tracing one small event’s butterfly ripple through history from the Renaissance through the present day. He thinks all history is like a giant chain, which in reality it is. No event happens without a trigger, and that trigger had to come from something, and that trigger had to have its own trigger, and so on until everything is directly linked. McCullough thinks that history is linked in some respects as well, as he tends to have the topic of his books linked to each other. Also, they both really seem to understand the importance of making history come alive. McCullough through his more picaresque-sounding novels and Burke through his linking of history to the present both have a way of making history more relatable to the more unenthusiastic student. By really making history come alive through their work, they make it more accessible and interesting for the next generation of learners.
As the saying goes “we are all connected.” James Burke may have taken this saying a bit too far. While he is definitely right in concluding that one event in history affects another in the future, it is irrational to say that everything spurs from the one word, filioque. First of all, this is just a word. Nothing more than characters grouped together to create a meaning. This meaning has one concise definition. The definition is ‘and the sun’. To say that this word led to Rapunzel getting pregnant does not make any sense. If this was a rational connection, then it should make sense to say I have been born from a plant because plants give oxygen which mothers need to carry a child. Sure, there may be small indirect links taking place over a long period of time, but a plausible connection should have evidence showing a direct effect. What I mean by this is, if one event did not happen, then the event in the future should not happen. This is a real, plausible, connection. I’m sure that the Grim Brothers would still have made their stories if the word filioque did not exist.
David McCullough is all about how to interpret history, and honestly, I think Burke could learn a few lessons from him. He states that events that took place in the past influence the events that occur in the present. In other words, he is big on the saying of “history repeats itself.” He makes no indirect connections like those of Burke. McCullough also discusses empathy and how historians must have this when studying history. Burke, looking at his videos, definitely has empathy. He has no judgment on people when discussing them. An example would be the Grim Brothers, while he compares them to how their stories are viewed today, he does not strike them down as messed up people. McCullough also states that we should study history not as the past, but as a different present. He states that the people from our past would not be thinking they were living in the past. Burke definitely does this in his videos. He discusses characters as they were in their own, different present. In fact, when he was talking about the printing press, Burke actually showed us the difficulty in scripture by writing it himself with an old fashion pen and ink. Burke let his viewers know what it was like for printers back then, and what they had to do to make their jobs easier. Burke is definitely a fascinating historian, but that does not mean people should believe his faulty, irrational, connections.
James Burke is like all other great people of their time period such as ALbert Einstein and in this case James is a great historian who has so much knowledge of history that he has to let it all out. This is how in the videos which could be construed as having historical ADD. And at the same time Burke does not have Historical ADD because of his brilliant connections throughout history. For example he goes from one word in history, which is Filioque to the brothers Grimm and their stories that are now known as Disney Stories. These connections show how he can illustrate something from the past to the present and still have the connections make sense. In the video he jumps from one topic to another but successfully connecting them as he goes along. As he describes how one idea relates all the way back to Filoque he connects ideas from different cultures to get to an idea in the present. This sort of connection shows how he is suffering from historical ADD and how he is a brilliant historian.
At first impression, James Burke seems like a bit of a nut, and most definitely a victim of “History ADD.” In his popular BBC series Connections, I did find it hard to follow his logic as he skipped from one event to another; linking things such as the word “filioque” to early printing and the study of the ancient language Sanskrit to everyone’s favorite childhood tales. However, in linking the past to the present, Burke is doing something very important for us today and future generations. The point of learning about history is to learn from previous experiences and observe in what ways societies were flawed and in which ways they prospered, and to then use this knowledge to improve our current life. The concept of connecting everything on the Knowledge Web sounds like a fantastic idea. I think this will help so many students and people in general to obtain a greater understanding of the world around them and what we should aspire to be. Some of Burkes connections are a bit weak and considerably, unimportant. For example, in the web he says how Copernicus is connected to the introduction of chewing gum to the United States, and explains this through a sort of “oh well this person knew that person and she once met him…” kind of way that is really irrelevant because people know a lot of different people, and so there is no direct evidence linking Copernicus to chewing gum. Although some connections may seem useless, others organized by themes such as the Industrial Revolution, will display all important persons who contributed to it and are very helpful. My favorite part of this website is that there would be virtual realities of the past through which you can view the setting of that time period and perhaps place a better mental image for yourself and obtain a better understanding of that period. Burke, while showing his strong passion for history, is doing something monumental in creating this massive interactive site that will link all of the past to the present and enlighten many people as to human thought and experience.
Non-fiction author David McCullough, however, takes a different approach to the examination of the past than Burke. Being said, McCullough does not believe in a “past” at all. He explains the connection of certain events in history through specific personal experiences of famous people or events, such as Theodore Roosevelt and the Johnstown flood. Whereas Burke links a very large amount of information very generally with much less detail. McCullough expresses the viewpoint that time is a connected stream that is always the “present” but just from different perspectives. For example, the people alive in 1700 didn’t view themselves as living in the past, to them it was the present; it’s just a matter of different interpretation. McCullough tells us the past is just a name we give time, and clearly recognizes that all events have an effect on what is to occur later in time. McCullough is able to convey his points with more strength and support than Burke because of his concentration on specifics and detail rather than the big picture with bits and pieces of summarizing evidence. Both historians are very passionate about their work and are making crucial contributions to the world in which we live by enabling the general public to easily access a wealth of knowledge that will provide precedents for us to continue to live off of.
At first impression, James Burke seems like a bit of a nut, and most definitely a victim of “History ADD.” In his popular BBC series Connections, I did find it hard to follow his logic as he skipped from one event to another; linking things such as the word “filioque” to early printing and the study of the ancient language Sanskrit to everyone’s favorite childhood tales. However, in linking the past to the present, Burke is doing something very important for us today and future generations. The point of learning about history is to learn from previous experiences and observe in what ways societies were flawed and in which ways they prospered, and to then use this knowledge to improve our current life. The concept of connecting everything on the Knowledge Web sounds like a fantastic idea. I think this will help so many students and people in general to obtain a greater understanding of the world around them and what we should aspire to be. Some of Burkes connections are a bit weak and considerably, unimportant. For example, in the web he says how Copernicus is connected to the introduction of chewing gum to the United States, and explains this through a sort of “oh well this person knew that person and she once met him…” kind of way that is really irrelevant because people know a lot of different people, and so there is no direct evidence linking Copernicus to chewing gum. Although some connections may seem useless, others organized by themes such as the Industrial Revolution, will display all important persons who contributed to it and are very helpful. My favorite part of this website is that there would be virtual realities of the past through which you can view the setting of that time period and perhaps place a better mental image for yourself and obtain a better understanding of that period. Burke, while showing his strong passion for history, is doing something monumental in creating this massive interactive site that will link all of the past to the present and enlighten many people as to human thought and experience.
Non-fiction author David McCullough, however, takes a different approach to the examination of the past than Burke. Being said, McCullough does not believe in a “past” at all. He explains the connection of certain events in history through specific personal experiences of famous people or events, such as Theodore Roosevelt and the Johnstown flood. Whereas Burke links a very large amount of information very generally with much less detail. McCullough expresses the viewpoint that time is a connected stream that is always the “present” but just from different perspectives. For example, the people alive in 1700 didn’t view themselves as living in the past, to them it was the present; it’s just a matter of different interpretation. McCullough tells us the past is just a name we give time, and clearly recognizes that all events have an effect on what is to occur later in time. McCullough is able to convey his points with more strength and support than Burke because of his concentration on specifics and detail rather than the big picture with bits and pieces of summarizing evidence. Both historians are very passionate about their work and are making crucial contributions to the world in which we live by enabling the general public to easily access a wealth of knowledge that will provide precedents for us to continue to live off of.
At first I thought that Burke really did have history ADD because I found it difficult to follow his progression of thoughts. But as the program continued I understood his purpose more to a greater extent, I think that with a cursory glance at the way Burke organized his way of thinking can be looked at as fickle and I even caught myself thinking, “I can't even think of this being on the history channel, I can't even think of a history related title for this, it covers so many topics” which I eventually understood it being Burke demonstrating that all things in history can be related and are interrelated. I came to enjoy the way he showed history as more of a web than a “timeline” and how one day Aldo didn't just come up with a printer that printed “scribble” but it rather came from and looked like a series of prior ideas and inventions. I don't think this is a bored old man who lacks an interest in one field, but a genius who understands that all thinks then and now are interrelated and should be paid attention to in relation to one another, according the the message from him on his website. Unfortunately my computer wouldn't let me access more of his connections however based on his program I think he did an excellent job of opening up the viewers mind to the breadth of history's complexity. Overall, I can see how Esty thought that Burke has history ADD given the sometimes weak connections he makes like the transition from Italics to Natives going to Harvard, however I feel more strongly that Burke opens the viewers mind and reminds us of how the past is much like today and history should be viewed as a complex web where as McCullough can also be said to have History ADD he places more stress on individuals and remembering that they were living what we know as facts and dates, as the present and to view them with empathy. I feel like McCullough pushes the reader away from their everyday view on history with the benefit of hindsight, and to focus more on how the individual in the past is exactly like any average person of the day, influenced by their past and environment and no idea of what the future will hold. He said in his article, “I want the reader at some point early in the book to say, 'I wonder if they're going to be able to do it'...”, which sums up the differences between Burke and McCullough, where one emphasizes hindsight in order to make comparisons and the other emphasizing how people should be able to better relate to the past.
James Burke and David McCullough are both great historians who believe that history includes connections in regards to several events. James Burke, in terms of the video watched in class, was definitely on to something when he was able to connect one word with cultural anthropology. Burke believes that each event in the past can be connected with several others because history is influenced by multiple factors. However, this understanding of Burke’s sometimes seemed strong, while other times it was weak considering the example of the naming of an element in honor of a celestial object. His connections often seemed to skip large amounts of time as well, and may have been related in a minor fashion, yet, his ways of imploring and connecting the dots seemed to be fascinating. Burke was able to demonstrate that no matter what it may be, from a significant event to an individual with two interests, it can affect the present. The way in which he showed the connections always kept me wondering as to the several approaches one can take into the past. While Burke felt that one should see how a certain event affects those which came after, McCullough establishes an epithetical view of placing oneself in another’s shoes. He believes that more understanding can be gained through this fashion as opposed to the ways of Burke and his connections which seemed to include vast amounts of time and multiple branches such as the areas of literature, religion, chemistry, astronomy, and many more in the video viewed in class. McCullough, unlike, Burke, did not cover such an expanse of time, but rather looked at smaller frames. He took a narrative approach of illustrating a specific time in history such as the making of the Brooklyn Bridge and how it connected to the Panama Canal. He would pick a certain topic, and while researching, would stumble upon other people or events which would interest him. Again, unlike Burke, these new discoveries in his research still contained logical and strong pertinence to his aforementioned topic. The reader could easily see the relations in McCullough’s works as he examined them with explanatory details. On the other hand, Burke, did not necessarily go into much depth of every aspect he mentioned as he formed connections. Nevertheless, I do not believe Burke has “history ADD” for he formed quite interesting and entertaining connections, yet, it would be helpful on his own part and for the sake of history if he examined the links more carefully and with more depth as well as focusing on a smaller amount of time to allow the viewers to gain a better knowledge of these connections.
Listening to James Burke discuss how everything in history is somehow connected was a combination of fascination and confusing. It was very interesting to see how he thinks everything is connected and he began with one simple word. However, some of his connections were a stretch and hard to follow. Burke’s view is similar to McCullough’s and they both make very interesting points. Burke looks at a series of events as a whole and determines how they connect with each other while McCullough looks at individual situations. I liked hearing about McCullough’s views a little better because I think they are easier to follow. One thing that really stuck with me is how we judge our past actions as a nation and that someday people will be judging our generation. Also, McCullough said that it there is not, we all lived in our own present. In contrast, James Burke likes to look at many events and connects them together. This, too, is an extremely interesting way of looking at history because he presents evidence that we do, in fact, follow what other people have done and develop it to discover something more. Although they look at things a little differently both agree that the past (or other people’s present) does influence how we do things in society today. It is definitely safe to say that Burke is very intelligent but may be a little out of it as well. His connections throughout history just don’t sound as put together and organized as McCullough’s do. Some people just don’t really understand all of the connections that Burke makes, me included, but he does give some valuable insight on history.
James Burke certainly is not "suffering from history ADD," but some of his connections do not have a sound hitorical basis. History should be viewed as a hierarchical tree rather than a web. Historical events and ideology of people during a time period would be represented as nodes and ordered chronologically on the tree. Each event or ideology could either continue the existing branch or split apart into two or more branches. With this representation of history, it is clear that the past does impact the future. However, immediate events have a greater impact than future events. While there are connections between events, connections should not be made if there are vast differences in time and/or location between two events. Correlation does not imply causation.
Some of James Burke's connections are well supported. In his first video, he showed the connection between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greeks. The controversy between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greeks over "filioque" caused the Greeks to move to Constantinople. This argument also prevented the Roman Catholic Church from helping them when they were attacked by the Turks, which led to their conquest by the Turks. This connection implies that the controversy between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greeks led to the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks. It can be supported with strong historical evidence because both events took place around the same time period (the Greeks and Roman Catholics were still not unified) and location.
David McCullough also makes connections between historical events. He relates the Johnstown Flood to the Panama Canal to Theodore Roosevelt. Unlike Burke, he only shows connections bewteen related historical events. McCullough used the Panama Canal to show a trend of improving healthcare from the early 19th century to the late 19th century. Burke somtimes makes connections between distant and unrelated things, such as cornflakes and communism. Burke's connection uses cornflakes to show a relationship between eight historical figures. Socialist ideology is not even mentioned until the fifth historical figure. This connection is very weak and has very little historical basis. While making connections is an important part of understanding history, not all events can be connected.
James Burke connects unexpected, seemingly meaningless ideas together. While they are only slightly related to each other, the end result would not be possible with just one missing link. This, however, also makes it confusing at times. The connections he makes are somewhat impressive; it is hard to find these small, intricate details that link two very different subjects together. Because of this, however, some of the connections that Burke makes are very weak. For example, in his “Cornflakes to Communism” connection, Burke connected one person to another by saying that the first painted a portrait of the latter. Although this connection links communism to cornflakes, if it had not happened, there is still a possibility of the communist movement occurring. The same type of weak connection was made in the “Mozart to the Helicopter,” where Mozart connected to Caron de Beaumarchais simply because one of his songs was based on a piece of literature by Caron de Beaumarchais. By reviewing these weak links, I believe that Burke should not be praised for his connections. In retrospect, he is also not as crazy or has history ADD, because some of his connections are actually very strong.
Burke and McCullough both are historians that have been popularized by their works. McCullough has many best-selling books and Burke is known for his Connections show. McCullough also seems to make connections, but in a way different than Burke. The topics that McCullough chooses to write about seem to be unrelated, but his reasoning behind it all is that they are connected. He writes about the Johnstown flood to the Brooklyn Bridge to the Panama Canal, etc. In the interview, David McCullough explains his connections, which, to me, seem just as justified as Burkes’. Even though the connections are valid, I find them to be very weak and not strong enough to be argued.
I can understand why Tom Esty thought historian James Burke had what he calls “History Add”, but at the same time, I believe Burke may be onto something. Burke definitely seems to have some good theories about how the one word may have changed history, but his video was a bit difficult for me to follow. He jumps from one historical event to another in a matter of less than a minute. His connections were definitely very interesting and kept me focused the whole time. However, some of these connections and theories are mediocre, they seemed a bit stretched, and some seemed irrelevant to each other on first thought. For an event that occurs in history, there could be a few dozen other events leading up to that one particular event. Burke’s connections could have gone in hundreds of different ways. There are just too many factors Burke too easily overlooked. However, Burke’s connections appealed to a broad audience, and he sparked their interest in history by presenting to the audience a broad but interesting history of events. Historian McCullough seems to share the interest in the correlation between historical events and figures, he, however, appears to have a much more clear and organized thought process compare to that of Burke’s. McCullough is a non-fiction writer, his works about historical events is also popular among the general public. McCullough believed in looking at the people in history, and encouraging us to think about how we would have acted based on their knowledge and circumstances at the time. He believed we could best understand history this way. Both Burke and McCullough believed history is very important, and they wanted to inspire curiosity and passion in their audience about history.
I think that Burke' s ideas bear some credence. Both his "one word" series and his website focus on that he views the connections between events as crucial to studying history. On this view, i agree with him completely. History is not a series of events to be recorded on a line; the events of history lay themselves out in a fashion most similar to that of a spider web, where earlier events have multiple impacts upon events, and that their effects stretch out through the entire structure of history, and that without the original center, all would fall apart. Burke appears to be trying to support this spiderweb idea, by showing the subtle, or not so subtle, connections between various events, and displays that modern events exist entirely due to far off and seemingly insignificant or unrelated things. In this respect, I agree with him completely; however, I feel that some of his application needs improvement. I found that some of his connections were rather weak, such as the one concerning the Ceres asteroid; this may have resulted from a faulty interpretation from the preceding event, or several errors that amounted into this. However, this could be expected, because this spiderweb theory is easy to misinterpret or misdirect, and can easily lead to an inaccurate interpretation. However, his main idea is both sound and quite interesting.
Burke is similar to McCullough in that he wants to interpret history not as a direct line of events, with each event preceding the next. McCullough, however, approaches history from the perspective of the era in questions beliefs, values, culture, and ethics, so as to understand fully how and why events played out the way they did, in respect to the time period. He, like Burke, studies history from a far more in depth and thorough way than do basic histories, and as a result, far more understanding can be ascertained from his studies. I feel that if Burke applied McCullough's empathetic method of study, he would be able to eliminate some of his faulty interpretations by getting a very complete and accurate study of events and their reasons, and would be able to see connections between events more clearly.
I feel that James Burke has elements of being onto something unique and very interesting. His connections in history are one of a kind, well thought out connections. He starts out with something so simple and different in its own way and ends with something on a totally different historical special. He is often cited as saying it only takes one word to something, and then he is of on a tangent of describing the folioque word and the struggle that stemmed from it between the Romans and the Greeks. This a sound example of what some of his more concrete examples and connections are. But not all of his connections are very solid, some take the tiniest bit of relevance and connect it to something way different. When he does this you wonder if he is really a historical genius of if he has "history ADD" so to speak.
David Mcullough on the other hand describes history as relevant to the subject and that there is no such thing as past. He also does not make many connections that are thinly based, he focuses on drawing empathy for the subjects he is focusing on. He tries to make history more interesting. Which is something that he has in common with James Burke, but the similarities end there.
Burke the narrator of the television series Connections, is neither a mad genius nor mad in general. Many of his connections do have merit and many others rely on thin strings of relevance. First let us start off by examining the connections that do contain merit. For example, in connections 2, Burke starts off with the word filioque. This does indeed has a strong connection with the animosity between western and eastern Europe during the start of the second millennium. Another connection that has merit is that the Turks did indeed conquer Constantinople after the Byzantine Empire requested help from the west. However, there are still connections that have very little merit. One is the discovery of Cerium and its connection to the comet Sirus. It is only a similarity in name. Burke is human like anyone of us he attempts to find connections between stuff in the world. Then again there is only one world we actually know about and therefore something exists or exists as imagination in this world, it can connect with something else in this world. Burke and McCullough do have similarities and differences. Burke attempts to connect everything ex-post facto, while McCullough tries to see things from the eyes of people in history. Burke attempts to not specify in one area while McCullough attempts to build a narrative arround a certain subject. However they both agree that people in the present can learn from the past to better the future.
I believe James Burke is on to something although some people might question his sanity. When I watched the video it was really hard to keep up with what he was saying because his speech was rushed hastily but this does not mean that his comments do not hold merit. He makes many strong connections that other people fail to see. He used two words to trace his way back through history. He makes quite good connections from sand to German fairy tales to Disney which should be taken into consideration. The way he explains the start of the Renaissance and staying in Italy shows how history is intertwined in many different ways. In order to make connections Burke would have to research hundred of sources. However, when comparing him to McCullough, McCullough has a much organized thought process. He has clear focus and explain everything well. He does not jump around. They have different ways of presenting or explaining their information. McCullough focuses on one thing and branches out from their learning more information. This is more organized than the way Burke presents his information. Burke has a more crazy and random style of presenting his information. I think that Tom Esty’s statement does have some merit. Despite a great deal that may work to the contrary, the arguments of Burke hold merit as he is able to recognize valid connections that others fail to acknowledge.
In my opinion James Burke was able to grasp concepts beyond the convention that he was not stable mentally. After having watched the video, even though I did not fully grasp everything he was saying, I felt that he did present interesting ideas. With this said, he did make many superb connections that a great majority of others do not see. He discusses the interwoven nature of history through this explanation of the start of the Renaissance and German Fairy Tales, and the relationship between them. Burke is capable of making such excellent connections as his depth and scope on many issues add to his great understanding of history. This requires a great deal of research on his part and he obviously is very educated and a great lover of history. He may make a few ridiculous connections, but I think he may be on to something. Perhaps he may have “history ADD”, in the words of Tom Esty, but he does make history interesting and some very valid connections.
McCullough also is very entranced by history, but he takes a slightly different view than Burke upon the subject. Burke makes connections, which are sometimes a bit far fetched, and McCullough views history from a less “modern” perspective. He tries to view the historical figures and events from the time that they happened, judging the people from their times by their standards. McCullough writes very detailed biographies which are focused on a very specific person or event. He makes connections between his books, but not within them. Burke is a lot more broad, but they both make connections and are hunky-dory.
In my opinion, James Burke could be on the right track to something, and also could be "suffering from History ADD". I do think it's incredible how he comes up with some of his connections in history to see how everything can intertwine with anything else. But at the same time, I believe in some instances he is grasping at straws in order to prove a point. This results in scattered connections based on a thin layer of facts or coincidences.
David McCullough also makes connections in his article. However, he harps on empathy while describing the past as actually another present, which I think makes complete sense. It opens a whole new realm of thinking for the audience he is reaching and therefore makes history even more interesting. Burke has this in common with McCullough, as both historians have the ability to grasp anyone's attention and hold it while they try to convey their opinions.
I do believe that James Burke's ideads definitely have merit. I myself have always thought that somehow everything is interconnected; even though it may sometimes sound a bit crazy. I guess what I'm trying to say is that everything counts, even the smallest things that may seem insignificant, ordinary, unimportant. As James Burke said, "Nobody is a Nobody". For example, if somebody is trying to decide which resaurant to go to for lunch, seems pretty insignificant right?, and they choose to go to Friendly's over say Outback, they go to Friendly's and something happens to be unknowingly wrong with the food; the person eats the food, gets sick from it, and ultimately dies. This has changed everything! Perhaps that person would have gone on to invent "the biggest thing since sliced bread"; and now..."the world may never know", or should I say, the world WILL never know! If that person had gone somewhere else to eat, they may not have gotten sick and died, but I guess thats a chance you take when you eat lunch out! Another example would be one of those right place, right time situations, or vis versa. Say, as it turns out, the health inspector was scheduled to check the particular Friendly's in question, just one hour after our guy ate there, heres what could have happened...We'll say that our Friendly's guy is named Rich, and the woman we will talk about will be called Susan... Susan is late to work from her early lunch break on this particular wednesday, she is speeding down the highway to her office as Rich has just decided his lunch future. Susan gets into a terrible accident due to her excessive speeding, this takes place further ahead on the highway that Rich has just gotten on to go to Friendly's. Because the emergency responders are en route to the scene of Susan's accident, there is much traffic on the highway. This delay causes Rich to arrive at Friendly's exactly one hour and 30 minutes later than he would have without any delay. During that 90 minutes, the health inspector (travelling on a different highway), arrives at and inspects the Friendly's restaurant, he finds something potentially fatally wrong with the food and temporarily shuts the restaurant down until the problem is to be fixed. Upon arriving, Rich is upset to find out that Friendly's is closed and he will have to go to Outback for lunch; little does he know, his life was essentially saved because of the slow service at the place where Susan at lunch that caused her to be late, which caused her to speed, which led to her accident, which caused traffic on the highway! As I have demonstrated, I whole heartedly believe in Burke's cause and effect theory of history, and that everything would not be the same if one small detail was changed. Burke's links are not always quite as direct as the one's I have just told, however, they are just as legitimate. I do not agree with McCullough's "history ADD" comment, because I believe that it is important to realize that everything is due to something else. Although I don't happen to agree with his previously mentioned comment, I do agree with his belief that empathy is the key to understanding. This is true and also ties into Burke's theory in a way; you must understand all people and cultures and all the different reasons each person has for doing things in order to understand history. And Each person's reasons for doing what they do is based upon what has influenced them (which goes along with what Burke is saying). So once you have empathy, you can understand all the world's differences, and realize that although cultures can vary from each other greatly, that does not make them irrelevant to each other.
After examining Burke's Knowledge Web and some of the information he presents, it is justified that his work is legitimate, but that its relevance and significance is debatable. Some of the information he conveys may seem absurd, such as his connection between filioque and a meteor, but his method of thinking and the way he views events, objects, and the natural world may prove vital in the analysis and comprehension of history. Generally, people know that specific events may coincide with other occurences. However, to what event/object or extent these events relate to is generally obscure. Through his unique approach to the past and his keen observation, he brings the relationships to light and presents the information in a way that is comprehensible to many. This is appropriately illustrated by the video on the knowledge web, specifically the chain of relationships that begins with Copernicus and ends with chewing gum. In this process, he identifies each of the links (object or event) from beginning to end, albeit possibly sparse or irrelevant. In the same example, the relationships between each of the links seem negligible in the history of the event, such as the meeing between Owen and Santa Anna. The meeting had occured, but it is questionable whether or not the meeting itself played a role in Santa Anna's introduction of chewing in the U.S. These observations make the legitimacy of Burke's work ambiguous.
Like Burke, McCullough's studies start at one instance in time and progress to another. For instance, he discusses his interest with the Brooklyn bridge and progresses to the presidency at the time. However, unlike Burke, his connections are more obvious, but greater in detail. Each link in his progression of study is dependent on his interest on the subject matter of a concurrent/underlying event, so therefore the connections he make are more relevant.
At first, James Burke appears to be "suffering from History ADD" as Tom Esty says. After viewing his video, it seems that he is on to something, if not entirely sane. He made very interesting connections, and somehow managed to get from filioque to cultural anthropology. I must admit, however, some of his connections were weak. For example: he connected the discovery of the element cerium with the comet ceres. They share nothing but a name. Perhaps Burke could not find another connection and was forced to use this. Burke moves at a fast pace and can move to a different time period or country in seconds. He makes many logical connections, so it would therefore be inaccurate to label him ADD.
Like James Burke, David McCullough makes connections between historical events. They both want to inspire an interest in history in others. Unlike Burke, McCullough emphasizes empathy. He wants people to imagine what it was like to live in the past, so that they might understand why people acted the way they did, or how and why certain events took place. Burke seems more interested in making connections. Both Burke and McCullough teach others about history. Both are highly intelligent and both have valid points. McCullough wants people to live it, to understand it. Burke is a slightly insane man who wants people to see the connections between seemingly unrelated events.
James Burke might be a well-informed historian, but the way he connects things in history are very debatable. I know he has a lot of time he has to use up when he is making the connections, and a perfect connection between two things is hard to come by, but I think he could have done better. The one that stands out to me as “History ADD,” is his connection between a new element and the founder’s choice to name it after an asteroid. The element simply would have been named something else if not after the asteroid, and nothing would have changed. I do think some of the connections he made were good, however. Burke started off strong with the fact that one word changed the fate of the Christianity, which can be backed up with substantial evidence. I do have to complement him on his depth of knowledge in certain areas of study, while maintaining a general understanding of world history to connect them all, such as his connection with Walt Disney and Indo-European Myths. While describing his actions as ADD might be stretching it, I do believe that he went rather fast and unorganized. Some topics he chooses he describes with plentiful detail, while others he simply make a quick reference.
McCullough can be related to Burke, but for the most part, I believe there is a clear distinction between the two. While Burke comments on the relationship that the past has on the present and future, McCullough says that there is really limited connection, because the past was the present at some time. He does say, though, that his decisions as to what topic to write, about was often impacted by the previous books he wrote. This shows that McCullough thought that there was a connection between the past and present, but I believe that when writing his books, he was trying to take the persona of that time period. This is the major difference between the two; the way they look at history.
James Burke is both “on to something” and “suffering from History ADD.” He is an eccentric, very enthusiastic historian, who made some valid connections in “One Word.” His perception of history is similar to David McCullough, but the two views are still quite distinct.
Burke is obviously very passionate about history; his enthusiasm mirrors that of a little kid at Christmas. The vocabulary of “One Word” is a prime example of how excited Burke is about history. His diction is more animated than serious, such as describing Napoleon “cobbling” the Germans. Burke’s knowledge and desire to share with others of even the insignificant details further reveals his zealousness. For example, he summarized the original Brothers’ Grimm version of fairytales. Despite his impressive interest in history, Burke’s “One Word” did not make a compelling argument. The theory that so many events in history can be accounted for by just one word was intriguing, but some of Burke’s connections were a little opaque, such as the naming of cerium and the asteroid Ceres. Although cerium is named after Ceres, Burke used that relationship to jump into the discovery of Ceres, which was in the past, relative to cerium. Therefore, it was a little illogical. Nevertheless, Burke was valid in proposing that historical events are not individual occurrences: they all were caused by something, and they all affected future things.
David McCullough, who is just as enamored of history as Burke is, agrees with Burke on the point that history is more than an accumulation of dates. He states that what is history to us was the present for others, and the events in their present could have been influenced by anything. McCullough and Burke differ in their styles of understanding history. McCullough believes history should be about empathy for the people of the time, and that to understand their thoughts and feelings would be the best way to make sense of history. On the other hand, Burke looks at the progression of science to thoroughly study history. On his website, Burke asserts: “Unfortunately, so much specialization falsely creates the illusion that knowledge and discovery exist in a vacuum, in context only with their own disciplines, when in reality they are born from interdisciplinary connections. Without an ability to see these connections, history and science won't be learnable in a truly meaningful way and innovation will be stifled.” Thus, both McCullough and Burke reject history as the memorization of past occurrences, but embrace history as the embodiment of either people or progress.
James Burke, while he does have valid points and ideas relating to the overarching theme of history, is still taking some of his ideas a bit too radically. While it may be a bit extreme to label him as "suffering from History ADD," it is a bit preposterous when he makes some of his more absurd connections. Sometimes his connections can be as simple as a shared name (which on the contrary lead to weak connections). Other times they can involve many time periods and revolutionize the way that you may view something. He seems like a very intelligent and thoughtful person, and other people may have failed to see some of his connections. For example, his connection between filiuque and a comet is abstract and profound, and changes my views on these two topics. Sometimes one must wonder, however, how substantial one event is in its connection to a seemingly unrelated action. This is where Burke's theory can fall short, as there is little to no proof involved, as it is mostly theorizing and finding connections where there may have been none before. As compared to McCullough, who emphasizes the idea of emphasizing with the people and events in history, Burke seems a little more desperate. If both of these men were placed in the same room, it is hard not to imagine the great discussions and debates that these "scientists" would get into. McCullough's are similar to Burkes, as he also believes that a lot of events in history are connected, but he emphasizes the teachings of history and how we should view the events of the world through the people of that time's eyes. Overall, though at times these two men's ideas can seem a bit out there, they both offer up interesting points on the importance of history and how we should make the connections more.
I by no means vouch for James Burke's sanity. However, Burke's Knowledge Web grasps the reality that history is not simply dates and names but rather the connections and affects of these names and dates. Rather than separate events history is a series of causes and effects. This can been seen in Burke's Knowledge Web. The Knowledge web shows how each aspect of history is related. In the meantime, the Knowledge Web seems to be a little extreme, jumping from one topic to another. However, the truth of the matter is that even though some of the connections seem minute, all these names and events are connected and each leads to another.
Burke and McCullough would probably get along. They share a similar idea regarding history. McCullough believes that history should not be regarded as singular events. Instead one should think about it as if it were the present. The decisions and outcomes are made at the moment and affected by each of the events before hand. Like Burke, McCullough believes that all parts of history are connected and each specific event is related to another. For example, McCullough had students write term papers on a specific person or event in history and in doing so they learned a great deal about all the parts of history connected.
I believe that Burke is on to something, but is also a bit eccentric. I agree with the fact that one event leads to another, no matter how small the connection may seem, it did have an effect. Yet these connections he makes can be far fetched, corn flakes to communism is a perfect example. Although there are some connections many are weak, and it seems at some points that merely painting a picture of the other person could be the connection that he makes. I agree with Tom that Burke had "history ADD", but its an ADD that can at times make clear sense. Burke's and McCullough’s main idea may be the same, but McCullough has better structure then Burke. Either way both are genius' and can find connections where your average person would never think to look. Both are smart, a little far fetched at times, but truly genius.
Everything in the world is connected. This is a general and obvious truth that is irrefutable. We all arose from single celled organisms, and based on our influences on each other, have developed into the society we are today. Historians look at the development of society from all perspectives, and can note causes, effects, and relationships. Therefore, Burke, who appears to be an eccentric man, is simply detailing the obvious. He points out what we are subconsciously aware of – the fact that you could link two completely unlike things, because our known world is finite.
Burke is fascinated with tracing these relationships throughout history. Though some of the connections he makes may seem stretched, the overreaching concept that he is promoting is valid. Society is constantly evolving as a result of things coming into contact with each other, and changing the course of those things’ future.
McCullough, another noted historian shares Burke’s love of understanding history. However, McCullough achieves greater organization of his thoughts. Because his work is written, it is a simpler task to dissect what he is asserting, versus the fast and sometimes confusing pace of Burke’s videos. Also, McCullough’s work seems to indicate greater societal implications of the historical events that he connects. Burke on the other hand is just a jumble of cool things that fit together like a puzzle and create something that makes you think “well that’s cool. I wonder what other random things are related.”
Though McCullough and Burke have slightly different styles, both have been able to influence people to have a greater appreciation for history. They show how it is significantly relevant to our daily lives, and they would not be what they are without it.
At first glance, I believed James Burke to be a little mad, perhaps because of his outer appearance. While learning more about Burke and his thoughts regarding history, however, I found him to be a genius. His British accent certainly added to my interest in him. His series, “Connections”, for BBC, is one of their highest rated programs. This is a great accomplishment for Burke, considering that a history series would stir so much interest to the general public. Burke has made history accessible to a very broad audience, and he touches upon many historical events and traits in his "Connections". His use of connections has invented a new way history can be viewed. Though some of his connections were weak, such as the naming of cerium and the asteroid Ceres, all of his connections were interesting and intellectual. Burke, through his "Connections", emphasizes the fact that everything that occurs in history are all connected.
Author David McCullough, like James Burke, also loves history. McCullough, who writes nonfiction novels about historical events, is also very popular among the general public. McCullough expresses his desire to reinvent history in his novels, and excite people about history. This goal is similar to that of Burke's message of inspire a love of history. However, both people use different ways of instigating interest in history. While McCullough tells stories about historical figures to teach about periods of history, Burke draws connections by giving small pieces of information from many different periods of history. However, both men believe in the importance of the past. McCullough, who believes there is only a present, stresses how society should empathize with people of the past because it was their present. Burke believes the importance of the past by showing how one word, one event, can alter the world. Both historians also view history as a "tool" for learning about people and a way for progress to occur, and not just a class that must be taken to pass school, and both have made history interesting for those around them.
While James Burke may be considered an eccentric historian, with “History ADD”, I find his connections incredible interesting and thought provoking. Burkes helps to enlighten people on the subject of history by using a new and refreshing technique. I think that the way he presents his information by using his knowledge web to interconnect even the smallest things into one big idea. Others may say that James Burke had “History ADD” because of the sometimes crazy and ridiculously insignificant connections sometimes made. However, even with those little connections, the connections he makes are still very prominent and relevant. What he was able to do with one word, folioque, was he was able to takes it direct impact in splitting Greek and Roman Christianity, to how that led to the fall of Constantinople and the Renaissance. By using Burkes technique, you can prove that everything in connected by a butterfly effect.
David McCullough however, is more of a social historian in my belief. He believes that there is no such thing as the past so there is only the present in the eyes of the people. His beliefs would not really work with Burke’s approach because Burke uses exampled from the past to make his connections while McCullough focuses more on specific events.
James Burke and David McCullough both have very interesting ideas about history. I agree with McCullough’s opinion that the best way to understand history is to get as close to experiencing it as possible and by showing empathy for the people. This is best reflected I think by the founding fathers, specifically Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed that slavery should not be included in the U.S. Constitution. However, Jefferson owned slaves and continued to own them even after he said he would free all of his slaves. Jefferson was so focus on his ideas of equality and freedom that he did nothing about his own slaves. You are able to then understand history much better by taking about it in this sense.
I think that by learning and studying history the way McCullough says is similar to the way Burke approaches history. Burke approaches history be drawing connections between different but related events. McCullough approaches history by connecting the different ideas of people together. Both are using fairly similar ideas to draw connections in history.
I do not think that Burke is has “history ADD.” The way Burke is making connections is because he understands the topic immensely. On Burke’s learning center website Burke says that people are learning more and more about nothing. This is absolutely true about the increased specialization that is going on in the academic community. What Burke is trying to do is to give everyone a little bit of the puzzle. The “Connections” show is accomplishing this goal. I think in order to understand history as a whole better it is more effective to learn a wide variety of topics than one specific topic. Burke takes this idea as well and is the driving force behind his work.
James Burke definitely deserves his award as a great historian. Through his videos, one can tell that he really digs through and gets the very small details of the past and tie them all up to present to us our history. As highly acclaimed as he is, I found James Burke’s videos hard to follow and get interested in. It is clear from the enthusiasm that he shows in his videos that if he isn’t suffering from “history ADD,” he is at least extremely passionate about it. For me, as a secondhand viewer, to be listening to him talk about the wonders of it all… I just can’t get the same excited and energized feeling about history that he feels about it. However, I do have to admit, he does hit on some major points on history in his videos. Burke really places emphasis on how history is a huge ongoing “connection,” a series of chronological events that occur as an effect of an event before that. He also mentions “connections” in that the things needed to solve problems in history are already existing, there just needs to be the right person who makes the connection. All sorts of people in history rise up to the occasion to impact history when it is needed, like his example of the invention of italics, which leads to more affordable books, which leads to catalogues which later helps to spread ideas more rapidly. He reports the rest of his videos using the cause and effect form too. To illustrate how history plays out. If we were to go back into history and change perhaps just one event, then the whole image of the world today could be changed. What if the Americans had lost the American Revolution? What if a leader like Abraham Lincoln never rose when we needed it in order to keep the nation from falling to pieces? This particular argument has solid merit. His whole spew on the word “filioque” however, I don’t really get. Even after viewing it for a 2nd time.
However, his one major comment that really hits the head of the nail, is how nowadays, “People tend to become experts in highly specialized fields, learning more and more about less and less.” I completely agree with this statement on the fact that today, we can no longer have those great intelligent minds that existed so long ago because people are so specialized the experts at just one specific thing. They are not necessarily not as smart, because being so concentrated helps to become true experts on that one subject but we need people o f multiple talents that can connect the existing pieces of a puzzle together.
I enjoyed David McCullough’s article much more. His argument that history should not be viewed as the past because for those people, it was the present makes very clear sense. They were not planning to make a special impact on history when they made their decision, they just made the best choice that befitted that era. He agrees with Burke in that history is a series of cause and effects. The world we have today is all a consequence of the decisions the people of the past made, whether good or bad.
James Burke definitely deserves his award as a great historian. Through his videos, one can tell that he really digs through and gets the very small details of the past and tie them all up to present to us our history. As highly acclaimed as he is, I found James Burke’s videos hard to follow and get interested in. It is clear from the enthusiasm that he shows in his videos that if he isn’t suffering from “history ADD,” he is at least extremely passionate about it. For me, as a secondhand viewer, to be listening to him talk about the wonders of it all… I just can’t get the same excited and energized feeling about history that he feels about it. However, I do have to admit, he does hit on some major points on history in his videos. Burke really places emphasis on how history is a huge ongoing “connection,” a series of chronological events that occur as an effect of an event before that. He also mentions “connections” in that the things needed to solve problems in history are already existing, there just needs to be the right person who makes the connection. All sorts of people in history rise up to the occasion to impact history when it is needed, like his example of the invention of italics, which leads to more affordable books, which leads to catalogues which later helps to spread ideas more rapidly. He reports the rest of his videos using the cause and effect form too. To illustrate how history plays out. If we were to go back into history and change perhaps just one event, then the whole image of the world today could be changed. What if the Americans had lost the American Revolution? What if a leader like Abraham Lincoln never rose when we needed it in order to keep the nation from falling to pieces? This particular argument has solid merit. His whole spew on the word “filioque” however, I don’t really get. Even after viewing it for a 2nd time.
However, his one major comment that really hits the head of the nail, is how nowadays, “People tend to become experts in highly specialized fields, learning more and more about less and less.” I completely agree with this statement on the fact that today, we can no longer have those great intelligent minds that existed so long ago because people are so specialized the experts at just one specific thing. They are not necessarily not as smart, because being so concentrated helps to become true experts on that one subject but we need people o f multiple talents that can connect the existing pieces of a puzzle together.
I enjoyed David McCullough’s article much more. His argument that history should not be viewed as the past because for those people, it was the present makes very clear sense. They were not planning to make a special impact on history when they made their decision, they just made the best choice that befitted that era. He agrees with Burke in that history is a series of cause and effects. The world we have today is all a consequence of the decisions the people of the past made, whether good or bad.
James Burke definitely deserves his award as a great historian. Through his videos, one can tell that he really digs through and gets the very small details of the past and tie them all up to present to us our history. As highly acclaimed as he is, I found James Burke’s videos hard to follow and get interested in. It is clear from the enthusiasm that he shows in his videos that if he isn’t suffering from “history ADD,” he is at least extremely passionate about it. For me, as a secondhand viewer, to be listening to him talk about the wonders of it all… I just can’t get the same excited and energized feeling about history that he feels about it. However, I do have to admit, he does hit on some major points on history in his videos. Burke really places emphasis on how history is a huge ongoing “connection,” a series of chronological events that occur as an effect of an event before that. He also mentions “connections” in that the things needed to solve problems in history are already existing, there just needs to be the right person who makes the connection. All sorts of people in history rise up to the occasion to impact history when it is needed, like his example of the invention of italics, which leads to more affordable books, which leads to catalogues which later helps to spread ideas more rapidly. He reports the rest of his videos using the cause and effect form too. To illustrate how history plays out. If we were to go back into history and change perhaps just one event, then the whole image of the world today could be changed. What if the Americans had lost the American Revolution? What if a leader like Abraham Lincoln never rose when we needed it in order to keep the nation from falling to pieces? This particular argument has solid merit. His whole spew on the word “filioque” however, I don’t really get. Even after viewing it for a 2nd time.
However, his one major comment that really hits the head of the nail, is how nowadays, “People tend to become experts in highly specialized fields, learning more and more about less and less.” I completely agree with this statement on the fact that today, we can no longer have those great intelligent minds that existed so long ago because people are so specialized the experts at just one specific thing. They are not necessarily not as smart, because being so concentrated helps to become true experts on that one subject but we need people o f multiple talents that can connect the existing pieces of a puzzle together.
I enjoyed David McCullough’s article much more. His argument that history should not be viewed as the past because for those people, it was the present makes very clear sense. They were not planning to make a special impact on history when they made their decision, they just made the best choice that befitted that era. He agrees with Burke in that history is a series of cause and effects. The world we have today is all a consequence of the decisions the people of the past made, whether good or bad.
Although I found a lot of James Burke’s connections quite a bit farfetched to say the least, I think I can evaluate the skill and amount of research it took him to even get in the mind set for some of his connections. I don’t think that history “ADD” is the correct term to describe the mind set of James Burke, but rather a sort of like intense passion. I respect that Burke enjoys history so much and that he has the effort to do so much research in order to make his connections but I do believe he takes it too far and uses consequential connections to well make the connections. The overall connections that Burke made I feel have little significance but they do make a great effort to interest people in history. I think that this is Burke’s true goal, to entertain people with abstract yet personal connections (such as Grim’s Fairy Tales and Disney) so that people will appreciate history and so they will take better care of making decisions that will be beneficial for future generations. This is where I believe Burke and David McCullough have common ground with each other. Both these historians and I think it’s safe to say that most historians have the belief that we must have empathy for the people in the past and that we must value history. For sake of having empathy, McCullough sums this up by saying “everybody is a contradiction within himself. All of us are inconsistent, contradictory, and at times hypocritical”. By saying this he means that we can’t blame people in the past for doing what they did because we can’t imagine the situations they were in and what it would be like to be them. Finally, and most importantly, I believe that the biggest connection that Burke and McCullough had was to teach everyone the value of history. In Burke’s connections, he wants to interest people in history and McCullough wants history to be fun in school so that people can grow up not making the same mistakes made by others in the past.
If at least one compliment must be paid to the work of James Burke, it is that he found an excellent topic to develop into a show. His ideas when presented seem believable to those who lack the expertise to dissect them, but appeal to the general masses thirst for some sort of universal truth. That a chain of seemingly separate events could in fact be a tapestry woven from the strings of fate is a question that intrigues viewers from anywhere on the learning curve.
Whether his findings carried academic merit, however, and whether they were popular as a television series, are separate considerations. Admittedly, Burke draws some conparisons that derail from the linear path he so wished to follow. In a specific example, he compared the naming of a new element to a recently discovered meteorite. Though these two had an undeniable connection, the events caused by the two discoveries were in no way correlated.
The rest of his discoveries would require research and prior knowledge beyond my capabilities to verify as fact or dismiss as fiction. His arguments support themselves well, and the connections intrinsically make sense to our logical reasoning.
At this point I see it fair to diverge from an objective opinion and contribute a portion of my own beliefs. I personally view Burke's theory of an interwoven past as highly possible and historically relevant. From records of the past, historians can only hope to catch a glimpse of the chain of factors that cause an event to occur. However, much like sound waves, each small action of the past and during the time touches each future action in at least as small way, so long as the society continues to exist. Why not, then, could these touches impact and influence the events and ideas themselves? Ideas must come from somewhere, and the creativity of humanity is not limitlessly available to everyone. The work of one man could very well guide the life of another.
That having been said, Burke's method of tracing one line through history is only a portion of the greater picture. To watch one chain of events would be akin to dropping food coloring into a waterfall, and attempting to follow the drop to the bottom. It is an important first step to follow one train of logic, but the whole puzzle will only materialize when all the pieces have been collected. Though this day may never come, historians have already embraced the concept of never truly seeing the past.
Burke and McCullough seem to share the view that events in our history are interconnected. While Burke attempts to fit these chains into stories, McCullough appears to follow the chains FOR stories. He sees the same interconnection, and believes there is some sort of force transmitted from one action to the other.McCullough, however, expresses worry over the possibility of being incorrect in his work. He claims that he is given solace by the presence of pre-existing works regarding most subjects, but this is a comfort Burke is likely unable to indulge in. Groundbreaking discoveries have no past precedents to check your work against. At that point, the authors would have to decide whether to proceed with their opinion, or to wait for those of another. I have faith that, in both of their situations, they would proceed forward and wait for others to clean up any mistakes and proverbial droppings of error left in their wake.
In the end, while controversial, Burke's work proposes an interesting alternative to the modern perception of history as a series of disjunct events. It needs definite polishing and editing before the rest of the world will be likely to accept it, but I believe he is on the cusp of a new way of looking at the past.
James Burke is admittedly able to present interesting and thought-provoking material in his take on history. However, it seems that he takes certain connections much too far. For example, he traces the one word, ‘filioque,’ from its splitting the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church to the establishment of the printing press through a variety of steps, which have something, although not everything, to do with a preceding event, ultimately stemming from this word. His steps seem to be irregular at times; for example, when Constantinople is under siege and the Greeks ask the Pope for help, ‘filioque’ is certainly brought up in the discussions. However, whether or not this word was brought up at Rome, Constantinople still would have fallen and left the Greeks nowhere to return, leading them to begin translating Greek works. It could certainly be construed that ‘filioque’ was related to the purposes of this talk for alliance, but to claim that it was solely responsible was almost ludicrous. It is important to remember that Burke was presenting a television series, and as such, had to appeal to the interest of an audience while competing with other impressive or cerebral shows; some extrapolation or ‘creative interpretation’ of history seems needed for commercial success. Burke’s connections between historical events are indisputably interesting, but at times coincidental or unrelated.
Burke seems to differ from McCullough in his view of the process of history. Burke’s series shows a sequence of events that clearly led to one another. McCullough, on the other hand, argues that there is “no such thing as the past,” but rather a continuous present, in which decisions are made independently of causes and effects. These two viewpoints contrast sharply with each other. McCullough’s point of view seems more credible, however, when put in terms of the present: as he says that there is no past, only present, the events of the past are no more inclined to be destined or linked than are those of today.
I think that James Burke is not a madman. However I would not call him a genius either. While he is very smart he does not seem to have the correct spark to be called genius. I have not studied James Burke and I may be missing some key facts that may prove him to be a madman or a genius. However based off of the information I have gathered from the film we saw and the posted website I would simply classify James Burke as a smart individual. James Burke's style is similar to McCullough in the fact that they connect seemingly random events together throughout history. However I would say that James Burke is a little less concrete with his connections. He seems to base the connections more losely than McCullough does.
I do not believe that James Burke as Tom Esty said, “Suffering from ADD.” I feel that James Burke, maybe so passionate about history that it may seem eccentric to others. I personally found his videos covering historical events fascinating. His main idea about history is basically that one thing leads to another. He illustrated this through each of his connections in his series “Connections” on BBC, which soon became one of their highest rated programs. This is because Burke on TV is clearly passionate, and has made history interesting and therefore accessible to many other people. I found his use of connections truly fascinating, who would have known that many of the Grimm Brother’s fairy tales were from Sanskrit and led of course to Disney movies or that Mozart led to the bottle cap. However, I think due to an attempt to remain accessible, he skipped many details, which made some of the connections a bit weak. Also, there are so many other variables in each of his connections that sometimes it seemed a bit to implausible. McCullough on the other hand, has similar ideas but presents them in a different way. He looks at it from each famous person or event in history, and how this lead to another event or idea. For example, he discussed, by looking at the context of the time evaluating the actions, ideas, and the events produced by this, Brooklyn Bridge to Theodore Roosevelt. This method of discussion is empathy, without using he thinks would not be fair and make us less capable of understanding certain things, like how Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. So, both believe in some kind of ripple effect, but Burke in his shows covers much more history without a lot of the details, mainly because of making it interesting and accesible, and McCullough covers one topic at a time to fully understand. Both of these men are great historians and neither are insane, but just express their knowledge in a different way.
I do not believe that James Burke as Tom Esty said, “Suffering from ADD.” I feel that James Burke, maybe so passionate about history that it may seem eccentric to others. I personally found his videos covering historical events fascinating. His main idea about history is basically that one thing leads to another. He illustrated this through each of his connections in his series “Connections” on BBC, which soon became one of their highest rated programs. This is because Burke on TV is clearly passionate, and has made history interesting and therefore accessible to many other people. I found his use of connections truly fascinating, who would have known that many of the Grimm Brother’s fairy tales were from Sanskrit and led of course to Disney movies or that Mozart led to the bottle cap. However, I think due to an attempt to remain accessible, he skipped many details, which made some of the connections a bit weak. Also, there are so many other variables in each of his connections that sometimes it seemed a bit to implausible. McCullough on the other hand, has similar ideas but presents them in a different way. He looks at it from each famous person or event in history, and how this lead to another event or idea. For example, he discussed, by looking at the context of the time evaluating the actions, ideas, and the events produced by this, Brooklyn Bridge to Theodore Roosevelt. This method of discussion is empathy, without using he thinks would not be fair and make us less capable of understanding certain things, like how Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. So, both believe in some kind of ripple effect, but Burke in his shows covers much more history without a lot of the details, mainly because of making it interesting and accesible, and McCullough covers one topic at a time to fully understand. Both of these men are great historians and neither are insane, but just express their knowledge in a different way.
Burke is both on to something, and "suffering from history ADD." While he is correct that the events of history are not just a linear order of individual, unrelated events; some of the connections that he makes are flawed and hard to follow, while others are brilliant.
One of the problems with James Burke's system is that history is not this linear. One event does not lead directly to the next one. A connections "map" might be more appropriate, considering the fact that every event in history might have been influenced by a dozen prior events, and then may have influenced a dozen others. Such a system would be much more historically and politically correct while describing the sequence and nature of history.
Also, I find quite a few of his connections to be hard to follow. Though it is correct that every event in history is caused by an event preceding it, and often a long line of events preceding that one, it is ludicrous to assume that any one event will directly result in another, such as the word filoque causing a new asteroid to be names "Ceres". There are far to many variables in history for that to be the only cause to that effect. That being said, many of his connections do have legitimacy, and calling his connections "historical ADD" is a bit extreme.
That being said, Burke is on to something with his connections. His connections are not always what one would expect, and he often connects events that no one else would have ever imagined had anything to do with one another. And this perspective on history is an extremely interesting one, and though his connections are lacking at times, and though his system has it’s flaws, it is a new, and legitimate, view on history.
[Citation Needed] :)
Sorry, I completely forgot about the blog post. Since it's late anyway I'll just include some trivia:
David McCullough was a narrator in the 2003 film "Seabiscuit", which starred Ed Lauter, who co-starred in the 1985 film "Death Wish 3" alongside John Gabriel, who appeared in the "Worlds Without End" episode of the BBC series documentary called "The Day the Universe Changed", which was hosted by James Burke.
Burke is definitely onto something with his connections. To understand history we must understand that everything happens because something caused it. As Burke showed in the connections video that we saw the word filoque caused a schism between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches etc. Burke is showing that history does not happen spasmodically but rather occurs from the culmination of events over time. A perfect example is Germany got into World War II because of their alliance with the Austrians who started the war when Serbians killed Franz Ferdinand. Germany lost the war and went into an economic crisis which Hitler used to get into power. Burke is simply showing this by exaggerating this effect by taking two things totally different and connecting them by putting these small events together which lead up to the target event.
Burke and McCullough seem to agree yet look at history in a different way from each other. McCullough and Burke both support the idea of empathy, which is understanding how the people from that time saw a historical event. While agreeing on this point McCullough looks at history and focuses on the miraculous works that people have done over time such as the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. Burke, on the other hand looks at history as a string of causations from one event to the next.
Post a Comment