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 ? (Make the Connections, ha...ha).
One Word Part 1
One Word Part 2
One Word Part 3
Due Monday 10/17 @ 7:30am
50 comments:
James Burke is most certainly onto something. His process of constructing connections between the most obscure concepts and events offers us a clear understanding of how history unfolds, and why things end up the way they did. The construction of such connections is far too methodical and defined to be simply the result of “History A.D.D.”. This way of presenting history offers a level of connection that clearly displays and emphasizes the human components of events. Not only does this enrich the components of the lesson that is taken in, but it offers an in depth study of how the individuals interacted, and the results of such interactions. Burke’s connections require a respectable level of knowledge to construct and support. By creating such abstract connections, Burke also instantaneously gains trust in his theories from the audience. Burke’s way of looking at history as an ever connected string of interactions and events is both simple, and captivating. It was successful enough to make me watch the next whole episode of his Connections2 program.
What James Burke and David McCullough share is an ability to connect to history in a way that personalizes it. Their approaches to history deal directly with the people and their contribution to history. In Burke’s case, such a contribution is looked at with the goal of finding a connection to a later or earlier entity. McCullough looks at such a contribution from that individual’s perspective, thinking about what would influence such a choice or course of action. Either way, the overall result is an understanding of not only what happened, but why, and of the less obvious personal motives and catalysts. Both approaches create a history that can be connected to one’s own feelings, one that inspires exploration.
While James Burke did make some valid connections between the different historical events, his narration of the actual events as well as the various topics aout culture and history seem rather disconnected. Though I see the connections that he is trying to make, the evidence he presents to support his argument is extremely diverse to the point of how he goes off on a tangent on topics such as "the scribblings of ancient manuscripts to save time." Burke does have valid point, however if her would go further into depth to give his views more insight into his connections, rather than skating over the suface of a dozen vastly different events in history, he would have perhaps been more successful in making a point, because personally from this episode I was only able to learn a few random fact that may be helpful someday if I perhaps go on jeopardy. At the end of the video Burke is suddenly talking about necrofilia in the original Grimms fairy tales.
At this point, to me the point of his video has long been lost.
McCullough, unlike Burke was able to make connections throughout history with clear evidence that were on topic to his point. Burke on the other hand seems to attempt to connect history through random aspects of history while trying to make a viewer understand his train of thought as he ventures through what happens to be some totally unrelated historical facts. After watching this video, I would like to diagnose James Burke with a seriously case of A.D.D, in general. Perhaps his conclusions do have some merit however, he should take the time to explain further what connections the viewer is to reach.
James Burke is onto something that could be of historic importance, but he does, in fact, suffer from "History ADD". The One Word videos where he describes the links between historical figures and events contain massive amounts of knowledge. This shows that Burke is very well-educated and is trying to show a connection between these events using this knowledge. Burke expresses his vast array of historical knowledge by connecting completely different time periods with one another. He starts with one word and shows how one word or concept is exemplified through many more than one historical event. Because many of these instances in which Burke connects these events are times or events that are extremely finite, it is hard to follow his connections at some times. This is not to say that he is loaded with credible information, but that is simply hard to stay with. So, Burke may be onto something, but sometimes it is hard to tell what exactly he is trying to convey to his audiences.
That being said, Burke does seem to fulfill some symptoms of what Tom Esty describes as "History ADD." Burke is able to show his knowledge and connections well because he has so many. But, he moves on to another topic so quickly and so often that is easy to see he is somewhat distracted by all this information. Because of the library-like resource which we call his brain, Burke is overwhelmed it seems. He knows what to and how to connect these historical happenings, but he does not know when to limit himself to show more clarity. Sometimes, clarity is more important than pure substance. If it is hard for the audience to follow and understand Burke's thought process, then he is moving along too swiftly. If he were able to harness this vast array of knowledge and portray it simply and clearly, then Burke would become the ideal historian
James Burke and David McCullough are two historians who both have acquired a vast knowledge of various topics throughout history. However, the way in which they deliver that information to an audience may skew the reader or viewers understanding of their ideas. While David McCullough had very clear cut and to the point ideas, James Burke seemed to ramble on and attempt to connect one idea to another completely different thought.
James Burke is definitely onto something, and it is very obvious to anyone who views James Burke's videos that he is a knowledgable person. He obviously has very concrete thought about history, and has a fully developed idea on many topics. He knows a large amount of information, and tries to convey all of that information to his viewers. However, he also suffers from what Tom Esty would call, "History A.D.D." In the process of trying to make these connections he loses some of his audience with the obscure and somewhat random ideas he presents. He has such a vast knowledge for history that he jumps from one topic to the next, unaware that his audience has not acquired the same historical background he has. In the beginning of his videos he uses one word to relate ideas from one topic to another, and begins showing examples of this one word throughout events in history. By the end of the video, he has gone on a seemingly irrelevant and disconnected tangent that leaves the viewer unsure of what to believe. James Burke is most definitely an exceptional source of knowledge regarding multiple topics, he may just have a difficult time conveying those thoughts and ideas to an audience.
David McCullough shares this vast knowledge with James Burke, he just has a better way of delivering his ideas to an audience. McCullough has more to the point ideas, and can make a clear connection that is easy for the reader to understand. Unlike James Burke, David McCullough does not suffer from "History A.D.D."
In Burke’s “Connections2,” we are presented with history in a decidedly unique manner. Starting with a single idea, the word filioque, Burke connects from the Catholic Church, to Constantinople (now Istanbul), to Greek translations, to the Renaissance and onwards. Touching from idea to idea, from politics and religion to science and even literature, Burke creates a fascinating, if unconventional, presentation of history. This style is perhaps not the ideal method for factual education on the presented subjects (names and events flash by at a pace fitting the name “History ADD”), but it does bring the viewer in contact with something just as important, a new way of looking at history. From the Turkish invaders to the brothers Grimm, Burke shows the viewer that history does not simply lead in a straight, clearly-defined line. People create history, and every person has their own unique connections (for example, did you know that one of the brothers Grimm was heavily interested in Sandscript?). Over hundreds of years, these connections combine and expand, creating a web of history that is all around us, even today. Perhaps, by a strictly academic standpoint, the religious tensions between Rome and Constantinople did not directly cause the formation of the first museum of cultural anthropology, but that is not Burke’s point. His point is that there are an infinite number of ways to look at history, and once you start to see the connections, there is no telling where you will end up.
This is, in fact, exactly the point David McCullough makes in his interview, “There Isn’t Any Such Thing as the Past.” In this interview, McCullough describes the way he approaches history, how studying one area of history will lead him to another topic, then another. This is how he started writing on the Jamestown flood and ended up studying Teddy Roosevelt. In a sense, this method is merely a much slower-paced version of Burke’s approach to history. McCullough is an advocate of the human standpoint; history is the result of millions of people acting like people. In this way, he and Burke are in perfect agreement with each other. According to both, any one person is an infinitely complex combination of opinions, actions, and circumstances, who affects the world around him or her in important, but invariably personal ways. History itself is a conglomerate of centuries (and even millennia) of these actions and their effects, and only by looking at the way these actions affected and connected to one another do we begin to see the full complexity and relevancy of history. This is how history moves from dates and names on a sheet of paper to a living, breathing history, a history of people.
James Burke is definetly on to something. He contains an immense knowledge of history and makes brilliant connections between historical events, using his knowledge. Through his videos, Burke attempts to teach the viewers his knowledge and enlighten them on historical topics. However, the way in which he goes about doing so is quite confusing and unclear. While discussing his various topics, Burke tends to ramble and go off on little tangants which often lose the viewers attention. I think this occurs because he knows so much about history that he is able to talk about one event that reminds him of an unrelated one and causes him to drift off topic. Because of this Burke, is a victim of Tom Esty's "History ADD". However, even though Burke has "History ADD" he is a brilliant history, who is capeable of making the most clever connections. The problem is how "distracted" he gets when explaining these historical events.
It is due to "History ADD" that James Burke differs from David McCullough. They are both incredibly intelligent and well-learned in history, however they are different in how they try to convey their points. McCullough is good at getting straight to his point and having very clear ideas. While Burke suffers from "History ADD", making his points hard to follow and difficult to connect.
While it is apparent that James Burke is an extremely well educated historian who clearly knows many facts about history, he does suffer from “History ADD” in the fact that every idea he presents about history is scattered and never goes into depth. If James did in fact organize and expand on the history topics he studied, the video would have been much easier to understand. There are many examples of this in the film. For instance, in the One World videos, James began by discussing the comet Ceres. After just a brief explanation of this, he introduced the topic of chemistry, using the fact that the element Cerium and the comet Ceres are relatively close in name. With that one lone idea as a transition point, he then continued to explain different elements and topics chemistry related. With this, I’m sure his connection was extremely valid and based off of facts. However, Burke presented the connection in a way that was hard to comprehend. I kept waiting to see how chemistry was related to outer space, but Burke continued on with other ideas, never revisiting the comets.
When comparing Burke and McCullough, one main similarity they share is that they both stress an importance of exploring history. Even if it seems like an unimportant historical event, it is apparent McCullough and Burke both feel that every event is something this modern day and age should examine. McCullough shows this through stressing that history should continue to be taught to our youth. He believes it should be taught in a way in which you put yourself in a certain time period and judge it based on back then, and not look at the time period as if you are living now. Burke stresses the importance of examining history today by starting with a solid idea, and then connecting that idea to the next, and so on until he has created a chain of events. However, the main difference between these two historians is that McCullough was able to examine history with a clear focus. He doesn’t job from topic to topic and person to person like Burke does. Therefore, McCullough is able to study history based on one topic, while Burke examines history by connecting many important history moments that don’t center around a single topic.
Maggie Kulpa
James Burke has certainly placed new thoughts into people's heads. He has generated ideas by using just one word, filioque. As he takes you from place to place, and time to time he allows the listeners to be intrigued by his vast knowledge. While, yes, he may suffer from a bit of "history a.d.d" from the way he tends to jump around at a fast pace, he also fills your mind with new ideas and knowledge.
David McCullough and James Burke are alike in some ways, but in other ways different. For one, both can make valid connections throughout different time periods in history. Although, this does not make a strong connection between the two, as most historians are able to do this. The major difference between the two is that McCullough certainly tends to draw the reader in with his in depth knowledge of all of the time periods and information that he uses. Burke, on the other hand, often times will jump from time to time, never really going too far in depth for either time. This, however, might be how he gets peoples attention and keeps their minds "rolling".
Burke not only makes a good point in his information and ideas, but also the way that he displays them and announces them. In a way, we all jump around from idea to idea sometimes, but that's just how the brain works. I for one found that Burke's videos were much easier for me to watch than one that draws out a topic for too long. Burke makes his ideas straight to the point, thus keeping the listener's attention with his so called "A.D.D".
From watching the videos, it is quite apparent that James Burke is extremely knowledgeable, as well as being very passionate about history. He and David McCullough are both highly intellectual and present valid information, however the methods through which they convey their messages are very different. I believe that it is accurate to say that Burke has “History A.D.D”. Although some may argue that the fact that he makes connections of historical happenings to ideas that almost everyone can understand, and because of this shows thought, not “History A.D.D”. However, the way the way that he presented his ideas was scattered and superficial. He never really went into intense detail of what he was trying to describe, therefore leaving myself as well as other viewers a bit confused. He bounced around from topic to topic that it was a bit challenging to follow. Burke had a lot of potential to execute his ideas in a manner that viewers could connect to and understand, yet he did not reach that potential. It's evident he enjoys attempting to educate about history and that he does try to make it fun and interesting for all parties concerned, however in trying to accomplish this goal he consequently fails it.
David McCullough on the other hand is much more clear cut in the points that he is trying to make. He is more concise and considerably more easy to follow. The connections that he made were better supported with relevant evidence, thus making the connections easier to understand. They both however, do attempt to present their information in a manner which is interesting to whomever is listening and will entice people to continue to listen. Although Burke was a little more scattered with his ideas, he did try to appeal to a more broad audience. McCullough was more successful his attempts therefore being the one that educated his audience a bit more.
While it is clear that James Burke is an avid historian and intellectual, his ability to properly express his complicated thoughts is rather comical and frustratingly difficult to fully understand. He possesses an overwhelming amount of historical knowledge and is able to discuss several of aspects history with unnatural ease. Because of this, his audience is probably going to be overwhelmed at the speed Burke discusses an historical idea and then moves onto the next one without explaining how the two are related. At the time Burke created these documentaries, he probably didn’t realize that the majority of the people watching his documentaries are initially going to be confused and overwhelmed with his outbursts of seemingly random information. The reason for this is that Burke likely took his gifted ease for History for granted, and of course, didn’t realize that the audience probably isn’t adept and informed about the subjects he is discussing. This is also the reason that he failed to discuss his ideas and their correlation to each other in-depth as he naturally assumed the audience knew what his discussions meant. Even after watching the first three parts of the documentary for a second time, I am baffled by how Burke expects the viewer to connect Byzantine writings and Greek fire to necrophilia in a children’s fable. The man is indeed “suffering from History ADD” as his immense fascination for history combined with a short attention span hinders his ability to properly explain his ideas. If Burke was able to competently express his immense knowledge and fascination for history, he would undoubtedly make the ideal archetype for an historian.
James Burke does reach a very interesting connection in his video “One Word” but how he got to the connection does not seem to have complete validity. Many of the connections that he made were extremely obscure and would not always have been deemed very important. He does indeed seem to suffer from “History ADD” because he jumps from topic to topic very quickly, often only touching on a very small part of each connection. For example, his connection to book catalogues to them being inaccessible to people in colonial Massachusetts who wanted an education does not seem to have very strong support behind it. With each topic that he reached throughout the video, Burke was very certain of where he wanted to go from there and chose that specific part of the connection to discuss.
However, James Burke is indeed very knowledgeable about history. He covers a very broad spectrum of topics from the English Civil War to the Brothers Grim. Although he knows a great deal about each topic that he covers, Burke only chooses a specific point in that topic to discuss which makes the viewer confused about where he is going with his train of thought. His connections are interesting but many are also hard to follow. Burke’s connection of filioque and the Roman Church trying to make everyone the same to the study of cultural anthropology and what makes everyone different is interesting but not supported as much as it could be. He makes a very interesting point in his connection but it seems strange that that relationship is connected by topics such as comets and the folk tales. Burke may indeed be on to something, but the evidence presented in his video makes him seem more like he has “History ADD” than valid support for his connection.
Late
James Burke definitely has a unique view of history. His topics, while not obviously relatable, are all tied into one another in a way that works well. Even though his connections might not make sense at first, if you look a little deeper into the comparison, there are definite ties.
Some have described James Burke’s style of connecting events “History ADD.” While it is true that Burke jumps from subject to subject quite quickly, there are parts of each event that can be compared to others. For example, his idea of “one word” shows that even one theme or major lesson from an event can help you connect it to another. His discussion of a one word trigger mechanism is evidence to the fact that Burke has a vast knowledge of history. This leads me to believe that he is definitely on to a major idea when he discusses that small things can relate major events. James Burke is in no way a victim of “history ADD.”
Burke has a style unlike that of almost any other historian to date. Burke’s main objective seems to be to make as many obscure connections as possible to one event. In doing so, he gives a wide variety of perspectives, allowing the viewer to understand both the time period and the event itself. By using this style, Burke makes it appear almost as though he is merely listing unrelated subjects, but upon closer inspection, there can be distinct lines drawn between the things he discusses.
On the other hand, most historians are more like David McCullough. His way of delivering information is more direct. Instead of focusing on connecting and analyzing the time period, he really focuses on the main point of what he discusses. While these two men have very different ways of informing their audiences, both men show that they have vast amounts of historical knowledge. They discuss and connect to topics that are not easy to understand normally. For example, James Burke used the Brothers Grimm in his connections video to explain how stories and culture evolve. The original tales of the Brothers Grimm were remade into children’s stories by Walt Disney, demonstrating how over time, things are changed to fit purposes in the time period.
Overall, I would say that Burke does not have “history ADD.” While his connections may be obscure, he has a vast knowledge of history and uses it to connect things in a way that isn’t obvious, but still makes sense. To describe him as someone suffering from “history ADD” would be an insult to the vast amount of historical knowledge he has attained and the ways he uses that knowledge to educate others.
It is difficult to follow the flow of James Burke’s video. He seems to fly from one topic to another with almost no connection at all. Watching it for the first time will little background on any of the topics he is covering makes it hard to make any sense of it. He goes from “filioque” and ends up at Harvard University, and that is only in the first segment. It would seem to us that he does in have history ADD. The connections that me makes when merging from one topic to the next might make sense to him, but they were near impossible for me to follow.
He is a very educated man about an astounding number of topics. He grasps the complex idea that everything in history, and for that matter, the world, is interconnected. He makes connections between the first pieces of writing to the kinds of printing at that time to how this was affected by transportation. Who else would draw a line from italics to horseback? Because of his extreme range in knowledge, he can move quickly from topic to topic seeing a host of aspects that connect them where we see nothing. To the common viewer, yes, he absolutely does have history ADD. It’s hard to tell if he is just crazy and making up connections where there are none, or miles ahead of all of us.
James Burke is surely on to something in his video series Connections, but suffers from this ADD without a doubt. Although many of his references and points are scattered and details somewhat shallow, he maintains and makes some stunning connections regarding our world to that of the past. One of the most ingenious of his points is his thesis beginning from a single word: filioque. This one Catholic motif, though seemingly insignificant, becomes the centerpiece for all of his many points Burke makes in his video series. Using this as a starting point, Burke shows just how much the world is inter connected, and interdependent. From this one word, Burke is able to “gracefully” move from topic to topic: talking about the Turkish Army and even the nature of serious change on the world. He does however have a severe problem with his methods of explaining the point to all of his arguments. As stated above, he does find a way to shift his topics very frequently, giving off a problematic situation. At the best of times, it’s difficult to follow his thinking process as he bounces from topic to topic. This style does make one think about the purpose to his ADD-esque personality in the videos. In a way, he demonstrates the nature of history, and our grasp of knowledge we truly possess regarding these topics: patchy and incomplete. All of his points are intertwined, and showcases a fundamental difference between the all knowledgeable impression one may get from the average historian: such as David McCullough.
Both men share, without a doubt, a sincere and gratifying respect for history. Each man is passionate in their arguments, and seem extremely interested and knowledgeable about their subjects. Although both men are correct about the fabric of history in their own ways however, there are a few key differences between either of their styles. McCullough for instance enjoys focusing his information on one individual. He displays their influence on history, and is precise and succinct in his own arguments. McCullough is very detailed and shares his messages through an easy to follow and quite orthodox manner. Burke on the other hand, similar to the title of his show, is all about the connections an influence had throughout history. Rather than talk in depth about one solid aspect of history, he talks about many in a compromisingly less detail. This unorthodox strategy provides the viewer with a sense of the unknown, and a thriving desire to learn more.
After watching James Burkes video it was difficult to understand his purpose. I found myself wondering what the ancient Sanskrit writing had to do with astronomy. I do not believe that Burke was successful in communicating his ideas in this documentary. He seems to be suffering from history ADD due to the fact that he so rapidly changed subjects without going into depth on any of them. The moment the viewer gained interest in the topic he was discussing Burke ended up switching to an entirely different subject, which was extremely frustrating as a view.
Though it is clear that Burke is suffering from history ADD I think he does so with a purpose. By jumping from idea to idea I think Burke was trying to show the connections within history, hence the name “Connections”. It may have seemed that Burke simply grew bored with one subject and moved onto another but I don’t believe that’s what he was doing at all. History doesn’t always make sense and many discoveries and connections are random, just like Burkes video. It was clear by watching this that Burke was a very intelligent man. He seemed to know everything about everything. However, though Burke was trying to prove a strong point about the random connections within history, I wish he did so in a more organized manner. It would have made the video more enjoyable and easier to follow.
In my opinion, James Burke’s fundamental idea of making connections to various events in history to things one wouldn’t usually consider relevant is a great one, however the way he presents this idea is very hard to follow and is not beneficial to viewers. Most of my classmates who watched the videos shared a similar sentiment of, “What was he even talking about??”. In the videos he jumped from one subject to the next very quickly leaving anyone watching the video very little time to process what they just saw and make the connection. He obviously has an enormous amount of knowledge on a multitude of subjects but the way he presents his knowledge could be better communicated. If he were to be more to the point in his presentations he would really be onto something and I think his videos would be much more relatable to the average viewer.
He and David MucCullough share a similar philosophy where they believe that history is all encompassing and that all areas of life affect historical events. However McCullough uses books to demonstrate his wide knowledge of historical events. They usually focus on a specific event in history, for example the Johnstown flood. The big difference between the two men and their work besides the fact that one is a writer and the other uses video is that Burke’s work is a lot more scatterbrained and lacks a singular purpose whereas with McCullough you know from the minute you open the book what you are in for. This makes Burke’s work harder to comprehend although I truly do believe he is onto something with the idea that making connections does help one’s overall understanding of a particular time period.
I believe James Burke is definitley onto something. However I also believes he suffers a great deal from (History A.D.D). As seen in his videos he's very passionate and able to connect immense quantities of information to one another. On the other hand though Burke tends to wander and stray during these videos. He's not quite able to stay on one topic for too long a time. James Burke belongs in both categories as his knowledge of history is vast, yet he gets too excited at times and forgets his primary objective.
Burke is onto something by the way he is able to connect and theorize minute and great amounts of information related to history. He manages to portray accurate pictures of historical figures such as Da Vinci and the Greek Philosophers. He even manages to depict and illustrate the communication and spreading of the vernacular literature and language which primarily began in Greece. In addition to orchestrating realistic and thoughtful information, Burke is able to connect interesting and sometimes grouse information. An exampe included the connection between necrophilia and Byzantine writings. In my opinion he's an extremely gifted historian but he lacks FOCUS.
Although Burke is able to represent and analyze history at ease, he does pocess History A.D.D. As seen throughout his three videos it seems as though he's bouncing off the walls to put it figurativley. He switches from topic to topic in almost less than a second. One time he went from talking about vernacular literature to fairy tales and childrens fables. Burke is not capable of sticking to one topic for an extended period of time and managed to confuse me and the rest of the class by switching subjects frequently. Another problem with the his History A.D.D is that he provides no background knowledge for the reader. This is an after effect of him constantly shifting topics.
Burke as a historian is brilliant but lacks the focus or objective to explain history in an organized manner. He is not capable of putting his complex thinking and ideas into an understandable or clear way so that other people can analyze his work. Burke is onto something but not by making crazy and unmethodical videos.
After watching the James Burke videos I would have to agree with Tom Esty and say that James Burke does suffer a bit from History ADD. He jumps around from time period to time period, yet at the same time Mr. Burke’s philosophies and theories make a lot of sense.
For example he went from talking about the word filioque, to talking about scribble. Although these topics may seem completely random and unrelated, James Burke connects them both by describing the transformation of Constantinople to Istanbul. This cultural shift also led to the change in writing. A man named Aldo created a style of writing due to the change in culture. He wanted this new style to look like manuscript and also look like handwriting. From Aldo’s idea of scribble also came the idea of italics. Italics appealed to people because the size was small and it used less paper, which meant less money. The use of italics led to the increase in printing, which led to a “book overload.” The examples that Burke used occurred over a few decades, not simultaneously. McCullough, on the other hand had a difficult approach to historical topics. McCullough is more straight forward and detailed about subjects, while Burke is all over the place with historical information. It is easy to understand why Burke is said to have “History ADD” because he is so inconsistent and random.
The videos were interesting and I learned a lot from them, they were hard to follow at some points. At one point Mr. Burke would be talking about the city of Constantinople, and a couple minutes later he would we discussing how small books were easy to travel with. This drastic change of topics made watching it a little confusing, but in the end I did gain knowledge about what Burke was discussing.
To classify Burke's explanation as simply "history ADD," does not do justice to his vast understanding of so many historical events. There is no doubt that his tangents sometimes left his viewers feeling a little lost, and he certainly could have organized his topics in a more viewer-friendly way. Nonetheless, Burke's excitement for history and fascination with the way everything is connected is inspiring, and his efforts to share his knowledge with the public should be praised.
In addition, I think there is a lot of value in the way Burke presents his information because he demonstrates the interconnected nature of history. There are not always evenly spaced, organized and methodical ways to study certain events in history. History is a chain of causes and effects, with each event leading to another. For example, Burke describes the way the invention of the printing press led to the book overload, which led to the catalog, which then led him back to Massachusetts and Harvard. Though certainly a bit convoluted, this path of historical events is clearly related, and by explaining it in this way, Burke stresses the interrelatedness of history. Though confusing, I really liked his portrayal. It displayed history in a new, more interesting and exciting way.
One could argue that the organization of McCullough’s ideas is much more methodical and logical, but McCullough also sees the value in connecting different events like Burke and following the train of sometimes complex causes and effects. When Roger Mudd commented that “You once said your style, your technique, was having one subject sort of lead you to another,” in the interview titled, There Isn’t Any Such Thing As the Past, McCullough answered in the affirmative. Though differing in approach, both historians value the study of connections in history.
For these reasons, I think Burke’s spontaneous, and seemingly unstructured presentation of history is very valuable. He is certainly on to something.
Both James Burke and David McCollough convey their passion for history in extremely effective but different ways. While McCollough appeals to the concise side of speaking or writing, Burke connects vague ideas together through continuous strings and loopholes. The unique part of his conveying of research emphasizes the importance of not only the black and white history dates and events, but the culture and human customs from a certain time period. Which in a way is a more complete way of explaining research through new and brilliant ways.
One huge drawback is that unlike McCollough, Burke explains his ideas and finding through very tedious chains, which can be hard to follow without extensive background knowledge in very specific areas. This is why his style and approach seems to be aimed at more accomplished readers, as opposed to students. Or possibly his approach is accidental, in that he has a hard time getting to the main point, and going off on a ramble talking about one word or topic.
McCollough on the other hand, has a very direct approach towards his readers, getting right to the point. Undoubtedly, they both share extreme wells of knowledge, they have different ways of speaking, much like teachers or professors. One isn't necessarily better than the other, but some readers could prefer one or the other.
James Burke is both "suffering from history ADD" and is not. For example, many of his connections demonstrate his high level of intelligence and are relevant. A lot of them show his very deep understanding of history. These connections often explain why things happen and how history happens. It is simply genius.
On the other hand, some of Burke's connections are not impressive and rather irrelevant. Sometimes he connects things via a certain word or topic. It seems that he is often desperate to make connections in history. I understand why he does this. He does this so everything else can connect. It's like he's solving a large puzzle, but missing one piece. So, he "makes up" the missing puzzle piece and the piece will often look irrelevant and weak.
David McCullough, in my opinion, is a better historian than James Burke. His views on history aren't over the top like Burke's. His are also relevant because they can cover all different types of history. For example, he thinks that history is not the past, but the present because it is like being there when you read a historical novel. This is an interesting and very understandable point. Both Burke and McCullough, however, are wonderful historians.
James Lee Burke is an extremely clever and intelligent historian; nevertheless, his presentation flawed, as it is hard to follow. He jumps from topic to topic so quickly that viewers are still taking in his revelations from the last momentous discovery. For example, he was able to convey that scholars had to use small handwriting in small pieces of parchment. Not to save paper, as it was abundant, but as there was simply not enough room in the average saddlebag to fit large books. Burke was able to take such a complicated phenomenon and explain with a straightforward explanation. Though, where he came to that discovery, or where he went from there, was lost in a sea of eternal glory and knowledge. Even though Burke is so clever in his thinking, it is of little use unless the audience can understand his presentation. The BBC comedy series 'Not The Nine O'clock News' did a sketch in which Griff Rhys-Jones, imitating Burke, delivered a monologue, ending with, "So there we have it. It's all really very simple. And if it isn't, I make it up." Rhys-Jones summed up Burke's personality with that one simple statement.
James Lee Burke and David McCullough have many personal aspects in common. One such trait is they are both highly regarded historians who have unmatched knowledge of any subject you wish to ask them about. Both men have deep passion for history, and with it, they allow the audience to feel it as well. Both men also have differences on their subject matters, though. McCullough focuses on one individual's influence throughout history, and Burke focuses on many events' influences.
I recall thinking to myself how puzzled I was while watching the introduction of the “Connections” video; however I figured that the content would lay itself out after a few minutes. As the video progressed I still did not quite understand the main idea; James Burke skimmed the surface of his ideas and presented too many at one time. He began with defining and presenting the historical background on the word “filioque”, a word that apparently means forcing a group of people to behave the same way under the Catholic Church. A moment later Burke went on to discuss Aldo, a translator who lived in Venice and invented a way to print scribble using abbreviation. …What?
While Burke’s ideas and their connections were difficult to comprehend, he is obviously well-learned on the subject of primitive printing and translation, and I think he is onto something but suffers from “History ADD” as well. His facts are interesting and they make sense, but they are presented in a disorderly manner. For example, Burke talks about books that started including pictures along with literary descriptions, and were revolutionary in knowledge. But then he quickly leaves that idea and begins talking about how religious intolerants were responsible for creating the Industrial Revolution because they went against the Church in their innovations. The transitions between ideas were not smooth, and each idea did not receive a lot of elaboration.
In terms of similarity to David McCullough, Burke and McCullough have strong ideas and beliefs. Burke believes in his connections to the one word “filioque”, and McCullough speaks about his way of writing history and how he views learning it. He does not want a reader to think of their time as the past; he believes there is no such thing as the past. Those in our “past” lived in their present, a present different from our present. Burke and McCullough have many ideas, but I believe McCullough goes into greater analysis in order to made sure that his ideas are clear.
Although James Burke quickly transitions from one topic to another in a somewhat confusing manner, it is clear that he is on to something. As he explains in the opening of the video, his use of the web to create connections is one, which can be used to more efficiently make connections between different achievements and periods in history. This is a possible solution to the lack of information young students are learning about history today. The way of which Burke went about explaining things may have been why Tom Esty considered him to be suffering from “History ADD.” Through this unique webbing technique Burke has the capability of making a connection of one knowledgeable source to twenty others. Although some of these ideas may jump from one time period to another, it demonstrates where ideas may have begun and one person’s influence on another. Even though it does appear to be confusing, James Burke’s design is similar to design of a concept map where all of the ideas are connected in order to get a better understanding of the ideas and how they work together.
Despite all this, James Burke uses methods, which differ greatly from those used by David McCullough. Burke’s main goal was in finding connections between ideas in history, which may have lead to a person’s accomplishments. Meanwhile, McCullough works towards crediting the individuals on their accomplishments. He would research what may have influenced them whether it was people or events in their life. This shows how differently McCullough feels about the connection of history. He believed that the term “past” should not be used because people always live in the present, despite the time period. Therefore, this can explain why he choses to acknowledge the individual on his contribution to history and not “the past” for giving him “a spark” about an idea.
I think Burke is both onto something and suffering from “history ADD”. Burke makes good points in his videos and uses a large amount of information. He shows his vast knowledge of history by relating different topics, people, and time periods. The problem that comes along with this is that often Burkes ideas are not on popular well known topics but on smaller details throughout history. Although these ideas are not as powerful as other well known topics that does not mean they are not important and share useful information. It is only because of this fact that his videos are hard to follow and it almost appears as though he switches randomly from one topic to another because they are such minute events. These also may cause a person to question the validity of the information.
David McCullough and Burke are both very educated historians. The one major difference between these two men is the fact that Burke suffers from “history ADD”, where McCullough does not. As a result McCullough is able to portray his information to a viewer or audience in a much more clear and precise way than Burke. When Burkes ideas are often confusing and hard to follow, McCullough lets the audience know exactly what he wants them to know.
Burke is definitely onto something with his historical findings but due to his “history ADD” this is not shown to the world the way it could be. Because of this “history ADD” McCullough seems like the better historian because his ideas are much easier to follow. This is unfortunate for Burke because he is in fact a well educated historian, only the portrayal of his messages leads him to being undermined and questioned.
After watching the James Burke's, "Connections2" video I believe that Burke is definitely trying to get somewhere, by talking about his approach of history. However, the way that Burke tried to explain his judgment of history was more complicated than it had to be. With his sparkling knowledge and understanding of history, he explains the connections of the past with real life situations and also clarifies why these certain incidents or events occurred in history. For example, in the movie Burke explains the word “filioque” as it related to the Roman Catholic Church and from there on into the Reformation. While trying to include everybody’s views of history Burke creates a big obscuring idea of why he thought the past was the way it was. Conversely, James Burke experiences, “History A.D.D” due to the fact that he knows so much of what has happened long ago. Although he tries to use so much information from politicians, he confuses himself because of the connections that he encounters. Finally, when the movie was over I was a bit confused because Burke, talked about topics that did not connected to his beliefs. With so much comprehension of the past I believe that James Burke is trying to convey that history can be observed in multiple ways.
I strongly believe that David McCullough and James Burke are different in many ways, but also similar. First, after reading David McCullough’s source on “There isn’t such thing as the Past” I noticed that he talked about one topic, and then that topic led him to another point in history. Similar to Burke, McCullough states his opinions and expresses what he thinks of history. However, these two historians are additionally different due to the fact that McCullough explains the strength of history by incorporating his knowledge in his writings, while Burke talks about one time period and then states his connections to that era. Burke tends to also jump to other areas of history, instead of talking about one period.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that James Burke is a very knowledgeable person due to the way he comprehends the past. Even though he makes himself unclear by using many connections, I believe that it is a better way of understanding how everything led to where we are today. Furthermore, even though I was confused at the end of the video, it was also fascinating to watch because of all the information I learned from James Burke.
James Burke and David McCullough are both very intellectual historians who have great knowledge about many topics throughout history. However, though these two men share a common understanding of history, the way in which their facts are delivered are in no way similar. James Burke has a tendency to try to make connections between many different subjects which, to the untrained eye, may not seem to have such strong connections. On the other hand, David McCullough presents his ideas in a very straight to the point way. McCullough’s style is more appealing to the audience because of the fact that it is very understandable, unlike Burke’s deliberation of connections.
James Burke is a very intelligent historian who seems to have studied a great deal to attain all the knowledge he presents in his videos. However, I think it is very clear that he may have a case of “History A.D.D.”. He has many interesting thoughts and ideologies that would be very interesting and understandable to the audience if presented in a different way. Burke goes form one topic to another with little transition. This makes it hard for the audience to understand the connections that Burke is trying to make. Without the flowing transitions between ideas, the viewer may think of the ideas as irrelevant to each other. Burke does bring up many interesting points that can, if worded differently, teach the audience plenty. Burke may be onto something, but we just do not know what that something is. Because there were so many topics addressed in his videos, the viewer cannot gather enough relatable information to come to a conclusion of what Burke is trying to teach us overall. Anyone who watches Burke’s video can see that he is definitely onto something but just does not convey his ideas in the correct way. He has many sensible ideas show the audience of his great intellectual capacity. The point in which Burke loses the audience is when he skips from one topic to another, convinced that the audience is able to follow his thoughts. What he does not know though is that the audience does not have the same historical background knowledge that he has, therefore cannot make the same connections he does.
Though Burke and McCullough deliver their knowledge in very different ways, the way in which they arrive at their connections is very similar. McCullough goes on to describe how during his studies he studies one topic which, in turn leads to another. When he arrives at the next topic, he studies that topic which leads to another and so on. By learning the various topics in order, he can easily make the same connections that Burke makes but perceives them in a clearer way. Both McCullough and Burke stress the importance of historical events. To someone unfamiliar with the historical background that both historians share, we may not see the importance of minor events throughout history. However, McCullough and Burke both see this importance and explain it to the viewer in different ways. To them, the connections between different historical events are the most vital aspects. The main difference between the two is simply the way in which they convey their connections. McCullough focuses on one area of history and connects it to similar aspects. Whereas Burke does not single out one specific topic and just makes connections between random events and people, hence his “History A.D.D.”.
I believe that James Burke is in fact “suffering from history ADD”, but isn’t at the same time. He has done so much research and has such an extensive knowledge of history all over the world that it would not be right to say all that work was a case of ADD. With this said, many of his points he makes do not seem to make as much sense as most would want. His methods for studying history and relating them all together are a good idea, but he goes off into tangents occasionally that do not seem to make the connection we are all looking for. I think that his work is very knowledgeable and had potential to bring some very good topics to light, but how he connects most of his work now does not leave me as in awe and educated as I should be.
McCullough’s approach to history and how it all connects is much more simplified in that it’s much easier to understand and is straight to the point. Burke is all over the place when it comes to the historical topics he covers. I do believe however that their ideas are similar because they both believe that all aspects of life affects historical events. With more credible sources and information, Burke could rid himself of the title of having history ADD, but for now I still believe that that is an accurate statement for the most part.
After watching James Burke’s video, I must say he most definitely suffers from “history ADD”. The video itself was entirely too difficult to follow. Although he managed to make connections constantly throughout the video, showing his vast knowledge of history and the interrelationship throughout it, it failed to educate or even keep the viewer in tuned. For each topic he discusses, Burke never goes into more detail. He merely skims the surface of the topic and just as the viewer’s attention is grabbed, he switches to a different topic. Furthermore, the connections are far too random. Although they are, in the end, connected one way or another, its fails to follow a tangible theme.
David McCullough, although also an avid historian who makes many connections between the events in history, is much easier to follow. Unlike Burke, who jumps around making connections almost randomly, McCullough connects only after he has gone into enough detail about one subject. This makes his works substantially easier to understand.
Overall, it is very clear that both historians are experts at a broad range of topics. From Burke’s video, we can see him go from asteroids to writing without a hesitation in either. However, his erratic style of relaying information is very difficult for a novice historian to follow and his lack of depth in each topic discussed makes it even harder for the facts to stick to the viewers. McCullough on the other hand is also able to make various connections but at the same time be able to get straight to the point as well as go in depth into the topics he is discussing thus making it much easier for the audience to understand.
James Burke is definitely onto something. His ability to make connections between the most distant things is amazing. He is also suffering from “History ADD.” His immense knowledge makes him able to see things that we wouldn’t think of and his “History ADD” lets him think of new connections that are astounding. He had some great connections that had great reasons like how italics led to more books and then to the renaissance. This is a great example of how he makes sense of cause and effect. Some connections weren’t so good though. His connection between old German castles and Walt Disney did not have a big reason. He seems to be suffering from “History ADD” because he doesn’t stay on a topic for barely a minute. I think though that he does this to shoe the “connections” that are all around us and affect us even when it was centuries ago. He is very affective in getting his points across.
David and James are both vastly intelligent historians that know their stuff, and their love for history drives them to do what they do. They both have a huge knowledge and understanding of why things happened and how they affected things. The only difference is that David narrows down to a single event and doesn’t stray too far. Any way you look at it, they are both amazing historians.
James Burke is a brilliant historian. He seems to be able to pick up on the points that are truly too subtle to be noticed by the average person. Too bad he suffers from "History ADD". His videos present him as someone who analyzes even the tiniest of details to help provide a plethora of insightful information. For example, he was able to provided facts in abundance, specifically in regard to the word "filioque".
Although the information present was insightful and demonstrated a high level of thinking, Burke failed harshly in one area. His sporadic approach to presenting information made it almost impossible to maintain interest.A huge part of being a successful historian is to make factual information appealing and applicative to the viewer/reader. Burke,undoubtedly, fails to complete such a task.
The style that he uses also has a negative effect on how the information is conveyed.The points that he makes do seem valid, but the intended point of the videos are not very clear to the viewer, due to his adherence to the "historical ADD" style.This awkward style jumbles up the point that he is trying to make, which makes comprehension far more difficult.
Summit Singhaviranon
James Burke’s video Connections² is a random scramble of history. Burke’s lecture tries to bring together almost everything in history, past and present. The video uses completely indirect ways of connecting two topics. In this way, James Burke is on to something, only something that is quite different. Almost anything that someone has ever encountered, imagined, or heard of can be connected to something that is completely unrelated. Using history and other sources, it is possible to connect the invention of penicillin to the Egyptian pyramids in some way. They may be extremely indirect connections, but they are still connections.
Connections² is a series that is not comprehendible to a non-historical expert. James Burke expects and assumes that every person that watches his videos knows what he is talking about. In his mind, he understands it, so that must mean everyone else will. Burke starts with something relatively unknown, so the audience begins with a sense of confusion. Burke’s lecture is structured as point after point after point, and so on. Some bites of information that is caught by a listener is interesting, but they are unable to follow the rest of his thought.
James Burke’s view on the interrelatedness of everything is confusing, and his talks ramble on, without a thought to the viewers. Burke uses random historical facts to bring together two topics, only to go on to a completely different topic to connect to. Burke definitely has “History ADD.”
James Burke probably suffers from and strives off of both sheer brilliance and history ADD. He is the kind of man that is looked at as a very intelligent but, to most almost unintelligible, like Albert Einstein. His connections are entirely sound, in spite of the seeming lack of connection between them. He draws a lot of attention to the word “filioque” and describes it being the reason for the split between the eastern and western churches, which at first doesn’t seem to be logical. But, Bourke goes on to explain how this word represents an important theological idea and a reasonable cause for a split. Then, he was already talking about the eastern church, so he proceeds to discuss how Greek writing practices taught an Italian visitor about the idea of printing. The ADD seems to come out at times, though, like when he was talking about a comet and mentions how the German math genius Gauss had studied it. He then starts speaking about Sanskrit on the sole basis of that Gauss also studied that subject: a pretty big thematic leap. So then he goes to the Far East to talk about Sanskrit and how it is an integral part of the Indo-Aryan languages. So he subsequently starts talking about the Germans, who started a tradition of culture off their supposed Aryan roots! Now this all makes sense, but it is difficult to follow when some one is watching, because it jumps between diverse ideas so quickly.
Burke and McCullough share, certainly, a love for history and an understanding of its profound significance. Because of this, they find significance in everything historical, even things to which people would not necessarily make connections. Consider the topic of McCullough’s first book, the Johnstown Flood. There doesn’t immediately seem to be much more important than the deaths that it caused, but McCullough looked beyond that to what else it meant. Likewise, as described earlier, Burke finds some unseen importance in events that aren’t always perceived as significant.
If only Burke were as coherent as McCullough.
James Burke's work of putting together two seemingly random people or ideas of the past and making connections between the two that no one would ever expect to be true is surely a groundbreaking way to look at history. Sure, others have connected things similarly, yet not nearly at the same caliber as Burke's system. Burke is on to something great that could end up being an influential force in the search for the true origin of humanity and the factors that caused our cultures to morph and transform into what they are today. For example, his relating the Polish Astronomer Copernicus to the Mexican dictator in exile, General Santa Anna, who was responsible for first introducing chewing gum into the United States, is phenomenal and I believe this system could be used for more practical reasing, like tracing back people and ideas which created causes and effects of cultural change, ultimately leading to the answers to many human questions, such as “Where did we all come from.” and “Who are our common ancestors?”
Making all of these connections of random things in history does make you think that James Burke has some sort of "History ADD", his connection on Copernicus to the introduction of bubble gum to the US is completely meaningless as are many others he has found I imagine. However his so called "History ADD" is beneficial to his K-Web system as the connections he is making have so much potential, as explained in the paragraph above, that in the near future they can possibly answer many questions posed by historians about the evolution of human cultures.
Watching the video with James Burke makes it evident that he likes to jump from one topic to a totally different one, which I guess can be considered “History ADD”. His knowledge though is higher then most can dream of. From his videos he seems like a person who examines every little bit to the tiniest detail. His videos also show his impeccable studies and his ability to link things together that most people wouldn’t even consider.
James Burke may be an amazing historian, but he wouldn’t do well when it comes down to getting his point across. His frequent jumping from one topic to the other made it nearly impossible to maintain focus and interest. As soon as something would start to appeal to viewers he shifts to another non-related topic.
David McCullough and James Burke are obviously both very well educated and dedicated to history. They also both have the same knowledge but their ways of conveying their knowledge are completely different. James Burke does suffer from “History ADD” which makes it difficult to learn anything from his videos and McCullough is clear and stays on topic, which is every student’s preference.
After viewing the content with James Burke, it is clear that his historical comprehension and ability to tie together a vast variety of historical content is evident. This being said, at times it seemed as though he almost had too much to conribute and had difficulty tying together certain ideas to follow a well thought format. He seems to trail of and bring in seemingly unconnected information in, as if attempting to piece together a work that should be put in a longer time slot. Instead of explainng to the viewer each subject in an in depth fashion, he does little more than scratch the surface of extremely intricate topics.
David McCullough seems to have much more developed and nutured thoughts when compared to James Burke.
McCullough and Burke, however, do possess different outlooks on hoe they see history. Burke had an enthusiastic approach and almost too excited to share his mass amount of ideas where McCullough seems to look more at the perspective of history and how many see it, and how it should be looked at. It seemed like I was getting so much information about topics at first seemed hard to correlate to eachother, and therefore made it hard to follow Burke's thought process. This being said, he is an amazing historian and is sure to just have an abundance of knowledge and just a dazzling enthusiasm. Burke's trail of "historical ADD" as worded by Tom Esty, is what personilizes his work, as does it do with McCollough with his work.
James Burke loves history and knows a vast amount about it and I believe that James Burke knows enough to be onto something, but I believe that he has “history ADD”. His connections between literature and events in history are actually quite amazing and unexpected. He shows a chain of events that lead all over the world and he demonstrates how one word can influence a multitude of other events. James Burke is evidently a very intelligent man and seems to understand what he is talking about very well, although he is slightly disorganized and does not provide enough information in his videos. Additionally, had he gone through the series of events that he discussed less hastily, it may have been easier for us to understand, leading to the subject his “history ADD”. In James Burke’s videos he seems to jump around from place to place and seems very disorganized although if he were to slow down and explain in a bit more detail it would be very evident that he is in fact organized and goes through his topics in chronological order. He has figured out how one event lead to another and another and so on, and he chose to follow the major course of events caused by one word: filioque. What he has yet to figure out is how to properly present these facts in an easily understood manner. Watching his videos again helps me to understand the connections he makes and the subsequent proceedings of the previous occasion. Over all I think his work is purely genius and had he realized that he was a bit unorganized and speedy in his presentation of these facts then he would have a very interesting, easy to follow, and helpful video on the effects of one word on the world.
James Burke, I believe, is onto something, but only he knows what that something is. He is clearly suffering from History A.D.D. In this short series of videos he discusses a wide range of historical topics that at first glance have no clear connection. He talking about italicized writing to astroids, to children's stories all in a mere few minutes. I think in his head this all makes sense and all connects very well, but for the audience, most look like deer in headlights.
However, if you sit and think about everything he said, he truly did connect them, although it may have been hard to follow at first. For example, he goes from talking about handwriting and how printers, when they first began, tried to make print look like hand writing. This led to him talking about italics. He was describing how the print was small and books were printed in high volume. This led to too many books. This is how he flowed into talking about catalogues and how books started being grouped together for the convenience of the reader. Eventually his connections tend to get weaker when he begins connecting astroid belts with children stories, but the connections are there, otherwise he wouldn’t have talked about them.
James Burke, although he did suffer from History A.D.D. did do a good job of fitting so much history into a short segment and doing all that he could to express the connections he made in his mind to his audience. He is unlike many other historians such as David McCullough who tells history as it is, make less obscure connections, and just giving all the details. Burke decides that is not his style of teaching, which makes him unique.
Both James Burke and David McCullough have each very apparently acquired a vast historical knowledge which spans many various topics. However, the two scholars go about conveying their thoughts to audiences with completely different methods. All of the ideas that McCullough presented were extremely clear and he was rather concise in communicating them. On the other hand, Burke had a differing approach as he elected to not spend a significant amount of time elaborating on any one concept and jumped from idea to idea as though he lacked the capacity to focus on one for an extended period. While James Burke is clearly a very intelligent man with an expansive knowledge of world history, after viewing his video in class, his style of presenting his ideas could accurately be described as suffering from “History ADD,” I believe.
Although in Burke’s video he made it very clear to the viewer that he is a brilliant man, he did little more than that as I for one was quite perplexed as to what his purpose was. Frankly, it appeared as though he merely wanted to show off his great intellect to the world by making numerous connections to obscure details throughout history. This led him down a course of tangents lacking any real purpose or relevance to the rest of the video, in the end. From watching his video I can rather safely infer that James Burke does not have any teaching experience, or at least very little on account of his ineffective communication skills. Burke certainly could be a valuable asset to a student if he were to learn more effective ways of conveying his ideas. Perhaps, he could use some assistance from David McCullough.
It appears to me that McCullough is much less caught up in his appearance as a scholar and more concerned with education as he is more focused on conveying his ideas to the audience. The connections that he does present are actually useful in enforcing a point and making it more relatable as opposed to Burke’s which are essentially useless. While Burke shares advanced intellect with McCullough, the similarities shown in his video and McCullough’s interview appear to end there as McCullough is much more skillful in teaching an audience and conveying his thoughts and Burke truly does suffer from “History ADD.”
James Burke is clearly a very interesting historian. While I would agree that “History ADD” would definitely apply to some of his organizational methods in present his arguments, I do also believe that he is onto something. Burke attempted to connect a vast amount of information together in a very short amount of time. That information was ranging from ancient Greeks and their relationship with the Church, to the invention of italics in 1501, to the English civil war, to when Piazzi found the first asteroid in 1801, and much more. Burke was successful in including all this information, and demonstrating how to coalesce all of these seemingly separate and isolated events and form one broad overview that is the field of history. He effectively talks about the idea of “filioque” and the idea of the holy spirit coming from the father and the son. From this idea, he makes the transition to discussing the importance of Constantinople and the Roman churches. Then he explains how the Greek exiles after the Turkish take over had no jobs and resorted to teaching their European brethren how to read Greek, and from there explains this kick of the Renaissance and brings us to Italy. Just in this one example we can see how Burke successfully (but with extreme speed) transitions us from idea to idea. Although Burke’s information was solid and extremely informative, it was incredibly hard to follow. Within a matter of seconds, Burke would give a brief overview of a peasant’s rebellion taking place in England, and then jump to discussing Berzelius’s experiments with heating up rocks and discovering new elements.
I personally think that James Burke and David McCullough are incredibly similar. They both have the insightful perspective of understanding that history has so much to teach us, and that everything that is recorded in history, can be connect to another event. In McCullough’s work, “There Isn’t Any Such Thing as the Past”, he demonstrates this idea by sharing with the reader his experience in investigating the Johnstown flood, then found some materials on the Brooklyn Bridge, and then from there he found that Ferdinand de Lesseps went to New York around the time of the building of the bridge to spread news about the Panama Canal. From there, he reached his connection to Theodore Roosevelt. So in this sense, McCullough does the same kind of jumping from event to event that Burke does. The difference is, that McCullough is much more affluent in his thoughts and takes the time to fully explain each idea. Both historians also believe that the past people should not be looked down upon because of their inability to anticipate their future. Burke comments that the Greeks had no idea that the Turks were waiting at their doorsteps to invade and didn’t have the foresight to see that they would require the help of the Pope. He goes on to say “well in their position, nor would you have.” McCullough makes the same point when he talks about the world being happy and cheerful in the 19th century because they didn’t know that the first World War would soon be on its way. In this aspect, both men seem to be able to put themselves in the people of the past’s shoes, and evaluate these events with no sense of superiority.
In conclusion, James Burke is a man who knows his history, yet suffers from "History ADD" when trying to present this information in a cohesive video. And like David McCullough, he has a broad appreciation for all events that have occured throughout history and the people who gave life to those events.
I do think James Burke suffers from "history A.D.D.", however I think it works to his advantage, because he makes some very valid points in his connections videos.
At first I thought that Burke was going on a very unimportant tangent that seemed to lead nowhere. It wasn't until he wrapped everything up at the end that it all seemed to make sense. Although it was confusing, his tangent was supposed to exaggerate just how many things in history are connected; and from his point of few, everything. His concept is similar to that of the evolution of human beings, if not the same. We all started from the same place, its just a matter of where, which is what history tells us. Burke explains this flawlessly when he speaks of Tyler and his quest to connect human culture by studying folklore. Tyler suggest we all started from just one culture based on many similarities between humans we find all over the world. That we all descended from a similar location. Burke is trying to do what Tyler is doing and is on a quest to connect all of history and find its origin.
On the other hand there is James McCullough who offers a whole new perspective and philosophy on history. He to has history A.D.D. like McCullough, where he bounces from one subject to another when writing his historical fiction novels. One idea for a book seems to flow right into another like history itself. Also similarly to McCullough is his philosophies on the importance of people and their stories that impacted history or as a whole created history. McCullough simply focuses more on the pleasure of history and teaching its joys to others while Burke is on a quest to put the pieces of history together and to find the big picture of man kind.
While watching James Burke videos I often found myself confused and lost. James Burke would jump from time period to time period using very obscure connections. Burke would hardly go into enough detail and depth about each particular topic before he switched topics. I found that just I was beginning to understand and have interest in the topic he would move on to another. He is most definitely suffering from History ADD. This made his video unsuccessful in communicating his ideas to the audience.
Summing up hundreds of years worth of history is a challenging task that James Burke decided to take. It was very evident that Mr. Burke is a very intelligent man and knows that he is talking about; however, his connections were fairly weak. Burke would connect t he two given topics in history through key words or concepts/ideas not directly related to the topic. He has the intentions of showing how everything in history is interrelated but the method and examples he used to show this was just not effective. The famous historian David McCullough, had said that he would study one topic and that topic would in turn lead him to a new topic to study. The interrelatedness of history is a concept that both Burke and McCullough share. However, McCullough makes strong historical connections with James Burke’s connections are very obscure and hard to follow.
While watching James Burke videos I often found myself confused and lost. James Burke would jump from time period to time period using very obscure connections. Burke would hardly go into enough detail and depth about each particular topic before he switched topics. I found that just I was beginning to understand and have interest in the topic he would move on to another. He is most definitely suffering from History ADD. This made his video unsuccessful in communicating his ideas to the audience.
Summing up hundreds of years worth of history is a challenging task that James Burke decided to take. It was very evident that Mr. Burke is a very intelligent man and knows that he is talking about; however, his connections were fairly weak. Burke would connect t he two given topics in history through key words or concepts/ideas not directly related to the topic. He has the intentions of showing how everything in history is interrelated but the method and examples he used to show this was just not effective. The famous historian David McCullough, had said that he would study one topic and that topic would in turn lead him to a new topic to study. The interrelatedness of history is a concept that both Burke and McCullough share. However, McCullough makes strong historical connections with James Burke’s connections are very obscure and hard to follow.
James Burke is a very knowledgeable historian who is well learned in many subjects. James Burke, like David McCullough is very intellectual and knows a lot and they both try to teach the audience about different subjects. In his videos, James Burke rambles on about different ideas. The way he provides this information is at times confusing to follow. His ideas are not organized nor does he focus on a specific topic and stick with this topic. James Burke seems to suffer from “History ADD” because his ideas jump from one to another.
David McCullough is different from James Burke because he is more organized and straightforward with his teachings. David McCullough does not jump from topic to topic, but rather his ideas flow easily and he is easy to follow. He gets right to the point and his connections make sense.
Both of these historians are different in many ways, but each one of them brings a lot to the table. There are many ways of learning and both of these historians teach in a different way, that does not mean that one way is wrong and the other is right, just that they are not the same.
I think "history A.D.D." is an understatement. Try history A.D.H.D. Looking back at my notes from that day...well, it took awhile to reconnect the dots, and had me laughing at the seeming randomness of it. However, that does not mean anything bad, in fact, its quite a fascinating way to look at history, giving it a new spin. It reminds me very much of the writing technique 'stream of consciousness' where the writer writes down all their thoughts, letting topics slide into each-other in ways that don't necessarily make sense. In short, he doesn't stay tied down to his topic.
Its interesting as well, to see how his brain works, making such small connections, and forcing our brains to keep up, drawing us in, much like a Mr. McCullough, in his breath taking books. Just look at the guys childhood, and the stream of job choices he powered through. Its like he's a living representative of Burke's mind Yet, one must keep in mind, comparing actual work, the two are nothing alike, Burke with flighty ties together, and McCullough with strong steal cables to connect topics. They're simply in different leagues of style.
However, just because I personally like Burke's ideas of stream of consciousness connections, that does not mean it is effective. To start with, seeing as some many topics are mentioned, there is little elaboration on any, as well as some exaggeration of reality, or at least rewording to fit a point. To try to actually learn something from one of his videos, well, it would be a herculean effort to decode, to say the least. However, for someone sufficient in historic knowledge, it can prove to be a fun little video to shift though. Therefore, as spastic as Burke is, there may be a point hidden in his ramblings yet. Deep, deep, deep down.
James Burke is certainly a very interesting person. It seems to me that his brilliance and his apparent case of “History A.D.D.” make it difficult at times for others to follow his logic. By jumping from topic to topic, many times making the connection with a single word, I for one definitely ended up confused. However, after closer inspection, the connections linking his thoughts and ideas were there, however vague those connections may be. I think that the point of this random assortment of history—though not really random when viewed closely—was to show that all of history is connected in some way, shape, or form. Therefore, the jumping around that was done and the tangents that were taken by Burke were justified. The whole video was centered on connections; the idea was to connect things that were never thought to be connected. Looking from an outside perspective, it is also very possible that Burke’s mind moves so quickly from topic to idea and back again that it is tiring to try to follow. The small connections he finds between events in history are not always fully expressed to his audience, and this, I think, is the main reason why many feel his videos have a sense of “History A.D.D.” The tangents he takes are fully suited to his purpose of showing and exaggerating the connections between events, time periods, and ideas in history. It is truly amazing how he is able to come up with all these connections and present them in a way that, though hard to follow, creates a zigzag path and shows that history does not always travel in a straight line.
Post a Comment