© West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. Note that many book reviews begin with a full citation of the work being reviewed rather A great review finds a than a title or the way to quickly engaged reviewer’s name. readers in the conversation of It is helpful to include concern in the work additional details about and also summarizes the author, in this case the overarching that Bowden also wrote assertion of the work Black Hawk Down. being reviewed—the author’s purpose/thesis Notice here how the reviewer makes a short claim about the quality of the work—that it “offers a riveting read” with “the urgency of a novel” but this short assertion is then supported with specific details about the work and how it does this. In this case, “by drawing Note here how on a variety of quotations are used American and sparingly—only to Vietnamese point to specific uses of perspectives…sought language that are out by interviewing particularly revealing. numerous participants” Such specifics also cite and “ably chronicles the applicable page battle’s details while numbers demonstrating how parenthetically, in this Americans and others case Bowden’s quote perceived them in real appears on page 362. time.” These details help the reviewer focus on the quality of the history rather than summarizing it. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. Topic sentences (the first sentence of body paragraphs) help reviewers control the aspects of the history Because the topic sentence argues that they want to highlight. Bowden’s account is A good topic sentence “not one-sided” the in a review is a claim remainder of the about the quality of the paragraph now has the history, which is the responsibility to show focus of a good review. evidence of both Viet In this case the claim Cong and American about the quality of the perspectives on the history is that Bowden battle. is not one-sided” in his historicizing of the battle. Notice that as the review begins to transition toward a conclusion the reviewer begins to focus on claims about where the work stands in relation to other histories. Ultimately a review is not just a review of the work’s details, but an estimation of whether the review should be regarded as new or exemplary in the wider historical discourse on the topic at hand. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. A great conclusion in reviews makes a final assessment of the work under review, but also places the assessment in the context of a wider historical conversation. In this case, the reviewer suggests we can learn a “worthy lesson” about totalizing theories that “explain everything” from Bowden. The reviewer’s name and affiliation often appear at the end of a review. To keep a review concise, a reviewer may decide to provide additional information in the form of endnotes. This helps the reviewer be thorough without weighing down the body of the review. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. Notice how the introduction paragraph in a historiography essay immediately establishes the historic event of concern and provides a justification for discussing this event, in this case Since a because it “has historiographical remained a largely essay focuses on unspoken-of- reviewing relevant conflict” and history scholarly works scholarship on a on the event given event, an “were largely introduction patriotic and paragraph or supportive of introduction American section also Colonialism” provides a summative overview of the themes or camps of scholarship on The use of section the subject. In this headings with essay will learn of succinct titles three schools of helps writers scholarship control the relating to the themes of their Philippine- historiographical American War review. In this case, the author is beginning with a section that summarizes the event. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. Note that historic writing maintains past tense: “Emilio Aguinaldo, had been forced,” “the Americans Historiography arrived,” essays often begin “President with a section that McKinley…event summarizes the ually decided.” event. Just as an analysis of a poem would begin by discussing what the poem is about, an analysis of history often Writers of history begins by have to also be summarizing the very careful about event itself. To the verbs and write a concise summary consider adjectives they use to describe an answering the event. In this case questions: Who? to call the What? Where? American When? Why? and approach a How? about the “conventional event for your readers. war” that the Filipino Revolutionaries “could not resist” are very particular ways of narrating the invasion. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. A new section heading marks the end of the author’s summary of the historic Notice how the event and the author begins beginning of a this review of review of literature literature pertaining to pertaining to the “The Critical war. In this case, School” by first the author has summarizing themed the paper what this around schools of perspective on thought about the the Philippine- war, starting with American War what he has entails. This dubbed “The paragraph asserts Critical School.” that such a school of thought exists. To support the assertion that a critical school of thought about this war exists, the author cites key historians that are representative of this view and summaries the claims of those historians. This pattern continues for several pages until the theme has be thoroughly reviewed. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. Note how the next theme is marked by a new section heading, and the leading paragraph of this new section makes clear its relation to the previous section or theme. In this case the “Reactionary School” tries to re-contextualize the historiographies made by the “Critical School.” © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. Because readers of this essay now have knowledge of the “Critical School” from the prior section, the author can begin to place the two themes or schools in conversation with one another. Note here how the author is not just explaining the “Reactionary School” but explaining it in relation to the “Critical School.” This mode of Historiographical writing is essays strive to sometimes make clear where referred to as there are areas of “juxtaposition.” agreement or disagreement within a theme. This can be done by juxtaposing sources and showing where they overlap as the author does with Gates and Stanley here. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. As a historiographical essay comes to a close, the author has to re-assemble the themes into a coherent summary These essay also of the scholarship pay close attention on the event in to how time and question. As we the emergence of see here, the other events conclusion is a changed or summary of the informed the schools of thought scholarship on the that shape our event in question understanding of and helps readers the event, rather see how the than a summary of historiography of the event itself. an event has been shaped over time. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. Notice how the final paragraph of the conclusion looks to weigh in on which theme or school of scholarship dominates in the current moment. Here the conclusion works to make clear why this research remains relevant and vital. The subject of a historiography, though in the past, should always be made clear to matter in the present. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. o o o © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. o o o o o © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. © West Chester University. 2019. All rights reserved. Jeff Markland HIS 500 12/11/2018 Historiography Essay on the Philippine-American War The Philippine-American war of 1899-1902 has remained a largely unspoken-of conflict in American society. Many people, even those with a decent grasp of American history, are completely unaware of the conflict and the subsequent colonial control of the Islands. In the scholarly community, the works published in the initial decades following the conflict were largely patriotic and supportive of American Colonialism, emphasizing the “civilizing mission” in the establishment of schools, roads, hospitals, and other social services while downplaying or ignoring American atrocities.1 Subsequent debates within the scholarly community have addressed questions regarding the outbreak of hostilities, the practice of “Benevolent Assimilation” or the “policy of attraction,” the extent of American brutality and racism within the military, the American domestic attitudes on the war, and the long-term ramifications of the conflict. Starting in the 1960s, a “Critical School” began to emerge, providing negative evaluations of these questions. In response to such criticism, a “Reactionary School” emerged in the 1970s, attempting to provide more “balanced” or “mixed” evaluations of American conduct and drawing attention to the complexity of the conflict as well as American efforts at social development in the Islands.