Scotland Holiday Continued...

Helloo, a few blogs ago I talked about my holiday to Scotland this summer. I said I would blog about the second half of it and I only just remembered so here goes.

So as I said in the first week we were next to the Moray Firth next to Inverness (which on a historical note may be the furthest point north that the Romans managed to reach. --I am doing my coursework question on Agricola at the moment who was governor or Britain from around 77AD to 84AD). Anyways in the second week we went further north to a tiny village called Scourie. It was right on the coast and in the middle of nowhere, so I loved it. The only thing was the midges were insane in the evening, it felt like you were being eaten alive.

So we visited loads of little ruins in the second week, they weren't well-known tourist attractions really, literally just an abandoned ruin in the middle of the countryside with a little sign. However I noticed that this guy called the Brahan Seer popped up in both locations. There was a little sign about him near the Moray Firth and then in the second week we happened to visit the ruin of a house which was associated with him. Apparently many of his prophecies were fulfilled and tradition holds that his untimely death by burning in tar (Tar???) followed his final prophecy of the the doom of the House of Seaforth. Spooky....

So he apparently worked for the MacKenzies and was put to death (TAR???) by the countess of Seaforth because she asked him to foresee what how her husband was doing in France (as he was there at the time) and he said the Earl was being unfaithful to her. So she had him burnt in tar near Fortrose on the Black Isle (which is where I stayed in the first week, which explains why there was a sign commemorating him there!). So the ruined house and castle (which were within sight of each other) apparently belonged to this countess and her husband. I remember the sign said that the Earl had had the house built for his wife specially. However the Brahan seer supposedly correctly predicted that this family would become extinct, which came true in 1815 when Francis MacKenzie died. However there is apparently no conclusive evidence that such a man existed at the time, and some think it's just a legend. Having said this, there is evidence of a man called Coinneach Odhar (which was supposedly the Seer's name) being accuses of Witchcraft 100 years before the time period he is mainly associated with. And this information fits with the location at which he is said to have died in the 17th century. Hmm. Tis a mystery.

Anyways here are the pictures I took. So these building definitely had something to do with the Seer, but I can't remember the name of the house. I assume it was a house of the MacKenzies as I remember the male bloodline becoming extinct being on the little information sign. (I'm helpful I know!)

On a completely unrelated note, we also visited a museum of childhood near Scourie. It was this lady's great personal collection of dolls, toys and most especially dollhouses! They were genuinely amazing and she had things from as early as around 1850! It was great if you like that kind of thing, I hate baby dolls so wasn't a fan of them but I loved the dollhouses. She has a full on castle one! It's great. My dad and brothers however weren't as fussed =P. I took loads of pictures but the lady asked me not to put them online. Sorry!

Thanks for reading. Will try to blog again soon, but I have a ton of work at the moment. Both English Lit and History Coursework. Fantastisch.

Hadrian's Wall Trip 2012--Part 2

Hellooo, me again.

So in my previous blog I told you all about the first day on of our Hadrian's Wall trip. The second day was even more fun. We got up nice and early and got the boys back for their hideous ways, as I mentioned before =P. Then we walked from the hostel (which was called Once Brewed) to Housesteads which was another Roman fort, and it now has the ruins and a little museum. We walked alongside the remains of Hadrian's Wall and it was great. But then again I love going walking, and was hard-coring it at the front, whereas some of my classmates were moaning at the back. Haha. We walked for about 2 hours ish and the weather was grim. It was the dreaded sideways rain and was windy as anything. But it was beautiful scenery and we saw the remains of some of the sort of mini-forts along the wall. Here are some of the pictures I took, note the pretty rainbow. =D

Right so Housesteads was another great archaeological site and I think my teacher said it's known for the bathhouse ruins as it's very rare. The main thing that managed to stick in my memory despite the fact the rain had penetrated my supposedly 'waterproof' coat was that the Romans had underfloor heating!!! How crazy is that! I mean I don't have bloody underfloor heating, yet some Roman soldiers in a military fort in the first century AD did! What they did was they built their rooms raised over the ground, with little columns holding the floor up. So there would be a spaced between the ground and the flooring of about 4 ft. They would then light fires under the floor, meaning it would feel heated. Luxury or what??

So that was the crux of our trip to Hadrian's Wall. I really enjoyed it, it's a very interesting area to visit and there is loads to see and do. I also have a great class and good teachers so it was a total laugh =D. Plus although I admit we did more work on the first day, hence why the first blog is a lot longer, I did learn a lot about why the wall was built and what it was like for those living there. Which I think will definitely come in handy when we do our second coursework question after Christmas.

On the way back from the trip we stopped off in Durham for an hour as one of my teachers went there at uni. It's such a beautiful city and we visited the cathedral, in which Harry Potter was filmed. Well not all of it of course, but I never knew the courtyard at Hogwarts was really at Durham cathedral. Being a complete and utter Hazzy P nerd I was in ecstasy. And when I say nerd I mean nerd. Our teacher got told off by some mardy church dude for not making an appointment. There wasn't even that many off us and we were quiet, but hey. Twas ace.

Hadrian's Wall Trip 2012--Part 1

Helloo! I don't want this blog to be too long, so I might just blog about the first day and then blog at a later date about the second day. Confusing times with all these part 1 blogs. =P

So as I mentioned in my last blog post I went on a History trip with school this week to Hadrian's Wall. It was so much fun and I really enjoyed it. The aim was to get a better understanding of the Romans in general and of why Hadrian's Wall was built. This is for the A Level course we are doing now, which I think is Edexcel, in which we do 2 coursework pieces and no exam!! YAY. I think the second question which is compulsory for everyone, (as in you don't get to choose the essay you do) is on long term significance/change across the whole period we are studying, aka Roman Britain. So we had to collect find some primary sources about Hadrian's Wall to use in that second question.

So we were there for two days, one night and we actually went to a lot of places. The first day we went straight from the journey to The Roman Army Museum. This was interesting and we went into this hilarious classroom thing in which you pressed a button and a hologram of a Roman soldier gave you a lesson. It was enjoyable, but somehow I reckon it was aimed at a slightly younger audience then an A Level class! Haha.
This museum had quite a lot of hands on stuff and would definitely be the best for kids out of the ones we visited. They had manikins of Roman soldiers and you could have a go at firing a bow and arrow etc. It was good, while we were there we just concentrated on looking at what the lives of the Roman legionaries and auxiliary soldiers were like and what equipment they had etc. One thing that has and will stick firmly in my memory is that used to carry tweezers with them to get rid of ticks!! How disgusting is that?! I have total tickophobia, =P. My dogs always get them when we go on holiday to Scotland and they just make my skin crawl, although as of yet I haven't had one. TOUCH WOOD. Oh also the museum has the standard gift shop with overpriced plastic swords, which naturally the 17 year old boys in my class found very exciting and they pretty much all bought one! =D
Here are a few pictures I took at the Roman Army Museum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Right then we went straight to what I thought was the most interesting historical sight, Vindolanda Fort. Which was a Roman fort and viscus or village near to Hadrian's Wall. I think it is one of the best archaeological sites for telling us about the Romans in Britain and how they lived. Which, in relation to our coursework was useful as it gave an indication about why the wall was built and if the Britons/Scots presented much of a threat to the Romans. For example at Vindolanda they have the actual ruins which you can freely walk around and then a museum with displays showing the evidence they have collected. There is so much to look at, such as shoes, armour remains, keys, jewellery etc. They also have these tablet things which I think Vindolanda is famous for and they have found loads of letters etc and you can look at what they all say with a little explanation etc. These were useful for us in particular and presented some great primary sources. For example the fact that children's shoes were found inside the fort, not just in the viscus shows that the Romans let their families live in the fort, which would suggest the area wasn't dangerous and that the threat of attack from the Scots wasn't huge. Therefore we could also infer the wall wasn't built primarily for defense, but perhaps just as a decision to seal the Roman Empire's territory. There is also a birthday party invite which archaeologists there discovered in which a Roman couple living at another fort invite the head of Vindolanda and his wife to a birthday party. This shows again that the threat was minimal as they were allowing their wives to travel freely outside of the fort to attend something as trivial as a birthday party. We had a really nice guide who showed us around and talked to us about the fort, his accent was great =P. He said they have recently found the remains of a dead girl under the floor inside the fort somewhere, and they seem to think she was a slave. It just amazes me that finds like these are still being discovered! It must be great to be able to say you found these historic things which are over 2000 years old! Anyhoo I really enjoyed Vindolanda, despite the fact it was freezing cold and raining, (But hey I live in the north, a coat is an essential item) it was my favourite Roman site we visited and I would like to go again and spend even more time looking round. I'm afraid I don't know the entry prices for these places as we paid for the trip as a whole through school.

These are some pictures I took at Vindolanda, note the beautiful British weather. 
OK so it doesn't look that bad in the pictures but it was freezing cold and windy!



Right so that was the first day. We then went back to our hostel and played Roman themed games, my team was pretty shocking but our name was ace, it has 'expelliarmus' incorporated into it. =D. I then had the worst nights sleep ever as the bed was uncomfortable and all the boys decided it would be funny to knock on our door at one in the morning and say "open the door girls" in a really creepy voice. They also scraped their nails on the door and even went all the way round the building outside and stood with their hoods up holding their swords outside the window. Funny in the morning. Not at all funny at the time. Me and my friends were bricking it. =P Oh but we got them back, my friend stole one of their clothes while he was in the shower next morning. Priceless.

On that note, I have rambled on enough already and I bid you farewell. Thanks for reading and I hope you get the chance to visit Hadrian's Wall and the area around it.
Over and Out.

I'm Back!! Scotland Holiday

Helloo! I am so so sorry that I haven't blogged at all in the summer, I was so so busy doing things and I just forgot and just didn't remember even when I had the time! Silly me. I swear I will blog whenever I can from now on. Famous last words much....

Anyway, during the summer I went away with my family to Scotland, I love it there as it's so quiet and the scenery is stunning. We spent a week near the Moray Firth (saw many a dolphin ;D) and a week in a more rural area near Scourie. So I just thought I'd blog about some of the historical places/things that I got up to!
The first was to receive my AS results via text (never a good idea whilst in rural Scotland where the signal is terrible!), and I was so happy to have got the A I needed in History. I blogged earlier on the two exams and I said the Tudor one was worse, and guess what!? I got full marks on that paper! =0. Crazy. I should never try and judge what I'm going to get as I am nearly always wrong.



 Anyhoo, the first place we visited was Fort George, a military fortification very close to Inverness. It is opposite Chanonry Point which is where people go to see the dolphins. It was quite expensive to get in, but I found it interesting all the same. There are little rooms to go in which each have little plaques etc to read and which tell you about military life. Having done some background research I have found that it is the largest military fortification in Britain and possibly in Europe too. It was built in 1745 during the aftermath of the Jacobite rising in the Scottish highlands, and not yet been attacked to this day. It is now used as a Garrison or base for many soldiers, meaning they live there full time! I found this strange to see soldiers walking around dressed in uniform and to think that that is their everyday setting. Quite a historic home they have there! =D. Overall Fort George is definitely worth the visit, the only thing I would say is leave yourself time to look around fully. For example we went late in the day and so didn't have chance to completely explore, this wasn't helped by the fact that the dolphins in the Firth decided to put on a show, which admittedly distracted us all! It is a massive place and is apparently the only historic place in Scotland still being used as was intended when it was built.
Here's the description from the website;

Following the 1746 defeat at Culloden of Bonnie Prince Charlie, George II created the ultimate defence against further Jacobite unrest. The result, Fort George, is the mightiest artillery fortification in Britain, if not Europe. Its garrison buildings, artillery defences bristling with cannon, and superb collection of arms – including bayoneted muskets, pikes, swords and ammunition pouches – provide a fascinating insight into 18th century military life.Positioned strategically on a promontory jutting into the Moray Firth, Fort George was intended as an impregnable army base – designed on a monumental scale using sophisticated defence standards. Today, it would cost nearly £1 billion. Within almost a mile of boundary walls was accommodation for a governor, officers, artillery detachment, and a 1600-strong infantry garrison. It also housed a magazine for 2,500 gunpowder barrels, ordnance and provision stores, a brewhouse and chapel. When the fortress was completed in 1769, the Highlands were peaceful but it was maintained in readiness for action that never came, and has remained virtually unaltered. Visitors today can see historic barrack rooms which are a time capsule of the domestic life of the Scottish soldier.




So that was Fort George. We also went to Loch Ness for the day and visited the exhibition there. It was actually really interesting but I have no idea how the Germans stood next to me managed to understand it as it was full of scientific jargon and I found it difficult! But then again their English was no doubt amazing. The exhibition made me realise how many so-called 'sightings' there have actually been of the 'monster'. In fact, there was actually a official surveillance team who investigated the Loch during the 60's and 70's! The most famous picture of the 'monster' is "The Surgeon's Photograph" from 1934, showing what appears to be a dinosaur like creature. Overall I did enjoy the exhibition but it could have been more interactive, for example my younger brother found it boring as he didn't understand the commentary. I, however found it very informative as I didn't really know anything about Nessie, having only seen the film 'Water Horse' as a child =P. 




Cool cool. So that's it for this blog post, thanks for reading and hope you found something to be of interest. I  am going on a school History trip to Hadrian's Wall this Thursday to Friday, so will try and blog about that at the weekend. Then next week I will blog more about my holiday, as I visited a few more castles etc. Thanks for reading!

Over and out.

The Reader

Hey, sorry for not blogging for almost 2 weeks but I've been pretty busy recently and just haven't got round to it. I realise that all my blogs seem to be based on fictional works releated to history and I apologise if this is an issue but it is often literature that sparks an interest with me. For example I read 'The Kite Runner' by Khaled Hosseini last year for my english lit course and I found it really refreshing as it opened my eyes to the past of a country not widely explored, which is Afghanistan. So I may do some research and blog about that in the future.

Anyhoo I recently read Bernard Schlink's 'The Reader', and when I say recently I read it on Sunday all in one go. So I admit I wasn't busy this Sunday!! Haha. Schlink is a German author, and the book is translated from the German original. It is a nice short read which manages to deal with the Holocaust without exploiting it as the main focus, (if you know what I mean) and it also approaches the Holocaust from a more original viewpoint. For example it follows the story of a young boy who has a love affair with an older woman. She then leaves town and he doesn't see her for many years. He becomes a lawyer and then works on the case in which this woman happens to be being tried for commiting a dreadful crime during the war. The book follows the case and the title eventually relates to this (I don't want to give too much away!!).

Why is this relevant from a more historical point of view I hear you cry? =D. Well I thought this novel really explored the collective feeling of shame and guilt that the post-war generation of Germans feel, and indeed still feel today. There is this idea that they have to apologise constantly for something which they weren't even alive for when it happened, and of course the actions of the Nazi's and the Holocaust were pure evil, but who really was to blame? Can we really blame each and every individual German who got caught up in the situation? The camp guards who carried out the shootings and led thousands to their deaths? Ordinarily these people would naturally be the culprits but where does fear and odedience end and free-will and 'evil' begin? For example at one point in the book the woman on trial asks the judge "well what would you have done?" and the judge us unable to answer. So the point I aim to make is really who was to blame? And who can realistically be punished? Indeed most of the obvious Nazi leaders have now been sentenced and caught, only last week I believe three more were finally found, but how far can people feel sympathy for those in the middle. The ones who neither initiated the terrible policies nor challenged them.
The feeling of collective guilt is similar to that of Americans and the Vietnam war, although naturally on a larger scale. The difficulty with such situations is, particuarly the Holocaust, is that the point is not that Germans agree with what happened, obviously they achknowledge that what happened was awful, it's that they feel collectively ashamed as a result. For no one can justify what happened and Germans must live with this stereotype and label as sadly Hitler has become one of the most recognised faces in History and if you were to ask someone about German History, the Nazis would spring instantly to mind. And so they accept this shame and are stuck in it. However this leads to the debate of individualists vs structuralists, can we just say it was the Hitler and his close followers that allowed the Holocaust to happen? I would say we can't, we need to explore the social factors which made it possible and therefore challenge the famous quote "The history of the world is but the biography of great men". For I, personally, believe the role of the individual is overplayed. But then again, in contradiction to myself the whole of Germany at the time cannot be to blame either. We should take a sociological viewpoint and look at the wider context, such as the economic situation etc. Dilemma much.

Ok so I rambled on and got stuck into a little deep debate with myself!!! Sorry about that, but I hope you understand the complicated issue I am trying to address and which this book highlighted in my eyes. So give this book a read, it might just make you think. There is also a film version with Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes, but I haven't seen it yet so cannot pass judgement. I'll give it a watch and report back.

Over and out.

The Help (Book and Film)

I realise my last few blogs have had a bit of a civil rights theme and I apologise for this lack of diversity. =P But then again this era is interesting and I will blog about something else at some point in my life. Haha.

The Help is a bestselling book by Kathryn Stockett and was made into a film in 2011. It is told by 3 different characters through the rotation of chapters told by each of them. It is set in the southern state of Mississippi and takes place in the early sixties, with the context of the Civil Rights Movement in the background. The Help were black women who acted as housekeepers and nannies to white women, practically raising their children for them. The book follows how a rather liberal white woman, called Skeeter, writes a book entitled 'The Help' in which she tells the story of such women and the treatment they recieved. She is aided by two black maids, Aibileen and the more feisty Minny. The book highlights the danger of crossing the boundaries between whites and blacks in the southern 60's, and this hangs over the characters in the novel. However, although this book is naturally a great read and educational, it is primarily written to entertain and so do remember I am not recommending this book on the basis that it is a totally historically accurate textbook!!!
Nevertheless the attitudes and ignorance of those in the south at the time are highlighted, and the segregation made evident. For example in the book one of the characters, Hilly (the bad guy in lesser form) believes African-Americans should have seperate toilets outside as they carry diseases which whites don't! Despite displaying the racist majority and poking fun at such women in particular, I also like how Stockett (being from the South herself) managed to show how some people did show humanity to African-Americans. Those in the south are always assumed to be the worst, and no doubt the racist community was more vocal in the South. However through characters in the book, such as the heroine Skeeter, Stockett shows how many weren't racist monsters, but were just ignorant or feared the consequences of going against the status quo. It is no doubt true to say that whilst blacks in the south faced horrific treatment from many, and clearly defined de jure discrimination, it was those cities in the north which erupted into violence after the civil rights act had been passed, due to high numbers of unemployment and de facto segregation in ghettos.

Overall I recommend the book and the film if you are interested in getting an idea of the era, through a more lighthearted insight. However as I previously said, although based on fact, the stories told in the book are not doubt fictional and written to entertain. So don't go quoting it in your essays!!! Haha.

Thanks for reading!! Film trailer>>>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GYmhc8Xk8g

Mississippi Burning

Mississippi Burning is a great film which I watched during the Civil Rights side of my AS course. I watched it again yesterday and so was prompted to blog about it. The film was made in 1988 and is just over 2 hours long. It was rated as an 18 but I personally think it would definitely be a 15 now.

The film is based on fact and loosely follows the FBI investigation into the murder of 3 civil rights activists in 1964. These 3 activists were actually killed during the 1964 'Freedom Summer' which was organised to get African-Americans to register to vote, and to highlight the need for a voting rights act (which would be passed in 1965 following violence in Selma and elsewhere). The three boys were members of the group CORE, or Congress Of Racial Equality. They were shot dead and buried under a muddy dam by members of the KKK. Sadly it would be true to say that one of the key reasons why this case got so much attention at the time and is still remembered today is because two of the boys killed were white. The film highlights this at one point when a character asks the head of the investigation if they would even be there if it weren't for the two white boys. By saying this I do not mean to take away from the tradegy of what happened, neither of the young boys deserved to die and all should be mourned equally. I just wish to point out that many people remember this case (the reason why this film was able to be made) over others.

The film really illustrates the attitudes of most Mississippians at the time and the fear in which African Americans had to live. It is, at times, quite upsetting to watch. Despite the fact that I have studied this period of time for almost a year now, it never ceases to amaze and shock me, the ways in which the human race can treat each other out of  fear and most of all complete and utter ignorance. The film shows the protective nature of those in the South and the continued insistence that the whole case was a hoax until the bodies were actually discovered. I highly recommend the film not just if you are studying this course, but also as a good film for anyone.
Although not everything in this film is true (obviously) it is based on a real incident and, in my opinion these are always the better films as they provide an insight into history for those who, perhaps, would have never thought to look.

Edexcel History Exam 15th May 2012 Part 2

Helloo. Sorry that my last blog was too long, I basically re-wrote my exam answer. =P
I will aim to make this one shorter. I said aim.

So after the civil rights question I turned to the USA in Asia section of Korea or Vietnam.
The choices were either Why did the Korean War last so long? or something about Johnson and the end of the Vietnam war. Haha, can you tell which one I picked yet?

So obviously I did the Korea question. I found this topic much easier to revise as it was a lot shorter and less complicated (in terms of study) than Vietnam, which has many stages.
I saw this question and thought 'double yes' as I had also done a very similar practice essay to this answer.

As far as I can remember I wrote something along the lines of;

Intro
Many factors, such as role of the US, Chinese intervention, issues with POWs, both North and South Korean initial stubborness and influence of Stalin and the encouragement the USSR gave to the wars continuation.

Reason=USA

• Decision to 'rollback' communism in North Korea, rather than sticking to the original stategy of containment.
• General MacArthur insisted he aimed to invade China, all led to Chinese intervention which seriously prolonged war.
• Refused to back down and didn't want to give China a propoganda victory, similarly accepted stalemate but were unwilling to inject more money, troops or weaponry to Korea. Meaning no one could win.

Reason=China

•  Their intervention halted the US advance into North Korea (who had managed to reach as far North as the Yalu River), just when it looked as though the US might win. They pushed the US back over the 38th Parallel but were only powerful enough to keep them there, not defeat them. Contributing to the stalemate and the war lasting so long.
• Like the US they refused to back down and give the opposite side a propoganda victory.
• Very difficult to work with in peace negotiations.

Reason=issues with POWs (prisoners of war)

• The North Koreans and Chinese viewed POWs as their own men and forced them to fight for them. They refused to send them back initially, which broke international law.
• Truman also refused to send back many North Korean and Chinese POWs as he was aware that on their return many were treated as traitors and sent to concentration camps or even shot dead. So he didn't want to be responsible for sending thosands to their deaths.

Reason=North and South Korea

• South initially refused to participate in peace talks although without the US they had no chance of victory, and yet they continued to demand the very unlikely reunification of Korea under one capitalist government.
• Links to North Koreas issues with POWs.

Reason=Influence of Stalin (small factor)

• Stalin secretly supplied the North Korean forced and encouraged them to invade SK.
• He wanted to draw US attention away from Europe and his so-called 'Buffer Zone'.
• After his death in 1953, steps were taken towards peace in Korea.

Could argue war didn't last 'so long' and could have gone on longer (very small section, not a vital point!)

• Only lasted 3 years.
• US or China never deepened involvement to try and win. Bit half-hearted,could have used greater fire power, nuclear bomb etc.

Conclusion
Overall Chinese intervention is the main reason for the war lasting longer than it should have as it meant the US couldn't win and a stalemate was created. This in turn then led to any issues with POWs and peace talks. However the US must also share the blame as it was arguably their decision to promote and pursue 'rollback' over 'containment' which triggered China to intervene and ultimately prolong the war, when it can be seen that their aim was complete a mere few months in.

Overall I thought I answered this question better and more concisely.
But ugh it seems like such a waste all that time I spent revising Vietnam, not to even mention it in my exam!! However I really loved learning about it so no real regret, in fact I wish I had got to write about both Korea and Vietnam. But ultimatally you have to pick the essay you can answer the best.
So top tips for this exam;

• Consider your question choice carefully, as some questions may be on a good topic but then have hidden agendas set to catch you out.
• Plan your essay for about 5 mins before you start writing. Believe me I understand that time is of the essence in exams and there is no time to waste. I never used to plan but in the exam it genuinely does save you time later as it gives you chance to sort your thoughts out and think about what you can actually write. So it's also quite calming as well.
• Try not to write too much (this is total pot calling kettle black on my part but, hey it's still a tip even if I haven't quite grasped it yet myself!!! =D)
• Practice essays as timing is key. Both essays are worth the same so aim to be as equal on both as you possibly can. This is easier said than done of course, but to be honest in an exam you have so much adrenaline that you can surprise yourself, and practice makes perfect!

Hope this has been of some use to someone doing this course!!!! =D

Ooh also the revision guides I bought through my school were great, they're purple and I believe are available for all modules offered, such as Russia etc. You should be able to get them through school or in Smiths or somewhere.

Over and out.

Edexcel History Exam 15th May 2012 Part 1

I just realised I blogged about my more recent exam first. Bit silly.

Anyways as I mentioned in my last post the Edexcel course is split into two parts. The second I studied consisted of American history, including the civil rights in the US 1945-68 and the US in Asia including Korea and Vietnam. I must admit I  preferred this side of the course. Although I enjoyed both sides, I prefer writing essays to analysing sources. Plus the teacher I have is great =D. So to anybody who enjoys modern history this side of the course was great. Having never actually learnt about Vietnam despite it's infamous status, I found this course enlightening to say the least.

This exam was also 1 hour 20 mins long and consisted of 2 essay questions worth 30 marks each I think. I felt more confident going into this exam in that I knew I knew the content. However having looked at past essay questions I was aware of some pretty vile ones in the past. Having said this, you were given a choice of 2 for each essay, so I chose from 2 for civil rights and 2 for the US in Asia.

This blog is about the civil rights essay.

Question 1.
This question was probably the one that looking back I could have answered better. I think my essay stucture may have deteriorated slightly but hopefully this won't be any real issue as I was under a hell of a lot of pressure.
The choice of question was as follows;
To what extent did opportunities/the situation for African Americans improve in the years 45-55?
'The Black Power movement hindered the Civil Rights Movement' to what extent do you agree?
(or they were along these lines at least!)

Having done 2 practice essays on 45 to 55 I was relieved to see it as an option and went straight for it. I also liked Black Power as a topic but thought the essay was more complicated and difficult to actually answer.

So for this answer I tried to split my essay up into how the economic, social, legal, and political situation of African Americans improved throughout the period. I would advise you do this as it gives your essay structure and means you can explore the variations of improvement across seperate areas of life.
I started in my intro by outlining the different factors and a general opinion about improvement to be explored throughout.
I then did a very short paragraph about the situation of African Americans in 1945, to help illistrate any improvements made.
Then I split my essay up as I said before, and will bullet point the sort of things I wrote (or could have written if I had more time =D)
Economic
Improved

• Northern migration continued, decline of Southern plantations, got jobs in defence industry, able to retain higher wages.
• Work of President Truman, FEPC continuation, fair employment laws in place in many cities by 1955.
• Truman issued executive orders to ban discrimination in defence contracts.

Didn't improve/limited improvement

• Congress eventually refused to continue funding the FEPC, plus even when it had been in practice, 2 thirds of 8000 job discriminations had been dismissed by them.
• Truman could only control defence contracts run by government and employers avoided fair employment laws to continue discrimination.
• Only real improvement in the North.
• African Americans were still less economicall priviledged than whites in both North and South, e.g. Northern A.As lived in ghettos.

Social
Improved

• Truman desegregation of the armed forces in 1948, black troops arguably widely praised for their part in the war.
• Work of CORE and the NAACP, also links to legal with cases like the famous 1954 Brown case overturning legal ground for 'seperate but equal'
• Truman promoted black civil rights, e.g. he was the first president to campaign in Harlem (a predominantly black area of New York) and address the NAACP directly.
• Overall attitudes seem to begin to change.

Didn't improve/limited improvement

• In the South black people were still widely mistreated and were by no means equal anywhere in the US.
• In the Deep South a black soldier trying to register to vote was beaten up and a black soldier in a bus was blinded.
• The case of Emmett Till, young black boy killed in Mississippi in 1955 for supposedly 'wolf whistling' at a white woman.
• The case of Autherine Lucy, expelled from her uni for being black in 1955.
• Despite the Brown case, many schools refused to desegregate and there was a white backlash, with the revival of the KKK and the formation of White Citizens Councils.
• Social tensions in the North increased as black and white people fought for the same jobs.
• Generally despite limited examples of improvement, African Americans were still second-class citizens, or even worse.

Legal
Improved

• NAACP had many victories in the Supreme Court, such as Morgan vs. Virginia, Sweatt vs. Painter and the Brown case.
• Plessy vs Ferguson was thus basically overturned and 'seperate but equal eroded'. (see social section)

Didn't improve/limited improvement

• Congress refused to pass any civil rights legislation.
• Jim Crow laws remained intact in the South.
• Backlash caused by Brown case and refusal to desegregate (see social section) and some schools even closed rather than desegregate.
• Hard to enforce Supreme Court rulings nationally, not enough media attention given to them.
• 1955 Brown II ruling said desegregation should happen with 'all deliberate speed' showed even Supreme Court unwilling to commit to a time frame for desegregation.

Political
Improved

• 1947 Truman set up a commision who issued 'To Secure These Rights', a report which arguably put civil rights on the political agenda.
• The number of black people registered to vote increase. (There is a figure but I have forgotten it already-honestly it shows how these tests are mostly bloody memory ones!!!)

Didn't improve/limited improvement

• Black people still under-represented. Although the number registered to vote increased it was not enough. 
• Congress refused to pass voting registration.
• 'To Secure These Rights' was watered down in the end due to Trumans wish to be elected in his own right in 1948.
• There were still measures in place in the South to prevent African Americans from voting, such as the poll tax and voter registration tests with impossible questions.

Conclusion
Overall there was some improvement but it was slow, isolated and extremely limited due to many factors. Economic situation arguably improved the most but only really in the North and even then African Americans were deprived in comparison to whites.

Hope this is useful if you are doing this course too!
I'll blog about the second question on the USA in Asia tommorrow as this post is already too long! =D

Edexcel History Exam 22nd May 2012.

As I mentioned before I have just completed the AS level Edexcel course in history. The course was split into two sections. One was 'Henry VIII: Authority, Nation and Religion, 1509-40'-basically the majority of Henry VIII's reign including the whole palava of the divorce and the reformation etc. This course got more interesting as it progressed, I enjoyed studying the divorce and the reformation but found the parts about Wolsey and his government boring to be honest. This exam was a few weeks ago now, on the 22nd of May. This side of the course was source based, we had to answer 1 question out of 20 on just the sources and then an answer out of 40 using knowledge as well.

Our exam was 1 hour 20 mins long. (just give us the extra 10 mins at least!)
These are the questions that were in my paper (or similar to, I can't really remember)
1. The one with just sources and no knowlegde was on the Pilgrimage of Grace and the question was how far do the sources show that the rebellion of 1536-37 was motivated mainly by religious grievances?
I thought the question was fine really. The sources were good and offered quite of lot to write about. It also helps to revise well even for this question as when you know what the sources are referring to, you are more able to make so-called 'inferences' about what the sources describe. ;)

2. This is where the paper went down hill for me.
You get a choice of two essay titles for this section. The choices were a question on the Break with Rome or Wolsey and his foreign policies. As I've mentioned I disliked the Wolsey section and so saw the Break with Rome and thought YES. But then I got a bit 'trigger' or 'pen' happy and rambled my face off (which is exactly what you shouldn't do).
In hindsight I should have taken the Wolsey question into consideration but I had already gone into the suggested time (50 mins) for section B.
If I remember correctly the question I attempted to answer was; How far was Henry VIII's decision to break with Rome motivated by his desire for a male heir? Use the sources and your knowledge to reach a judgement.
A nice enough question, but in these questions you are supposed to lead with the sources and bring in relevant knowledge. The sources were pants. They made no exclusive mention of a male heir on that Anne Boleyn was pregnant! So then I started spewing whatever I could remember and ugh.
I think I split my answer into;
male heir was main reason
religion was main reason
want of power was main reason

Or at least that's how I wanted to structure it. Basically I found it difficult to lead with the sources and it panicked me. Sad times. But the worst was my conclusion.
You know the saying 'sitting on the fence'? Well I love to sit on the fence in conclusions, but I do it quite well so it looks like I haven't sat on the fence.
In this exam my conclusion was way too long and I sat on the fence, jumped back over the fence, got back on the fence, jumped off the other side and then burnt the fence down. I might as well have built a brick wall.

So the exam wasn't great but as I am predicted to get 4 A's at AS I think my expections are really high and I want an A in history. I wish a percentage of the mark was based on effort and attainment over time because I try so very hard =D. Haha.
However having ranted on for yonkidoodles I cannot judge what I have got in this exam. For when I think I've done badly I tend to do better than expected and vice versa. Anyhoo roll on results day August 16th. =(

So top tips for this exam;
Read the section B questions carefully and consider what you could write for each (maybe do a little plan).
Control your timing and practise with past papers.
Bring in no outside knowledge for section A, but sneak it in as an inference using the sources.
Lead with the source content in section B and come to a PRECISE CONCLUSION.

How I wish I could say I'd done all these.

Ooh finally I found this revision guide helpful.> 'My Revision Notes: Edexcel AS History Henry VIII: Authority, Nation and Religion, 1509-40'
It's not all relevant knowledge but it's all useful and is very source focused. It also had a handy timeline at the back. Plus it was only a few quid on Amazon. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Revision-Notes-Authority-Religion/dp/1444152165)

Hope something has been of some use to someone!!

Welcome!

This is my new history blog. Nothing exciting, just me commenting on things I find interesting which relate to history of course. =D.
History is one of my favourite subjects at school, and it always has been. Ever since we watched 'How We Used To Live' in Y6. Good times indeed. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJeMNxQsipc) -the theme tune on YouTube.
I also hope to study history at a top uni in the UK and particuarly enjoy modern history. As most people who know me are aware of, my all time favourite programme is Horrible Histories on CBBC. It's hilarious. So anyhoo anytime I watch a TV show, read a book, visit a museum or just find out something interesting,  I will blog about it. And you are free to read it should you wish.