The Mystery of Scholarly Articles Revealed

In class last night we discussed what makes up a historical scholarly paper. To jump start our thinking processes and enhance our observation skills, we were to compare two essays, one provided by the professor, and the other one applicable to our papers.

This was a great exercise to help me figure out the structure of a scholarly paper. As we discussed in class, here are the common conventions in a scholarly paper as written in an historical journal. A good historical scholarly paper usually:

  • opens with a catchy anecdote, quote, narrative, etc. This livens up the essay, provides a good basis for framing the time period, etc.
  • discusses the most relevant historiography
  • discusses the “So What?” question. Addresses why the article is worth reading. Provides a clear statement of the problem.
  • provides a clear statement of the thesis.
  • lays out the the themes and structure of article in the beginning so it is easy to follow.
  • discusses methodology. This includes a discussion of primary sources; organizing the sources, what to expect out of them, address the limits and strengths of primary sources (who wrote them, what was their purpose).
  • uses footnotes. Footnotes can be an integral part of a historical paper. Footnotes can be used to discuss other arguments not directly related to the thesis. They establish credibility by showing that the author knows more than just their narrow topic. Footnotes are a way of establishing legitimacy and knowledge of the subject and other tangential subjects. They can be a means to deflect possible criticism by addressing issues other historians would most likely raise. Footnotes can also build bridges to understanding by referencing other areas, or providing examples. If there are a bunch of letters, newspaper articles, etc., quote a couple in the text, but then to show there is more than just the two, do a “see also”, or reference that you read many more sources, in a footnote.
  • has a length of 20-25 pages of text.
  • has a format consisting of an intro, a body divided into three sections and a conclusion.
  • has reference to the most prevalent historians in the field, and includes their articles/books in the footnotes as a reference. They just might be the ones reviewing your essay, and if they see their works referenced, they  might be more likely to approve yours for publishing.

So there you have it. Some easy guidelines for writing a historical scholarly article for a journal.

TTC #10 – Don't covet

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

How much nicer our lives would be if we were just happy with what we have.

Isn’t it ironic that we have scads of TV shows where people get their perfectly usable kitchens, homes, bedrooms, bathrooms, whatever, remodeled, and yet there are so many in the world who don’t even have a home, let alone a perfectly good usable one. Our society is so stuck on needing bigger and better instead of just being happy with what they have. I grew up in a home with three bedrooms and one bathroom. We had nine (9) people in the family. We learned to get along really well. There were four boys in one small room, just big enough for two bunk beds, four dressers, and a space to sit down on the floor. All of us are great friends. We learned to live with what we had, and learned to be happy with it. Sure we would have loved a second or third bathroom. Believe me, we would have loved it.

My mother and wife are great examples of people who do not coveting the things of others. They often want things, but are always quick to check themselves and be happy for things that they already have.

There would be so much less greed, dishonesty, corruption and ill feelings if people would just be happy with what they have.

A great talk on this commandment is here:

Gordon B. Hinckley, “‘Thou Shalt Not Covet’,” Ensign, Mar 1990, 2

A great quote comes from a seminal talk on the Ten Commandments by President Ezra Taft Benson (Ezra Taft Benson, “America at the Crossroads,” New Era, Jul 1978, 36).

“10. Last, “Thou shalt not covet.” (Ex. 20:17.) Covetousness is one of the besetting sins of this generation, and our covetousness reaches every item forbidden in the commandments—our neighbor’s house, his wife, his help, his worldly goods, and everything that is our neighbor’s. Covetousness, plus love of idleness, lie at the root of our violation of the law of work, with all the ills that has brought. Covetousness has invaded our homes, our communities, the nations of the world. It has brought with it greed, and avarice, and ambition, and love of power. Men scheme, plan, overreach, cheat, and lie to get their neighbor’s heritage. Covetousness threatens the peace of the world today more than any other one element. But God said, “Thou shalt not covet.””

And in closing out this study of the Ten Commandments are some closing thoughts by Ezra Taft Benson from this same talk.

“These are the foundation principles upon which all civilized government and our present civilization is built. To disregard them will lead to inevitable personal character loss and ruin. To disregard them as a nation will inevitably lead that nation to destruction.”

“I remember a number of years ago when Cecil B. DeMille, the great producer of the film The Ten Commandments, was invited to accept an honorary degree from Brigham Young University. In his address to the student body, Mr. DeMille made this interesting observation. He said that men and nations cannot really break the Ten Commandments; they can only break themselves against them. How true that is!”

TTC #9 – thou shalt not bear false witness

This is a pretty easy one, to see how the world would be better without lying, cheating, slander, gossip, and all of those negative forms of communication. Just think of elementary school alone. How much better would everyone’s self esteem be, if there were no put downs, no name calling, no teasing. I can think of several unfortunate episodes right off the bat that would no longer harrow my memory.

The commandment is to not bear false witness against thy neighbor. One questions, put to rest right here, is ‘Who is my neighbor’? Obviously, according to the parable of the good Samaritan, our neighbor is everyone else. To bear false witness, is to give wrong testimony, to lie.

A lie is a deliberately false statement. We could get into technicalities of what would constitute a lie in this or that situation, but let’s be real, here. A lie is when we don’t tell the truth. These commandments are trying to get us to act like God. (As was commanded us, see Matthew 5: 48 and 3 Nephi 12: 48) God does not lie. The manner of speaking for the Godhead (Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit) is that of truth (see Jacob 4: 13). There would be no deception, our courts would be much emptier, things would cost less for lack of law suits against doctors and business, we could trust strangers. A movie came out recently in which people only speak the truth, and apparently have to say what they are thinking, even if it is blunt and cruel. Well, the main character discovers the lie, something unthinkable. The movie is about how he uses, misuses, and abuses the lie. I didn’t see the movie, but I doubt that it ends well (rated PG-13, which means inapropriate  jokes about sex, probably some nudity, and more than likely a defunct moral outcome. All good reasons to avoid it.)

Some other thoughts and scriptures on being honest and not lying:

Proverbs 19: 22 – The poor man is better than a liar. I’m poor (relatively speaking), so I find comfort in this scripture. I try hard to be honest, so even if I’m poor, at least I’m better than a liar.

Acts 5: 4 – When you lie, it is against God.

2 Nephi 2: 18 – Lying is the language of Satan. Who wants to be like him?

2 Nephi 9: 34 – And my favorite, it’s always fun to say this scripture. A liar’s place is hell, not pushed, not shoved, not kicked, but thrust.

The review of the historiographical essay

With 20+ inches of snow outside, and no sign of it letting up, and the kids busy playing and what not, there’s not much else to do but homework. 🙂

So I buckled down and wrote out the review to the essay this afternoon. It was actually a great exercise for learning what’s going on in the field, and will definitely benefit me on this paper. The article was about what makes Nazi science Nazi, or what’s the difference between the science done in Nazi Germany versus at other times in Germany, and even in other nations.

Volker Remmert describes three issues in the current (article was written in 2004, so pretty current) trends of writing about science in Nazi Germany. The first is that of organization. Historians like to discuss how the Nazis were or were not able to congeal a general policy and practice in regards to their science and technology. Current thinking, shows Remmert, is that the Nazis were very capable. He points to the many Allied agencies that swept into Germany post-WWII and took all of their scientists, engineers, research and projects. I’m most familiar with the United States’ Project Paperclip, and taking Wernher von Braun for their rocket development.

Second is about how Nazi science and technology practices, ideology, and policies were developed well before the National Socialists came to power. Some historians will contend even before World War I.

Lastly is the issue of Entgrenzung, or dealing with the issues of ethics and morality in scientific research, and whether scientists and researches knew their work was tested in inhumane conditions or not.

That’s my three pages in a nut shell.

I also found a few primary sources for the paper. Several books popped up on worldcat.org by doing a search for “wirtschaft AND tech*” and limiting the time frame to 1920-1940. What I really need is a bunch of popular magazines and newspaper articles that talk about science and technology in Weimar Germany. Particularly with some reader comments, would be nice.

Anywho, that’s were I stand on that.

Aaarg – finding an historiographical essay

So the next assignment for the Research Seminar is to find a historiographical essay related to our topic, and then write a three page summary of the article. After a nice day of work and with only three hours for study tonight, I finally found one… after looking for an hour and a half!

I started out looking in JSTOR for ‘historiography German aviation’, and found a few possible leads on the historiography of aviation history in general (which means US aviation history). I could fit that in, comparing US and German aviation, or something like that, but I thought I should search elsewhere.

So then I went to Project Muse to see if they had anything better. They had the same stuff. But I did rethink an article that came up in both. I figured a historiographical essay on science in Nazi Germany was about as close as I can get. So I’ll be writing three pages on this article: Volker R. Remmert, “What’s Nazi about Nazi Science? Recent Trends in the History of Science in Nazi Germany,” Perspectives on Science 12, no. 4 (2004): 454-475.

TTC #8 – Thou shalt not steal

This commandment is again about our relationship to others.

This commandment shows importance of personal belongings, respecting others, acknowledging the existence and rights of others (sometimes over our own rights), and manners. From childhood we are taught the importance of not stealing. When a child takes a toy from another child, the parents instruct the child that it is not OK to take from others. Yet how often do we steal time from employers, steal trust from family, and rob God of his tithes? There is much more than just material goods that can be stolen.

A great article on this commandment is found here: Richard D. Draper, “‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’,” Liahona, Oct 1998, 27. He has many points worth repeating.

“Often that is the way it is with theft—more is stolen than material goods. When someone breaks the eighth commandment, victims lose not only their peace, but also possessions that represent bits of their lives.”

It’s not just the item or thing that is stolen, but it’s the time and effort the individual put into making or caring for the thing.

“The Bible emphasizes that stealing belongs to the set of sins that includes murder, adultery, and false swearing. All of these are directly related, and theft is the common link; murder is the unlawful taking of life, adultery concerns the taking of virtue, and false swearing usually involves the taking of reputation, property, or goods.

The sentence “Thou shalt not steal” (Ex. 20:15) includes no object. Its prohibition is broad and unconditional: You shall not steal anything.”

I like how he emphasizes that the law is broad. We should not steal anything. That includes so much, even things covered in the previous commandments. It enforces the fact that there are God given rights and responsibilities.

Brother Draper suggests that this commandment teaches us at least three important principles.

  1. Private ownership of property is a God given right and responsibility. God commanded Adam and Eve to eat their bread by the sweat of their own work, not through the work of anyone else.
  2. God is the source of the right of private ownership, not man or the state. He is the one that dictates the laws that govern humanity.
  3. Stealing is a sin against God. All divine laws originate from him, so breaking this law is a sin against God.

Draper also points out that regardless of the circumstance, stealing is still a sin.

“Stealing is a sin against our Heavenly Father even when motivated by need and poverty. The act dishonors God (see Prov. 30:9). Conversely, the honest person who chooses not to steal, even under stressful circumstances, shows trust in God. He is conscious of a covenant relationship with the Lord and chooses to sustain it.”

To take without permission, even if you’re starving or your children are starving, is still stealing, and is a sin. Ironically, just today, a co-worker used that condition (starving family) to justify being dishonest.

Stealing violates another commandment given to us by God. We were commanded to subdue the earth and have dominion over the animal kingdom, but only as we followed God’s counsel and laws. When we misuse our dominion and seek power over others, we are stealing.

“If we are wise, we will love people and use things, as our Father intended. Immorality occurs when we love things and use people. The awful idea Satan taught Cain was how to turn human life into property, how to make a child of God less than chattel.”

Draper concludes by admonishing that we need a return to the basic first law of God, that we love Him and one another.

“President Spencer W. Kimball pointed out that “honesty can be taught but not legislated. ‘There ought to be a law,’ many say when corruption raises its ugly head, and our answer is that there are laws—numerous laws which are not enforced; but our further answer is that you cannot legislate goodness and honor and honesty. There must be a return to consciousness of those values.” When people practice those values, the power of the Spirit and the force of love can do what the law cannot—overcome the greed and covetousness that lead to stealing.”

If all people were to follow this commandment, there would be less greed, less hate. Greed is the source of most stealing, I would say. When people respect others and their property, there is no thievery.

Changing plans already

I needed to rethink my proposal for my paper. The comments I got back were “too vague,” “too broad,” “need focus,” and “what aspect.” Yeah, I knew that already. But when you write the new proposal 30 minutes before you turn it in, and 10 minutes after you think it up… well, it don’t look pretty.

So I’ve had some more time to think about my topic, and have searched for sources, and I think I have a better grasp on what to do.

Reconstructed Horton 2-29

Now the paper will be on science and technology in the Weimar period. More specifically, I’ll look at how popular, political and scientific attitudes about science and technology influenced German leaders going into World War II. Germany had some pretty incredible technology in World War II. They had the first jet aircraft, the first ballistic missile, and this awesome airplane (I have posted about before)!

I also found an interesting quote from Hitler, where he supposedly said “Germany’s technology, industry, and morale were sufficient to fight an indefinite war.” So was there something in the Weimar period that lead Hitler to believe this. Certainly he did, as did the scientists and researchers who were so innovative.

So now I’ll come up with a better one paragraph proposal, and I might feel comfortable enough about it to post it. And now it’s on to find sources (primary and secondary) about popular, political, and from the field itself, attitudes about science and technology in Weimar Germany! I’ll start by looking in the field of aviation, since that is my passion, if I have such a thing.

Graduate Research Paper

Not that I really have time to blog as I do it, but… I feel like I need to do something historical here… So why not.

Tunnel at Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines (German: Markirch), in Alsace, France

So this is my last class before embarking on my dissertation. The Graduate Research Seminar should hopefully tie up any loose knots in our historical writing abilities. It’s a course on honing our skills. The syllabus looks great, and I’m excited for the class. One initial question I had was, why are we learning how to write like historians until the very end? Why don’t we learn how to write at the beginning or even in the middle? Well, there is a course or two on that, but nothing like this one proposes to be. We’re apparently going to learn all the behind-the-scene techniques and tricks to the trade. I’m actually really excited for it. Our Professor is great.

So for this class we’re supposed to write a 25-30 page paper that will hopefully become a chapter (or at least a bulk of one) of the dissertation. If nothing else, it can be a publishable paper. On the very low end, it will at least teach us something we don’t want to do for a dissertation.

Map of tunnel locations

My dissertation, as it stands now, is on Nazi Tunnels. The Nazis, towards the middle of the war, decided that they needed to move much of their war manufacturing underground. So they designed and built huge underground bunkers and tunnel systems for factories and depots. Go ahead, google it. There’s not much out there. Add the keywords, ‘melk ebensee’ and you’ll get a few more responses. The only scholarly works that I know of on this topic are two German books. One is an excellent work by Hans Walter Wichert, Decknamenverzeichnis deutscher unterirdischer Bauten(at Amazon, already have one), which lists practically all of the underground building sites during Nazi Germany. The second work is a dissertation by Bertrand Perz, Projekt Quarz: Steyr-Daimler-Puch Und Das Konzentrationslager Melk, Industrie, Zwangsarbeit und Konzentrationslager in O?sterreich (at Amazon if anyone wants to buy it for me), which is an in-depth look at one of these underground projects in Melk, Australia.

Anyhow, there are totally no sources available, to my knowledge, that I can use for the current project. That’s part of my dissertation work, is to dig up all of those sources. It should be fun. It’s also not manageable in a semester’s time. So for this semester’s project I had several ideas.

Projekt Quarz

First, I thought about doing a micro-study on just one of the tunnels. Unfortunately, in the two or three hours of looking for sources, I couldn’t find any. I haven’t checked with the library, yet, but I’m not hopeful. So my second idea is to look at a more broad topic that touches the issue of the tunnels. One obvious one is, why did they build them in the first place (the answer is to protect them from Allied bombings). But a deeper question begs, why did they think they could do that in the first place. It was a huge undertaking to move so many factories underground. They must have though they could do it. So a deeper question would be, why did the Nazi’s think they could undertake such a big job. Now let’s step back a bit, say, 30-50 years, and apply this question to Germany as a whole in the form of, what did German’s think of their technical and scientific abilities? So that will be my basis of inquiry for this semester’s project. I will look at what German citizens, German scientists, and German politicians thought about German science and technology from 1900 until the end of World War II. I post more on this as I think it through and find sources.

So, basically, I’m hoping to keep up the blog as I write the paper and take the class. I’ll post the methodology that I learn, and the troubles and trials, the triumphs and tackles about writing a historical paper.

First off, I feel completely unprepared because I have no sources. That’s the first thing to tackle.

TTC#7 – thou shalt not commit adultery

The seventh commandment is another one dealing with the relationship between humans.

A few weeks ago, my brother-in-law was married. The sealer who performed the marriage made a comment about this commandment. He said that if this one single commandment were kept, there would not be so much evil and wrong in the world.  He said most of the problems with society can be traced back to the lack of people keeping this commandment.

Jesus, in speaking to the Nephites, takes this commandment to a higher level. He says that if you even look at another to lust after them, you have committed adultery in your heart. Not only should we not act, but we should stay away from letting those thoughts into our heart.

Satan wants to destroy our ability to progress. He wants to distort and pervert the things we have that he does not. Two things Satan can not have, due to his rebellion, are a family and a body. Looking at American society now, we can see that the body and the family are under attack. People are trying hard to re-define what a family is, couching it in terms of social and personal justice and choice. Some equate the fight against the traditional definition of family with the civil rights movements of the African-Americans. Perhaps a better comparison is to equate it with the fight against Prohibition in the 1920’s. I digress… In today’s society, the family is less about mother, father and children as a unit of progression and love, it seems. People emphasize the individual and have a hard time thinking about others. A central purpose of families is to make you think about others and not yourself. Perhaps the main reason people commit adultery is because of selfishness. They think only of their own desires, wants and needs. Instead of putting forth the hard effort of working out issues with a spouse, they seek the quick and easy way out. But that only leads to more trouble.

Satan also can never have a physical body. Because of this, he does everything he can to make people misuse their bodies. Our society is so infatuated with sensual things. Just look at what our society focuses on. In the movies and T.V. there seems to always be a reference to sex, if not full out portrayal of it. Magazines and music, books and just about every form of entertainment seems to incorporate the carnal side of sex. This is just what Satan wants. If he can get people so focused on sex, if he can make it so mainstream and common place, then people will have no problem abusing it.

So what happens when this commandment is obeyed. First of all, the family remains intact. Fathers and mothers love each other and are faithful. There are numerous studies that show that children without a stable family life don’t do as well as those with a stable family. I’m sure you can pick any number of people you know and find how that is true. How many fights, wars, and deaths have been the result of breaking this commandment? Those would all be done away with. There would be no prostituting of bodies in order to make money, or in the name of “art” or entertainment. Our Hollywood stars seem more like porn stars than actors and actresses. Anyhow, a lot of good would come from keeping this commandment.

TTC #6 – Thou shalt not kill

Commandment number 6, “thou shalt not kill.”

The footnote to the LDS version expounds “kill” to mean murder. This is one of the most heavy, or hard to forgive sins. Alma instructs his son Corianton that the three most grievous and hard to forgive sins are to deny the Holy Ghost, to shed innocent blood, and sexual immorality. Murder is so hard to repent of for a number of reasons. First, part of repentance is to restore anything that was taken or removed, etc. Well, it’s impossible for anyone but Christ to restore life to a dead person. So it’s almost impossible to repent of murder. Likewise, with the other two, you can’t restore virtue and you can’t take back a denial of the Holy Ghost.

But what about situations where the Lord has commanded that people be killed? Does that not violate his own law? Some examples of this:

  • Abraham commanded to kill/sacrifice Isaac – Genesis 22: 1-14
  • Saul commanded to destroy and kill all of the Amalekites (men, women, children, live stock, everything) – 1 Samuel 15
  • Nephi prompted by the Holy Ghost to kill Laban – 1 Nephi 4: 10-14

A part of this answer is found in a quote from Joseph Smith. “God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ at another time He said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted – by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 256.) Sounds like blind obedience. Well, when the one you are following is a perfect God, then such obedience is OK. But rarely is it blind with God. It seems he will always provide enough understanding, sometimes after the trial of our faith, though.

The commandment not to kill might be expanded to include all living animals. I’m not sure if plants are considered alive. Of course one meaning of living might define having a spirit as part of being alive. D&C 77: 2, is revelation to Joseph about Revelations 4: 6, wherein he says “that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual,” but limits that to man and beast, not plants. In any case, there is a difference between beasts and plants which makes it OK to kill and eat plants without any fear of breaking commandment 6 (see D&C 89: 14,17 – for the Word of Wisdom commandments that tell us specifically to eat plants and grains). Beasts should only be killed in times of winter, cold, famine and excess of hunger (see D&C 89: 12-15).

Also, in 3 Nephi 12: 21-26, Jesus says not only should we not kill, but we should also not be angry!

How much of the wrongs and the evils of the world are caused by anger? If we would follow the commandment to not kill, and the deeper meaning from Jesus to not even be angry, then that would probably solve 90% of the things wrong with humanity.