ashiepoo72

Isabel Hull and Odd Arne Westad are 2 excellent examples of complex but rich military history that goes beyond the boundaries set by the "battle to battle" narrative. I'm so glad both names have popped up on this thread. Anyone who says pre-1960s history is more inclusive has to ignore women and minorities entirely and believe wholeheartedly in Turner's frontier thesis, which in turn privileges white movement rather than multiethnic, multigendered points of contact and negotiated spaces. Also, the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

I'm not offended about my work...you're welcome to criticize it, and I'm happy to debate it. And I also am highly invested in it, otherwise I wouldn't be doing a 5-7 year PhD program to study it in more depth, so your comment about attachment seems off to me. I'm offended because I'm getting the sense that because history has evolved into something you don't approve of, you say that history should be defined within certain parameters, presumably ones you DO approve of. I don't think it's our place to define those parameters, it's the job of the discipline as a whole. Your discussion of whether the discipline has become too inwardly focused is interesting to me. I struggle with this, because I'm a person who thinks popular history can and is useful and that historians need to reach broader audiences. But I don't think traditional history is the only way to do that.

I'm a little offended that you think military history is shunned. I study military history, as I've said several times. Maybe it isn't the traditional battles and guts and generals version, though I do look at that stuff, but the core of my work involves the study of war and how the nation goes to and conducts modern warfare. I view that as military history, and you seem to be suggesting that doesn't count. Who gets to define what military history is? In your conception, my work would be obsolete, whereas traditional history has now been submerged into how the discipline as a whole studies history. It hasn't disappeared. If it did, FDR and LBJ and Westmoreland wouldn't factor into my research, and for better or worse they certainly do. There shouldn't, IMO, be a "great man" school of history, but there certainly are so-called "great" (or influential) men and women in history. You're discounting the fact that traditional military history is still EXTREMELY popular among armchair historians--probably one of the most lucrative fields of pop history. You can make a ton of money writing traditional military history for popular audiences. Maybe it's a loser in academia if it's not intersecting with other historical facets, but you'd be better off financially than any academic historian. History is now more inclusive, expanded and reaches deep into messy and complicated areas. I'm sorry if I don't see this as a bad thing. In fact, I'm looking forward to when "history" doesn't have to be qualified with words like "environmental" and "gender" and "immigration" but the expectation is that it is all those things. Call me a dreamer, a la John Lennon.

We work within a discipline. Yes, our work should interest us, but we need it to also be useful within the discipline. The discipline changes and grows in response to this research, as our research does (or should do) in response to the needs and directions of the discipline. That the desire for cut and dry, traditional history isn't being met in the discipline isn't something to deride--WE don't work within a vacuum, just as much as history doesn't. If you want to move the discipline back toward more traditional approaches, write a groundbreaking work that creates a new school of historical thought. There are openings within a dynamic discipline for that kind of shift. If you want the discipline to change, be that change and make it valuable to the rest of the people who also make up that discipline. If you can do that, my hat is off to you.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea that we need to have a defined notion of history (who's defining it? Why are they the one who get that power?) that needs to be enforced. You asked if history is getting diluted...maybe it should be diluted in the sense that it is extremely multifaceted. I don't think eliminating military history is the answer--and obviously I don't think this is what happened, as I had no problem finding programs with strong military components in history. But I don't think defining history in strict, bookended terms is the answer either. That seems quite regressive in my mind. But what do I know, I'm a lowly grad student not a premiere historian.

I think some admissions committees welcome people who look at military history in ways beyond the traditional. I wouldn't have gotten in anywhere otherwise--a huge part of my research has to do with war and the military.

I don't think military history is out of fashion, I think the traditional way of studying it is. If we study war as battle to battle, tactic to tactic that is no longer fashionable, but I also feel it doesnt do the history justice. If we work under the assumption that historical actors experienced life in complex ways like we do--that their conception of everything revolves around a network of competing, intersecting, contested and negotiated ideologies, experiences and beliefs--how can we not study more than traditional history? What seems silly to me as that we need to break history into so many categories, when history in my mind should encompass them all. Makes me think we historians like the easier task of compartmentalization, as most humans do. I study war and conflict, and I can tell you that when i look at the Vietnam War, for example, there's no way I can do cut and dry military history to get the richness I want in my research. How can we look at Vietnam without looking at the war as a crucible for the creation of gender identities, as well as a place where these ideas begin to crumble? When the female veterans, like nurses, experienced gender discrimination and hostility, yet their story is removed from the larger narrative? When Vietnamese women played such a huge role in the conflict, and we're some of its greatest victims? How can we not look at the environment as part of the soldiers' experience? How can we strip it of politics, which affected military tactics and battles? How can we not look at class when the majority of the grunts were working-class or poor, or age when the average soldier in the field was 19? How can we not look at race, when the civil rights movement began galvanizing african Americans against the war and many black soldiers felt commonality with the Vietnamese more than their white military commanders? How can we not look at the sensory aspect, the womp-womp of helicopters and buzzing of bullets and booming of artillery? Or the medical aspect--the medical apparatus was extremely well articulated during the war, and this colored the experience of soldiers and personnel. I categorize myself as a social, political and global historian because our discipline still asks for that kind of categorization. But I don't believe that history is easy to categorize, nor do I think it should be. That's my long answer.

Lol! Your advice is great, actually. I know how whiny us Bay Area folks can be. My family in Massachusetts tells me all the time that I've never experience actual rain. I love Davis! My best friend lives out in Sac, and a few of my good friends are current grad students at Davis, so I know the area decently well. I happened to go there one summer for cheer camp back in high school, so I experienced the heat and quiet of summer there. I remember liking the dorms they kept us in, but that was 10 years ago so my perspective may be skewed! There are plenty of city guides and also information on this site for people to get somewhat of a feel of where they're moving. Doesn't Davis have a dope wiki page?

Thanks everyone, you guys rock. I know its ridiculous to feel this way. I guess I take it all a little too seriously. I get along fine with my MA profs, so it's not like I don't already know they're just people like everyone else! Spellbanisher, those are great questions to keep in mind. That'll help me focus on what I need to get out of recruitment events.

I know I'm being totally irrational...maybe it's residual anxiety from applying and waiting for decisions. Thanks for the reassuring words. I know Santa Barbara is a really chill university in general, so I'm glad to hear the department is welcoming. And everyone I've spoken to at Minn has been amazing and kind. I'm going to drink some wine and chill out now

Just got my plane ticket for recruitment weekend at UMinn and I'm lightweight freaking the hell out...and that's my last campus visit!! My stomach is flipping. In a week I'll be in Santa Barbara chatting with my potential adviser and other grad students about my project, research in general, my plans...I'm half terrified they're gonna say "oh crap, you're actually hella underwhelming and we're rescinding your offer"

So much I should be deemed insane (if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results). In the last hour I was at work, I told myself I wouldn't check my email til I got off. All I can say is, epic fail.

Congrats to the Cornell admits! Here's hoping this weekend is more eventful than the last few have been I just had a pizza date with my daughter...probably the most relaxing moment I've had in the past 3-5 months haha

Congrats everyone!! This day has gone from slow to quite exciting!

Congrats Fianna!

Congrats Ivan! Fingers crossed you get in soon!

According to my spreadsheet (don't judge me), most programs will be notifying any lingering acceptances and rejections within the next 2 weeks. Some take longer because of wait lists and such. I'm pretty surprised at how slow it's been. Even with the occasional massacre (thanks Brown, Duke and Stanford!) it's been slow-going.

Congrats Heimat!!!! And I got no clue, all my acceptances came from the department first.

Do you think Snowmageddon, in addition to College Park, caused the delay of other program decisions? It feels like an awfully slow Friday for this time of February.

Have fun at NYU, Chiqui!!

You could call the department secretary or the DGS and ask when decisions will come out.

Sorry about Princeton, Aubstopper

I sent emails thanking them for the good news and letting them know I'm interested in attending recruitment weekend (if it was mentioned in the email) or that I'd contact them with any questions (also if mentioned in the email).

Ugh my stomach is in knots. The month is more than halfway over! Almost there guys!

Thanks for the info LeventeL. The waiting continues!