How did you get interested in your historical fields?

[HistoireDes]

What's your story on how you got into your fields?

[a.rev]

My topic is over the indigenous arts service in Morocco, the intersections of a heritage that has been ordained and promoted by colonial government and perhaps a little bit of discussion on authenticity...if I can swing it.

 

I came into my program with zero idea of what I wanted to do. I actually switched to history from a semi-related degree. By the end of my first year I knew I wanted to discuss colonialism, at the time I was most interested in Korea but had little hope of learning Korean or Japanese. I decided to focus on French empire and originally wanted to study the influence of British and French women vacationing to Algeria on the local population in the early 20th century. The person who actually encouraged me to apply and join the program was an Africanist (although not North or even French colonial Africa) and had been at the university for some time. (I came in with an interest in Latin America, particularly in Brazil, but there had been several Latin Americanists moving in and out so I didn't want to take any chances on a thesis chair leaving.) Anyway, we were doing introductions and when I mentioned my idea he suggested a better one. One of the things that interested me most in Korea is how Japan utilized heritage and traditions to try to manipulate the Korean public into feeling inferior and when that didn't work they used them to promote a pan-Asian identity. 

[kotov]

My specific dissertation topic was the result of the seminar paper I wrote my first semester of grad school and the subsequent feedback I got on it from a professor at a small graduate student conference in my field. As far as being interested in Romania/Southeastern Europe more broadly? I haven't a clue. I studied Russian history in undergrad, in which I first became interested by reading Doctor Zhivago, but.

[maelia8]

My interest in my historical field, German colonialism and imperialism, developed over time. I'm of German heritage, so the progression went somewhat like this: Interest in German language -> Interest in history -> interest in colonialism/imperialism, with the German language interest beginning the high school, the interest in history during the first year of college, and the interest in imperialism/colonialism in the second year. The taking-off point for the latter was reading Adam Hochschild's King Leopold's Ghost, interestingly enough.

[TMP]

This!  I used to spend hours reading this as a kid, imagining the world beyond my room.  I learned physical and political geography, examined the unique things countries had (i.e. pyramids in Egypt), and memorized facts.  All of that made for an interest in transnational focus in history.

 

By the way, my copy is from when Russia was... still Soviet Union.

[dr. t]

To quote from my SOP:

 

During a survey course on the high and late Middle Ages, I was given a handout with a variety of medieval quotations about women. The second of these read: “We... recognizing that the wickedness of women is greater than all the other wickedness of the world and that the poison of asps and dragons is more curable and less dangerous to men than the familiarity of women, have unanimously decreed... that we will on no account receive any more sisters... but avoid them like poisonous animals.” I was struck not only by the misogyny, but also by the practical implications contained within the passage. It painted a portrait of female sexual depravity which was primitive, animalistic, and universal. Yet I knew that the western Church held that every person possessed free will. How did the quote’s author reconcile these two seemingly disparate truths to himself or to others? This question became a term paper, the term paper became a senior thesis, and down the rabbit hole I went.

[Kleio_77]

This!  I used to spend hours reading this as a kid, imagining the world beyond my room.  I learned physical and political geography, examined the unique things countries had (i.e. pyramids in Egypt), and memorized facts.  All of that made for an interest in transnational focus in history.

 

By the way, my copy is from when Russia was... still Soviet Union.

 

My grandma got me this book as a gift when I was in elementary school! I still have it on my book shelf, although it is pretty beat up! I loved this book as a kid!

[danwaterfield]

Via my MA dissertation on 18c British Literature. I've always been interested in novels, then theory, and then slowly but surely interested in novels as historical documents. Thanks greenblatt in second year! 

 

I noticed that nobody had really worked on the topic of religion in the novels of Frances Burney before, despite lots of subtle references to English Catholicism and her pretty open mindedness towards the faith. Then when I was reading around, I noticed that there was a lot of evidence for toleration between English Catholics and their Protestant neighbours, especially at the tail end of the 18c. 

 

Despite this, there were still anti-Catholic riots, emancipation didn't pass till the 1820s... why? I'm arguing that there existed a split between cultural representations of Catholicism and everyday experience. The last decent social history of anti-catholicism was in '93, and models of English national identity in the long 18c still follow Colley's stringent protestantism. 

Edited March 5, 2015 by danwaterfield

[kotov]

The last decent social history of anti-catholicism was in '93[...]

 

Right, this is the other thing for me. No one has really written more than a few pages in a book or a short article in an obscure Romanian journal on my topic. There's plenty out there on property confiscation (which I had considered writing on) but nothing on forced labor, which I was interested in anyway, since it's a good place to analyze my real interest, the interaction between racial ideology and economic rationality. 

[ashiepoo72]

A combination of family history (my family is culturally very connected to oral and performative histories) and research I did while in my MA program that pushed me from general interest in war from the Civil War on, to more specifically the 35ish years between WWII and Vietnam. I've always been interested in war and conflict because I was nurtured on my grandpa's war stories and movies like Full Metal Jacket and Platoon...yes, as a child haha

[danwaterfield]

Right, this is the other thing for me. No one has really written more than a few pages in a book or a short article in an obscure Romanian journal on my topic. There's plenty out there on property confiscation (which I had considered writing on) but nothing on forced labor, which I was interested in anyway, since it's a good place to analyze my real interest, the interaction between racial ideology and economic rationality. 

Yes - certainly at UG level I got the impression that most large areas had already been covered. So when I first noticed such large gaps in the record at MA, I doubted myself for a good long time. Also the shoddy thinking by one's fellow academics blows one away sometimes. There's always plenty up for contention. 

[gsc]

I wish I had a slightly more insightful answer for why I like women's history, but actually, it was this book series: 

 

 

The American Girl books were great. Spunky, strong-minded girls in different time periods, getting up to all kinds of adventures? Sign me up. My favorite American girl was Kit, who was from 1930s Cincinnati and wanted to be a newspaper reporter. (I may or may not have pretended to be her.) 

Edited March 6, 2015 by girlscoutcookies

[Kleio_77]

In elementary school I began reading children's literature about the holocaust such as Number the Stars. I also loved Canadian children's author Kit Pearson, especially The Guests of War Trilogy: The Sky is Falling, Looking at the Moon, and The Lights Go On Again, which chronicled the life of a brother and sister who were sent to Canada from Britain during the Second World War. I wrote Kit Pearson a letter when I was young and she responded with a hand written post-card.

[mmehistorian]

I do work in early American history. I was researching a subject tangentially related to my current one, & when exploring my narrowed topic, I just kinda fell down the rabbit hole. There is hardly anything published on my topic, & what is published is almost wholly inaccurate. It was a combination of frustration and excitement to do the detective work to find the sources and listen to the story they were actually telling. Boom, addicted.

[brl254]

In my MA historiography class the professor asked us to introduce ourselves and describe our research focus.  In order to not look like a fool by saying, "I want to learn about American History", I made up something about educational history since that was connected to my career background.  2 years later, that was the best self-fulfilling lie I ever told!  

[oflittlevisibledelight]

If I want to impress people, I tell them I'm interested in the convergence of British and American cultural and social histories from 1870-1945 with specific interest in the Edwardian period. I am especially interested in the convergence of gender and the rise of consumer cultures, the entry of wealthy American women into London society following the American Civil War and Franco-Prussian War, and the relationship between nostalgia, memory, and war during the Edwardian period as portrayed in the media. In all honesty, though, I've read too Edith Wharton and watched too much Titanic and Downton Abbey. Titanic's costuming was definitely a key component when it comes to why I want to focus on the history of dress. I would like to address questions of consumerism, international travel, culture, and society through the lens of costume.  I want to look at pretty dresses all day.

Also, some jerk in my senior thesis group balked when, during a discussion of civilian morale in Britain during the Blitz, I brought up how material rationing affected style. He said something to the effect of, "Normal historians don't care about clothes." Stubborn me might just be pursuing this to prove a point. 

[Kleio_77]

If I want to impress people, I tell them I'm interested in the convergence of British and American cultural and social histories from 1870-1945 with specific interest in the Edwardian period. I am especially interested in the convergence of gender and the rise of consumer cultures, the entry of wealthy American women into London society following the American Civil War and Franco-Prussian War, and the relationship between nostalgia, memory, and war during the Edwardian period as portrayed in the media. In all honesty, though, I've read too Edith Wharton and watched too much Titanic and Downton Abbey. Titanic's costuming was definitely a key component when it comes to why I want to focus on the history of dress. I would like to address questions of consumerism, international travel, culture, and society through the lens of costume.  I want to look at pretty dresses all day.

Also, some jerk in my senior thesis group balked when, during a discussion of civilian morale in Britain during the Blitz, I brought up how material rationing affected style. He said something to the effect of, "Normal historians don't care about clothes." Stubborn me might just be pursuing this to prove a point. 

 

Last year I attended an undergraduate history conference and one session was dedicated to women's fashion and make-up during the First, and Second World Wars. Needless to say, it garnered one of the largest crowds of all the sessions throughout the weekend long conference.

[Gambaosaka1]

In my first year of being an undergraduate I randomly took a course in Japanese Politics through literature and film and was fascinated by a) the influence of the U.S. in post-war Japan which I was completely ignorant of and Japan's post-war 'victim identity'. Looking back now my understanding of that period was quite superficial (understandably so) but John Dower's work on Japan under the U.S. occupation was what got me into Japan (prior to that I was looking to study the Middle East where I grew up and had studied previously).

 

I now look at minorities/religious minorities in Japan.

[YoungQ]

I study the History of the Modern Middle East with a focus on the Arab/ Israeli conflict. I came to be interested in the Middle East because I truly believe it is the most important part of the world to understand and that the region's history affects everyone in the world, regardless of who they are or where they live.

 

I came to be interested in the Arab/ Israeli conflict because I noticed much of the research on the topic is politically-motivated and therefore pseudo-academic. My goal is to research the topic and provide insights without being influenced by religion or politics. 

[Chiqui74]

Broadly speaking, when I became a history major, I wanted to study medieval history. I quickly realized that learning Latin and goodness knows what else would be a pig, plus the only medievalist AND her early modern Europeanist husband left during my junior year.  Then I took several Early America history classes and found it fascinating. Even then, I did most of my undergrad work either in post-1688 Britain or 20th cent US.  When it came time to apply to grad school, Early America was the way to go.  As for specifics, I've had a life-long interest in the public aspect of my topic so as I delved further and further into academic history I knew that was was my topic would be, regardless of time period or geographical focus.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Chiqui74

[nevermind]

I was originally interested in learning Hebrew in college (I double-majored in religion and English), and did an interdisciplinary Master's degree in Judaic Studies, where I took 2+ years of Hebrew and a semester of Aramaic. I spent time on an archaeological dig (in Israel) and our town was shelled by rockets before a ceasefire (everyone on the dig was safe). It made me confront issues of how natural resources played a role in political conflict. After being rejected from all my PhD programs (except for two unfunded offers as a consolation prize) in 2009, I wasn't sure if I wanted to pursue academia at the PhD level (it's hard to put yourself out there for numerous rejections), or pursue law or work for an NGO, etc. but I loved teaching and researching...so I entered another Master's degree in International Agriculture and Rural Development, where I focused on the political, social, and economic dimensions of agriculture and the environment. I took a ton of sociological theory / STS classes (and two environmental engineering classes that weren't quant heavy), and I really fell in love with the broad aims of STS, while exploring questions related to the development of water technology in the Middle East. Hence my decision to pursue this topic for the rest of my life. :-)

Edited January 6, 2016 by nevermind

[dr. t]

5 hours ago, Chiqui74 said:

Broadly speaking, when I became a history major, I wanted to study medieval history.

It's not too late! You can still turn to the light!

Edited January 7, 2016 by telkanuru

[Chiqui74]

1 minute ago, telkanuru said:

It's not too late! You can still turn to the light!

Ever the optimist!

[knp]

When I got into a scheduling bind at the beginning of my junior year, the professor who teaches my current field was the only one to email me back.

What can I say? I'm a believer in chance.

[FemmeFatale]

I came into mine by accident.  After a year or two of being in the program, I didn't feel like I really had a focus.  A friend pointed out that I had done three or four papers on cholera, and one on Justinian's plague.  So now I'm considering doing my thesis on the history of disease as a "natural disaster" and how societies respond.