About Me:
My name is Rachel Brown. I am an air force brat, so I'm not really from anywhere other than the United States. I've lived in Utah, New Orleans (that's where I learned to talk, so I used to have a really cute Southern accent, but it's gone now...), Northern California, Maryland, Las Vegas, Central Coast California, Germany, and, last (for now, anyways...), but not least, San Antonio. I am 24 years old. I am a Statistics major with a Sociology minor. I want to go to grad school and study either Biostatistics or Epidemiology, and work in medical research. I am a very spiritual person, and God, religion, morals, and ethics are really important to me. I am a really empathetic person, so reaching out and doing things for others is really important to me as well. This has led me to serve as a missionary for my church, teach math and ESL, and has fueled my passion to be involved in research that can improve the lives of others. I could not do without God, especially the peace I've found in times of trial. I know that sounds cliche, but it's the most honest answer I can give.
About History:
I would define history as the study of the past, particularly ideas and opinions about and from the past. The more I learn about history, the more I realize that there is no such thing as ultimate truth in history. Events are just too tied up with motivations and interpretations for a "universal point of view" to be found. I think that the authors of our book, American History try really hard to be purely factual, but when it comes to history, the line between fact and opinion is really thin. (And, yes, that is an opinion...) Statements like, "Religious beliefs magnified the powerful influence of family on African life" (pg 13) or adjectives like "sophisticated" (pg 10) are by their very nature opinions because ideas like "beliefs" and "influence" and classifications like "sophisticated" cannot be quantified. Even what the authors chose to include or not include is an opinion on what is "important" and what is not. I don't fault the authors for this--if our goal was to be purely factual, I don't think we could include much more than pictures of artifacts in the textbook, maybe a few dates or something. I think the best way to study history is diversity of opinion--lots of sources from different, preferably opposing points of view. We've been given the quote, "History is an argument." I would like to amend that to "Everything is an argument!" Take eggs, for example. Are they good for you because of their protein? Are they bad for you because of their cholesterol? As long as there are people around to argue, there will be arguments about everything. History provides two reasons for this statement to be true: everything was an argument back in the past when it happened, and now there is a different argument about how to interpret it, record it, or even if it really happened. Let's use the Reformation as an example. Lots of arguments were happening then. And now, when we study the Reformation, we can argue about those arguments: exactly how the Reformation shaped history, what people's opinions really were (are the statements of the leaders actually indicative of the general populace) and so forth. Do I think this means we shouldn't study history, or that it is somehow less meaningful? Absolutely not. I just think we should be aware of its argumentative nature, and, once we are, we should roll up our sleeves and dive in!
