AP: Writing a Definition

In AP history classes, you may be required to write a Definition of a term. If you remember how you do it in normal classes, you may think that this will be a breeze. But in AP World, it isn't this simple: teachers want an example of a college definition. So, what IS the difference? In this post, you'll see examples of good and bad definitions, and what makes one better than the other. Even though you don't need to write one for the exam, this can be important for the entire year, to not only show your teacher your progress, but to also begin to understand the subject of history.

There are many ways to write definitions, but sometimes students do't know where to start. In AP, a definition usually requires different effort than in normal classes. For instance, it calls for important facts involving the term, a timeline of events (from beginning to middle to end), who/when/where the term affects,and other relevant information. AP teachers usually want you to write these in about 3 to 5 sentences, to minimize irrelevance and "fluffy" language. If you can keep the term short, sweet and to the point, it demonstrates how you already are understanding the content material.

Here is an example of a "bad" AP definition:

"Agriculture began around 9000 B.C.E as hunting and gathering societies began to settle and become more permanent. It involved domesticating plants like wheat, lentils and rice and animals like sheep, pigs and cattle for work and food. It emerged independently in areas such as the Fertile Crescent, China, Mesoamerica, and Africa."

If you couldn't tell, the term for this definition is Agriculture. You may be wondering why this is a bad definition. If you use the guidelines I listed above, you can see that it only covers partial requirements. It mentions the where, but not a specific who (hunting and gathering societies are too vague of terms) and a little bit of what (the plants and animals are alright, but what else was there?). The time period is mentioned, but there isn't an example of the middle or end (in this case, agriculture didn't end, so that's okay). Finally, it may be spread out over 3 sentences, but these could all be combined into one sentence to give the background of the term; more relevant information could then come in the next sentences. In a normal class, this definition would be acceptable, but in AP, it only shows a crude understanding of what the course expects.

Now, here is an example of a "good" definition:

"The Germanic Tribes were invaders of the Roman Empire who grew into Kingdoms and replaced the Empire after the last Roman Emperor was overthrown in 476 C.E.  These tribes included the Visigoths, who took most of Spain, the Lombards, who established territory in Italy after the defeat of the Ostrogoths by Justinian, and the Franks, who were located in most of France and part of Germany.  Originally a smaller power, the Franks grew under the leadership of Charlemagne, who conquered much of Western Europe and established the Carolingian Empire in 800 C.E.  Due to familial disputes and invasions by the Muslims, Vikings, and the Huns, however, this Empire declined and eventually dissolved in 843 C.E."

Can you see the difference in this definition? The term here is Germanic Tribes, and it hits most if not all of the requirements for AP definitions. The who, what, and where are clearly mentioned, with a beginning, middle, and end (476 C.E-843 C.E.). The first sentence provides the basic information, while the second and third provide some more important/relevant information that demonstrates understanding of the material. The fourth sentence helps bookend the end of the Carolingian Empire, and thus the Germanic Tribes as a whole. While it may be missing some more detailed explanation, it is quick and clear while also giving enough information for the reader to comprehend the subject. Basically, it clearly defines the term, and would be acceptable to turn in as homework.

It's all about specifics in definitions. If you aren't specific enough, you'll lose understanding, but if you're too specific, it'll be harder to understand. By following the guidelines for AP definitions, you'll be able to write them in no time, and without even thinking twice about the steps needed. Take it from a person with experience!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Hollywood History 2: The Redeeming Quality of Clichés

The movies are not known for their historical accuracy. In the last Hollywood History post, I talked about how films like the Renegade and Titanic have made history fun again, at some levels. But I only lightly touched on the inaccuracies part, simply ignoring it for the sake of the topic. Nowhere else in movies are historical inaccuracies as well located as clichés: re-used and recycled, but rarely reduced, gimmicks in movies used for as much as plot movement and as little as a sight gag. At the time of the first post, I didn't really mind what Hollywood had to do to historical stories, as long as people were able to understand the story and be inspired by them to learn more. However, I realized that audiences may like a story portrayed in film, but then only base their knowledge of the subject on the film alone, and be inspired for all of the wrong reasons. So, I looked into common Hollywood tropes used in films-the damsel in distress, dramatic hero, sacrifice, etc.- to see how they detract from the learning experience of a historical movie. Instead, I found it can actually be a good teaching tool.

We've always been taught that "history repeats itself", my tired mantra, and it can sometimes be really good or really bad (mostly the latter). Hollywood also seems to repeat itself on this cycle, usually when in one summer one could watch only '80s remakes or sequels without an ounce of originality. But time and again, there comes a film, be it historical or not, that uses an obscene amount of clichés but still ends up being good. Why is this? For films covering history, it's actually quite clear-the clichés are what make the movie fun. Sad but true, no audience wants to watch a film that is completely accurate to the source. If someone made a shot for shot re-enactment of the Spanish Civil War, unless there were a lot of fighting scenes, no one would want to see it. The fact of the matter is that history can be boring, but Hollywood has the special ingredients needed to help make it more appealing to everyone, everywhere.

For instance, take the movie Waterloo. Made in the 1970s, it follows the life of Napoleon Bonaparte from his first exile to Elbe to the Battle at Waterloo to his crushing defeat at the hands of the British and the Prussians. In real life, the time period of all of these historical events covers years and years of decisions, which were mostly un-saturated with any character development. But in this movie, there are strained relationships, gory fighting, and emotional impacts that makes movies enjoyable. In fact, these tropes exist in all movies: there will always be the unlucky hero (Napoleon), the main villain (Britain), and enough side developments to fill you in on an entire world that you may not have even heard about before. What comes with these tropes are inaccuracies, sure; Napoleon was far from a hero, and I doubt that any non-famous locals had their names repeated endlessly as if they were a war veteran. But considering that the story of the Battle of Waterloo has now been shown to millions of people, it makes learning about it in class so much easier. Yes, the teachers will have to dispel the wrong details, but that's what you have to do normally, right? Use this interest in a historical movie to help teach your class even more. As for students, you can use your Internet skills to find out even more about this movie that you love, and how it was either completely butchered or done perfectly. Hell, even movies like Amadeus use clichés to make it better; would a person willingly watch a movie about Mozart and Salieri unless they were both completely insane?

In the end, I still had the notion that re-stylized tropes aren't good in some cases, but I also found that in others, it's completely necessary to keep people's attentions. Hollywood tells stories in giant and wonderful ways; they aren't bound by the history textbook. If you can learn something from them, learn that the next time you see a damsel in distress, you remember how real life would've been like.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

AP: Using Review Books to Study

As the AP exams for World and US History are coming ever closer, I've decided to create a new subject for blogs-"AP", where I'll post about my experiences with the two classes as well as ideas for students to make AP easier to understand and pass. I guarantee that with enough studying and preparation that you can get a 3 or higher, even without my help!

This leads us to today's topic. In AP World and APUSH, you always end up getting a very big and very imposing textbook; one that's always hard to carry around and whose writing seems to be that of a droning college professor (I'm looking at YOU, Bentley and Strayer!). When it comes time for normal testing and the AP exams themselves, many students become frustrated that they can't understand what they need to based on the textbooks alone. Add this to a teacher who hasn't taught AP well, or a history of bad grades, and many will either opt not to take the test or give up and get a 1 or 2. But what a lot of students don't realize is that there's a whole range of books to help prepare them for the exam, and they can all be found at a local bookstore. I'm talking, of course, of the AP Review books that have so enamored the AP students, including history, with their ease and effortlessness in condensing whole subjects into chapters.

AP Review books can either be your worst enemy or your greatest ally and tool. Students will sometimes take the fact that review books exist and only use them to study and for their homework. Well, this can work, but what if you have to write a paper using only the textbook? If you only use the review book, you'll find it will just be as difficult to understand the subject as without, only you'll just be remembering the core information with the former. That's all these books are, really-they help students learn about the core events of history by leaving out a lot of the other stuff. In fact, the APUSH review book I have says very little about WWII and the European/Pacific Theaters, but more about the role of the US at home. This can be good and bad; good if I understand what WWII is outside of the US, but bad if I only take the review book at face value. The writers of these reviews even say that textbooks are more important; if reviews were more important, they themselves would be the textbooks!

So, how do you use them? When studying for a test or exam, the review books come in handy quite a bit. Entire units that would be several chapters in the textbook would be, as I stated, shortened to fit one chapter. They cover all of the things that the College Board wants you to know on the subject, and will give their own little asides/tips on how to study. AT the end of each chapter, there's usually a practice test of 10 questions to see if you've retained the information; re-read the chapter if you score a 6 or lower. Above all else, there are also 2 full length exams in the book; you can take both of these in preparation for your exams in May, or take them apart from each other to see how well you would do at your current understanding of the history subject. Working together with the textbooks, these reviews do wonders; they'll be able to explain the hard-to-understand concepts and can provide another opinion from the author of the textbook. They really are great studying tools!

If you plan on getting a review book, there's many different publishers or options you can choose from. I personally recommend "5 Steps to a 5" and "The Princeton Review" for your choices; they both go in-depth in World and US History and the latter has entire chapters devoted to writing essays and how to study. Other brands, like Barron's, are also acceptable, but I never liked the layout of the information and the lack of many tips for studying. However, you are the master of your own fate; don't let a person on the Internet choose for you! As long as you use these reviews with your textbooks, you'll be fine in class, and as a nice tip, they work great when studying for normal tests as well! So get out there and get ready for Exams with review books!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Quick Tips: Taking Notes on a Video

We all hate when the teacher rolls out that 30 year old TV to the front of the class, sticks in a warped VHS, and forces us the watch 40 minutes of interviews with old people and black and white pictures. It's even worse when you have to take 20 notes of the whole video, and turn it in at the end of class. How could you possibly glean all of that information from one viewing? Well, as I've said often, work smarter, not harder: much like taking actual notes in class, focus on what it important and only that.

For instance, one of these note sheets will usually have an outline over what the teacher is looking for from viewing the video. This means that this information is what they WANT you to know; everything else must not be as important for your learning or else they would've put it on the sheet. All you need to do, then, is listen for key words from the questions, like this:

2. Who was President in 1933?
3. Why did the banks not give people their money?

The bolded parts of the questions are the key words, and they'll usually be said either by the narrator or the interviewees in the documentary at one point. If you miss an answer, move on; someone will have gotten it and you can get the answer from them, or search it on Google with what little time you have left. What's important is that you learn and record what the teacher is looking for, because that's what they want you to learn; everything else can be focused on at another time and place. All I know is, we've watched 5 of these things in APUSH and I'm starting to get tired of it!

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Teaching World History in Regular History

Truthfully, many of the post here on Historical Friction are based in American history. Being and American myself, it's hard to try and remember what I've learned outside of my own country's history. Thankfully AP World helped me learn more, but for many people, world history is foreign to them. They don't know what the Battle of Hastings is, or who Charles de Gaulle was. This is why world history should be necessary knowledge for everyone, everywhere, not just those in the US. As usual, it comes down to the teachers and what their curriculum requires, but in order for history to be better understood, it's their job to make it simple for even a kindergartner. Here are a few suggestions to help give your students the necessary knowledge of history without going outside of your teaching plan, even for those who are already world history teachers.

1. Provide Background Information

Non-World History: There are many countries in the world who share roles in historical events, some good and some bad. Because of this, their history course will often overlap each other, but at mention of other countries, many teachers won't even discuss what the contribution was; the home country always seems to get priority. This is evident in many American history classes when discussing the Revolutionary/Civil War, as England is either painted as the supreme tyrants or barely mentioned at all. So, the next time you teach a class on an international experience, go further. Reach outside of your bounds to the curriculum to teach the class about what other countries did that caused theirs to intervene. For instance, the US only entered WWI in 1917, a year before it ended. If a US History teacher only taught about America's involvement, it would seem as though our entry was the beginning of the end. Nowadays some teachers have gotten smarter, and will switch to a "World" history format for events like this; we focused on Europe and played the "WWI Game" in US History for a week before we got into the American part. It makes it not only more informative, but more eye-opening to how some things we once saw as a local effort were actually a global one.

World History: Provide more info on the eras you teach. Many times world history teachers will skip a subject or only glance at it if it puts them off schedule. Even if it takes the bulk of class, teach these kids about it. For those in the US, it will help them as they go into US History the following year, as many of those overlooked events (like the opening of Japan) had involvement from the States.

2. Be Internationalist

Non-World History: What I mean by this is, "Don't act like your region of history is the only thing important." What good is it to praise Brazilian history only to spit on Cuban history? I get it, you may have a favorite subject in history; we all do, even myself (the 1960's, man). Does that then give you the right to say it is the only "important " history? Tying back into the previous section, more than one country was in wars/crises/any historical event ever. It's almost akin to censorship by leaving out their role and idolizing yours. Basically, the idea of internationalism is a strong tie between international cultures, and it usually leads to the strengthening of alliances between them. By teaching the goods and bads of history equally, without bias, you can teach the students a lot more without straying to far from your lesson plan.

World History: Considering internationalism is a main term, you should already be doing this. Just do it MORE.

That's it. Yes, you only need two steps to help make the history of the world become a part of your students' learning, even if you aren't a world history teacher. Why is it so short? Because it's implied that as a teacher you're doing this already. My APUSH teacher, Mr. Benedict, will often go into the background of why the US is interacting with a certain country, and will admit when the US was in the wrong in history. That's not even required in his curriculum; he could only focus on the US and I'd be more knowledgeable of my own past, but intolerant of another's. So, world history helps teach tolerance. If we want to move forward as a society, we all have to learn it, and it's up to the teachers to guide us.

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Historical Figures: Saints or Sinners?

Christopher Columbus. Abraham Lincoln. Mohandas Gandhi. All of these men, plus thousands more across time, went into the history books and became immortalized. In history class, we often used to hear of the contributions to the subject these people created, and how their lasting impact is still felt today. But were historical figures really heroes? Were the enemies we learned of, like Genghis Khan and Kaiser Wilhelm, really as bad as they say? The problem with history is that it is always written by the "victor"-the group or groups that emerged in history above all the rest. There's an old saying that goes, "You never hear from the prospective of the prey," an incredibly blatant truth that many either choose to ignore or haven't heard of. Both students and teachers of history must understand that everyone, even those from antiquity, aren't perfect, and that it's only human to have some controversial view that others disagree with. However, when history was first being written down, this type of historical figure bias would completely write away the controversies of a "hero" and only focus on the ones of a "villain". It's important now that we be able to look past these inaccurate accounts of the heroes and villains, and see them for who they really are-people involved in things that would later on become significant.

To begin, we'll need a historical figure. Let's go with the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Nowadays, people know him as "Honest Abe" and the "Emancipator"; the leader of the US who won the Civil War and helped free the slaves and was martyred for it. He's on the $5 dollar bill and 1¢ coin, and most students learn of him as one of the greatest people of all time. Well, Abe was human, too-he had some viewpoints that would effectively rule him out of sainthood. For instance, if you researched into his background, you'd see that he never mentioned getting rid of slavery until his Presidential run; his stints in the Illinois senate and US House never brought up the American issue to history's knowledge. Even when he ran for office, it was the Republican Party, his ticket, who said their mission was to end slavery; when Lincoln was elected and the Confederacy formed, he stated that if he "could win the (Civil) war without freeing a single slave , (he) would do it." Already you can see that his sainthood seems to come from the fact that he authored the Emancipation Proclamation (freeing slaves in the Confederacy, not in the Union, which the Southerners didn't have to follow) and was assassinated by an actor who desperately wanted the South to rise again.
On the other spectrum, General Robert E. Lee was the leader of the Confederate forces; a man so despised by the Union that Arlington Cemetery was built in his front yard. But did you know he was Lincoln's first choice for Union commander? Lee turned him down and left because his home state, Virginia, entered the Confederacy, and he was loyal to home first. In fact, Washington and Lee University is even named after the man, and most historians acknowledge that he was one of the best military commanders of his time. Yet it's still taught that because he was an enemy that he was also a bad guy.

Can you see where this is going? Some historical figures end up having good and bad traits, but depending on which side is telling the story, either one or the other is fully shown. There were obviously good traits to Lincoln (morality) and bad traits to Lee (slave owner), but because the Union won, its only these traits that are taught in history class. Here are a few more examples of historical figures and what history sometimes fails to tell us.

• Genghis Khan: Interconnected Europe, the Middle East, and Asia while simultaneously diffusing culture.
• Henry Ford: Extremely racist and favored the Nazi Party; received medal from them for helping with German production in the 1930's.
• John F. Kennedy: Philanderer and stubborn; planned to make a so-called "Kennedy Dynasty" of Presidents with his brothers Bobby and Ted.
• Oliver Cromwell: Overthrew the King because he ruled an absolute monarchy; tried making English society more equal and just.
• King George III: He was only doing what seemed justifiable to do to revolting colonies; Britain was broke and taxes were raised to help fix the economy. The US does this today without revolt.
• Adolf Hitler: The only exception to this rule; was an all-around horrible person even though he was an okay painter.

Judging the actions of historical figures is necessary when choosing what to teach or discuss about them; were they heroes or villains at the time, but over time have switched? It's not as easy as choosing the good and going from there, because it leads to inaccuracies in historical fact, and could make an idol out of a devil or vice versa. Basically, it's not black and white-no one is inherently good or inherently bad (except Hitler). When learning about historical figures, try focusing on the whole picture rather than a part.

As singer Billy Joel serenaded, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints."

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep

Quick Tips: Keeping Students Awake

It can be hard to stay awake in history class. Outside of other classes, as students's life can be hard to handle, and sleep may be on the lower echelon of importance. So, if you see a student beginning to nod off in class, there's an easy solution for you to keep them up and at 'em!

When people become sleepy, it may be due to a lack of sleep or a lack of sound, or both. Oftentimes it's very hard to pay attention and stay awake, so it's up to the teacher to do two things: Speak Louder and Keep the Student Awake. For the former, this is explained in the very first post on this blog; you can find it in the HF archives. For the latter, what I want you to do is just find the sleepy student, and keep them awake as much as possible; this can included asking them questions, forcing them to move around by coming up to the board to answer a question, or just downright embarrassing them in front of their peers. In all of these cases, the student will be forced awake enough that they won't nod off again (and for the last, they'll be too embarrassed to do so). If multiple students are going to sleep, I'd check your lesson plan to make sure it isn't droning, but you can kill two birds with one stone by pointing them all out to the class at the same time. Basically, you're the teacher; if they sleep, they're getting embarrassed. I guarantee that this'll work; I once nodded off in German, and after Frau Ross made me do 10 pushups in front of the class, I didn't fall asleep again! I also blushed really badly! So, go for it! RUIN THEIR LIVES TO TEACH THEM HISTORY!

(Don't actually ruin them, but make sure they're learning what they need to)

-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep