Subjecting History

That is great to know – thanks!

It’s interesting that Cowboy was based quite heavily on a South Vietnamese soldier that Dan Ford knew in his days as a war correspondent in 1964 during the US involvement in the long war there; they even kept the name he was generally known by and Ford had used in the book. I ran across another Vietnam vet’s accounts of his time in a slightly later period in which a Vietnamese soldier named Cowboy appears often, and I thought to recognize him. I had met Ford online in an unrelated matter, but remembered the book from college and the film, and sent him  note about it. He corresponded with the other vet, and then replied to me that yes, it was the same Cowboy, a very savvy soldier, and a survivor. I’ve often wondered how much was Cowboy and how much was fiction, but it could be a combination of incidents Ford had seen or heard about. An interesting side study is his later collection of stories and war reports “The  Only War We’ve Got: Early Days in South Vietnam”, which brings a  little more focus to his intentions regarding his thinking when writing the much more complex “Incident at Muc Wa”, the book this film is based on.

I hope so!  I agree that there is a different dynamic — particularly in government-funded/endorsed sites like Independence Hall v. independently-motivated actors as well as between politically and religiously committed communities.

I came across a book recently (David Yount’s How the Quakers Invented America) that seems indicative of a trend I have noticed among some Friends to attempt to intertwine their story with the nation’s.

point #1: Yes, absolutely.  The ‘unfinished Revolution’ also implies that the ‘founding fathers’ had this ‘more perfect idea’ already in mind and that we will eventually realize this vision.

point #2: Yes, I agree.  It’s the teleology fallacy of the nation — all stories are subsumed into the progressive narrative of the nation.

Thanks!  I’m looking forward to reading it.

Almost ten years later, I’m still not sure whether or not it was useful to engage the interpreter that day.  She was no doubt excellent at her core job: engaging visitors who may or may not have been interested in her story.  (She was also, almost certainly) overworked and underpaid.  But I was frustrated at the time, not even so much by her viewpoint – smart people can disagree! and I wasn’t trying to suggest that I knew more than her – but with the unquestioning way that visitors to museums (and readers of history monographs) passively accept the information as presented.  Ideally, there would be an opportunity for dialogue, a chance to ask the interpreters/authors what led them to adopt and advance a particular historical argument.  There are, of course, opportunities to ask questions of museum guides, but rarely does the public question the perspective of their guides.  I think it can be a useful intervention, but I do worry I was just another know-it-all (read: know-nothing) historian as well as a rude guest!

This link made me think of the practice of ‘guerrilla history’ — placing revealing-but-unexpected objects that interrupts a visitor’s experience and tell a larger truth about the exhibit in question.

I think Fante Confederation’s failure can be collectively alluded as due to betraying of British people,their ally Salmon and also mostly because of lack of unity amongst Fante people.They failed to urge people,motivate them to join hands in their rebellious movement.Their war against Elmina and Dutch too didn’t succeed and as a result, the Fante confederation got defeated by themselves.The fell miserably in creating a concrete leadership.

I am a postgraduate student of History in the University of Riga, Latvia  and presently working for an assignment on ’History of Ghana’.Fante people and fante confederation constitute very vital role in the history of Ghana.When Portuguese embarked on Ghana island in the 15th century, the Fante stopped them from intruding inland. But when the Portuguese refused to Fante rules and regulations the Fante banished them. Thereafter the Dutch,English and later British arrived. The Fante served as the mediators in the trading between the residents and British and Dutch traders on the coast.This post has given detailed description on the facts regarding  Fante people and their confederation.I am going to use some of the content.

of this post in my assignment.