Were the 1920s an Era of Social and Cultural Rebellion:
You are going to be taking on the persona of a historian in this paper. For our purposes, we are going to pretend we are at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association on a panel discussion concerning the 1920s. You will represent one of the two historical points of view and you will argue with the other “historian” that your ideas are better than the other viewpoint.
Step by step guide for this paper:
1. Read the entire assignment (Issue 9 in the Taking Sides Book, pages 203-226) so you know what is expected of you as you read through everything
2. Pick one of the historians (either Ostrander or Shannon) that you want to represent. The other will be your opponent.
The Assignment:
Your paper will be a way to prepare you for taking on your role as the historian that you are representing. In this paper, you should do two things.
First, summarize the argument of your particular author in one or two paragraphs. This should be concise—you are going to be using this to briefly state your position. Be clear about exactly how your historian would answer the central question of this reading: Were the 1920s an Era of Social and Cultural Rebellion?
The second part of your paper should be a point by point attack against the other historian’s argument. Thus, you need to fully understand how each historian is creating their argument. For instance, if you chose to be Shannon, then the second section of your paper will be an attempt to prove that the other author, Ostrander, provides an understanding of the time period that is not as complete or not “correct.” In a sense, since you are taking on the identity of Shannon, you are going to be challenging the other author with your (meaning Shannon’s) own ideas. You NEED TO SHOW that you can identify the other historian’s argument and use your own ideas to counter her ideas. This should be roughly a page long and not only showcase that you have understood the other readings’ argument but that you can connect your historian’s argument with it.