PORTFOLIO; Final Exam

"Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that[...] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means the history of the present." This theory written by Michel Foucault relates to my history and writing courses this quarter. In simpler terms, I believe Foucault is saying this; We do not focus on past history because we are interested in it, we only focus on the conflicts of the past, because of the ways in which it it is currently influencing our world. We should not focus so much on the earlier times, considering we can not change the past. Instead, we should do is concentrate on the present, and take a look at the choices we are making now, for those choices will greatly affect our future.

This theory relates well to my own observation of history throughout the course this year. I have learned so much about the ways in which history repeats itself, and how, rather than focusing on the present, a lot of times in history, society focused more on the fact that things could end up the way they used to be. A demonstration of this type of behavior comes from the state of Rhode Island during the time of the debate over the ratification of the constitution. The majority of the population in Rhode Island sided with the antifederalist point of view. A major reason they did not wish to ratify was because they believed that the nation could experience a downfall due to the fear of the proposed centralized government becoming in a sense, a tyranny. The antifederalists thought of the possibility of this happening only because of what had occured in the past, when the British had almost complete control over the colonies. And although they had an idea of what the constitution would present to America, it would have been wise for Rhode Island to hear opposing points of view from the federalist side. Considering the fact that Rhode Island sent no delegates to the first constitutional convention, I expect that this would have given them, as well as other antifederalist states a different perspective on the matter.

When it comes to Foucault's opening question ("Why consider history?"), I feel as if there are many reasons to be schooled on the topic of historical development. I do agree with Foucault and how he is saying that we should focus on the present, in order to assist in creating a finer future. If we focus on doing things correctly in our generation, and not on what the people of past generations did incorrectly, we can begin to create a more positive future for ourselves, and generations to come.

In my opinion, this way of thinking helped me in history this quarter. When I think about happenings in the past, I see how things that went on back then affect us greatly now. I feel the need to focus deeper on today's society, and how what we are doing in my lifetime will affect people hundreds of years from now.

When it comes to the answering of Foucault's main question, I don't think my learning would have been the same with a different answer other than my own opinion. Considering, I had never read his theory before now, I don't really see how the question could be answered any differently than what I have written today. I guess there are different opinions on the matter, but I have always known to concentrate on how and in what ways the past affected the future, therefore, yes, my personal answer to the question did affect my learning in class.