Response to The Differences Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two American Communities
This week I was assigned to read over this project entitled The Differences Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two American Communities by William G. Thomas III and Edward L. Ayers. While the article provides fascinating insight into a variety of aspects causing the division of North and South in the American Civil War, what I find perhaps the most fascinating is the section on how the pair decided to present their data. Though I was pleasantly surprised to see the familiar name of Vannevar Bush (which you may remember from this post), I was even more overjoyed to have the chance to look into the thought process of digital historians when it comes to the actual digitization process. As a student delving deeper and deeper into the realm of hands on digitization every week, this sort of a “behind the scenes” look into such an interesting project is absolutely invaluable.
Among the most important information I found for my own future reference as I embark on my own project is their reference to the work of Janet Murray who points to the following four aspects as those which computers emphasize the most:
- spacial
- participatory
- procedural
- encyclopedic
In my case, as well as in the case of this project, the spacial aspect refers to how data and relevant information can stand behind, around, near, in, on top of, or just about any preposition you can image in relation to my main point. This allows for comparison, analysis, and individual exploration in a way difficult to duplicate in the analog word. Looking forward to my next planned post (a historical map), this can come in the form of historical context information that is helpful to have, although not absolutely vital, when examining the map off to the side, allowing for quick reference without much scrolling. Another possibility, which I employed in last week’s map post, is possibly including information with the pins taking advantage of the ability to put relevant information right on top of the item I’m referring to.
The second aspect, participatory, is what I would say is the greatest advantage in digital history projects since it marks one of the biggest differences between history in its digital and analog forms. In the case of this project, readers are given a variety of options to choose from when analyzing the map or even reading through the additional material, making it a truly self guided journey through history. While I aspire to eventually have the knowledge and skill to create the breadth of options used in this project, for projects in the near future I know that it is key to still have some level of participation involved outside of simply scrolling and viewing in order to make best use of the technology I have at my disposal. Particularly, I would think it wise to also employ some features surprisingly not at play in my observation of this project, including the ability to zoom and the potential use of pinpoints to give very location specific information – not to mention the potential to toggle on and off various map layers.
The red arrows (links to more in depth information) fulfill both the encyclopedic and participatory aspects of computer work that sets it apart from its analog counterparts.
As far as the procedural aspect, this project does a good job of providing several layers of information giving several steps in order to get the whole story. Each layer involves more and more in depth analysis, starting with general information and then breaking it down to highly specific, well supported points. For my purposes, adding data onto the map and using hyperlinks to allow readers to navigate through data and research will be key to incorporating this element into my work. This leads into the encyclopedic element, which in this project lies in its links and inclusion of a massive amount of supportive evidence. For my purposes, it will also take a similar form – taking advantage of the fact that digital media does not cost much to expand yet reprinting of journals certainly can.
Overall, this project is a good example for a new digital historian to learn the ins and outs of the trade. It both provides a final product and what makes it particularly suited for the web versus print media – a very important factor in making best use of your work. By maximizing the four traits that set digital work apart from analog work, the end result is a highly valuable historic resource. Ideally, over the remainder of this semester I will incorporate all that I have learned here as well as have come up with my own innovative ways (in the true spirit of digital history) to make my work “work” for others.
Leave a Reply