HIS 220 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

Overview

The final project for this course is the creation of an analysis paper and modified annotated bibliography. The final product represents an authentic demonstration of competency because historians have to analyze historical events from different perspectives using appropriate primary and secondary resources. After selecting an event from the provided list, you will review the event from the perspective of two countries and then create a comparative analysis of these two perspectives.

In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes:

• Explain the role of key events in twentieth-century Europe in defining European identity from various perspectives
• Analyze engines of change in twentieth-century Europe for their implications to the world through appropriate use of primary and secondary sources
• Integrate appropriate resources on twentieth-century Europe into narratives that credibly support specific perspectives on a historical issue
• Compare alternate perspectives on events of twentieth-century Europe by analyzing appropriate primary and secondary sources

Prompt

The final project requires you to first examine and explain a particular historical event from the perspective of two different European countries. You will consider the engines of change and motives that led each country to this event and determined the path they took through it. You will also consider what that country would have perceived to be the positive and negative effects of that event. You may find that both countries experienced the event similarly; for example, they may have had similar motives leading up to the event, or perceived similar positive or negative effects from it. Or, you may find that these differ widely between one country and the other. Drawing either conclusion is okay as long as you are able to successfully support it with evidence from your research.

After analyzing each individual country’s perspective on the event in question, you will write a comparative analysis that strives to examine the event objectively and considers the validity, accuracy, and biases inherent in the individual perspective of either country. This third section of your paper will rely heavily on the primary and secondary sources you will have used in your research to identify each author’s possible biases or inaccuracies, and to analyze how this impacts the way that we, as historians, understand and interpret history.

Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

1. Introduction: The introduction to your historical analysis will identify the event you have chosen, including basic information defining the event (such as where and when it took place) and the two countries whose perspectives on that event you plan to analyze. The introduction will also introduce your thesis statement, which is your central argument for the paper.
1. Describe the historical event from twentieth-century Europe you have selected to study. Include the basic context for the event:
1. Where and when it took place
2. A brief explanation of what happened
3. Who was involved
2. Create a thesis statement that includes how this key event impacted the two countries involved.
2. First Perspective on the Event: In this section, you will write a brief history and analysis of the event from one country’s perspective. Address these specific areas in this section about the first perspective you will explore:
1. Explain how the event was experienced or perceived by the people in this first country.
2. Describe the engines of change in or related to this country that caused the event to happen the way it did.
3. Summarize the country’s motives for the decisions made or actions taken related to this event.
4. Describe the positive or negative effects the event triggered in this first country.
3. Second Perspective on the Event: In this section, you will write a brief history and analysis of the same event, but from the perspective of a different country that may have perceived events quite differently. Address these specific areas in this section about the second perspective you will explore:
1. Explain how the event was experienced or perceived by the people in this second country.
2. Describe the engines of change in or related to this country that caused the event to happen the way it did.
3. Summarize the country’s motives for the decisions made or actions taken related to this event.
4. Describe the positive or negative effects the event triggered in this first country.
4. Comparison of Narratives: This section provides an analysis of how best to understand this event in history, based on the primary and secondary resources you have studied. Use your primary sources in particular to analyze these two perspectives on the event in question. Your analysis must include the following:
1. Compare how the objective facts are represented differently by the opposing perspectives.
2. Identify biases present in each of the perspectives.
3. Explain how cultural norms, values, assumptions and histories created the biases observed in each perspective.
4. Identify information about the event that is still needed in order to develop a clear, unbiased record of this event.
5. Conclusion: In this final section of your paper, restate your thesis statement to summarize the paper’s main findings and arguments. Additionally, this section must include the following:
1. Explain the historical significance of this event in defining Europe or the rest of the world.
2. Explain the impact this event and the opposing perspectives on it continue to inform modern events and attitudes.
6. Modified Annotated Bibliography: Prior to writing the analysis paper, you will gather primary and secondary sources and explain the value these sources have when analyzing the event or issue from multiple perspectives. In your annotated bibliography, be sure to address the following critical elements for each resource:
1. Explain how each resource supports perspectives of an event from twentieth-century Europe. Include whether each source is primary or secondary.
2. Analyze the origins and context for each source to identify potential biases in its perspective on the topic.
3. Analyze resources for their utility and validity as a research tool supporting opposing perspectives of an event or issue from twentieth-century Europe.

1.      INTRODUCTION

a.      
TOPIC: Bosnian War (1992-1995)

b.     
COUNTRIES INVOLVED: (1) Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina (Bosniaks) and (2) Republika Srpska (Serbs)

c.      
THESIS STATEMENT: Exploring the 1992-1995
Bosnian War, this paper delves into the root causes, international
interventions, and lasting impact, shedding light on the devastating European conflict.

2.      FIRST
PERSPECTIVE ON THE EVENT: Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosniaks)

a.      
 The
war was a harrowing experience for the Bosniaks, marked by widespread ethnic
cleansing and brutal atrocities. Bosniaks, primarily Muslims, faced targeted
violence and displacement as Serbian and Croatian forces sought to carve
ethnically homogeneous territories. The Siege of Sarajevo, where the capital
endured a prolonged blockade, symbolized the suffering endured by the Bosniaks.
The war left an indelible impact on the Bosniak community, with scars of loss,
trauma, and a quest for justice lasting beyond the conflict’s conclusion.

b.     
ENGINES OF CHANGE

                   
i.           
Deep-rooted ethnic tensions

                 
ii.           
Political fragmentation and power
struggles

c.      
MOTIVES

                   
i.           
Nationalistic fervor

                 
ii.           
Desire for territorial control

d.     
POSSIBLE POSITIVE AND/OR NEGATIVE EFFECTS

                   
i.           
Mass displacement of populations

                 
ii.           
Ethnically divided regions

3.      SECOND
PERSPECTIVE ON THE EVENT: Serbia

a.      
For Serbs the war was perceived through
the lens of historical ties and a desire to protect the rights of ethnic Serbs
in Bosnia. The conflict saw active Serbian military involvement, justified as
defense of Serb populations. Croatian perspectives were shaped by a mix of
nationalist aspirations and concerns about the fate of Croats in Bosnia. The
war for Croatians was part of a broader struggle for influence in the region.
Both Serbian and Croatian perceptions highlight the complexity of the conflict,
where historic, and ethnic factors played integral roles.

b.     
ENGINES OF CHANGE

                   
i.           
Nationalistic ideology

                 
ii.           
Historical connection to ethnic Serbs in
Bosnia

c.      
MOTIVES

                   
i.           
Geopolitical interests

                 
ii.           
Preservation of Serbian influence

               
iii.           
Longstanding ethnic rivalries/hatreds

d.     
POSSIBLE EFFECTS

                   
i.           
Controversial role in the conflict

                 
ii.           
Commission of war crimes and atrocities

               
iii.           
International condemnation of atrocities

4.      COMPARISON
OF NARRATIVES

a.      
OBJECTIVE FACTS AND OUTCOMES

                   
i.           
Varying interpretations of events, e.g. modern-day
efforts to clear the name of Slobodan Milosevic

                 
ii.           
Differing portrayals of responsibility

               
iii.           
Long history of ethnic tension in the region
still colors modern politics

               
iv.           
Results of international interventions

b.     
BIASES

                   
i.           
Serbian perspective focuses on protection of
Serbian peoples

                 
ii.           
Bosnian perspective emphasizes victimhood
at the hands of the Serbs

c.      
REASONS FOR BIAS

                   
i.           
Cultural and historical context

                 
ii.           
Nationalistic narratives

               
iii.           
Ethnic homogeneity

d.     
INFORMATION GAPS

                   
i.           
Comprehensive examination of war crimes

5.      CONCLUSION

a.      
Reiterate/highlight the divergent
perspectives perceived by each side of the conflict

b.     
Emphasize the impact on regional stability
of the Dayton agreement; immediate cessation of hostilities, power sharing for
ethnic groups, but establishment of entrenched ethnic lines throughout the new Federation
of Bosnia/Herzegovina

c.      
Address the lasting effect of the war on
the Balkans; legacy of war crimes and trauma impacting the lives of survivors, and
the destruction of infrastructure and economies

d.     
Reflect on the implications for
international intervention in conflicts – both successes and challenges; the
delayed response of international organizations; highlight the Dayton agreement
as an example of how diplomatic intervention can succeed

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCE ONE:

United Nations, Dayton
Agreement, 11/21/1995, https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/BA_951121_DaytonAgreement.pdf

PRIMARY SOURCE TWO:

Time Magazine, Interview
of Slobadan Milosevic to Time Magazine, 1995

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/int-time95.htm

SECONDARY SOURCE ONE:

Louis Sell, Slobodan
Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, 2002

SECONDARY SOURCE TWO:

Anthony Lloyd, My War
Gone By I Miss It So, 1999