Part 1: My First HTML

My First Heading

My first paragraph.

See below how I input the HTML directly in my WordPress Blog:

Part 2: Answering Copyright Questions

1. Who owns the past? This question does not have a simple answer. The past is not owned by just one specific person, place, or thing. The past owned by many different people from many different places. The answer to this question entirely depends on what part of the past you are looking to find ownership of? The past of newspaper? That is a question you could probably narrow down . The past of modern-day America? That would arguably be owned by Native Americans, but then again, who came before them? Do we credit the past to the person with the largest influence on the modern day version of what we are considering, or do we credit the first person there is written or oral history about? Anyways, basically, this question has no simple answer. To me, the past is owned by people we may never know the names of, or the dinosaurs, or whatever higher being you choose to believe in. It belongs to everyone and no one.

Which level of copyright/open access have you selected for your website?

For my website, I have chosen to use Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

What copyrights and licenses have been assigned to the sources you’ve used so far in this class? (Go back and look.)

For my primary sources, all of the sources appear to be public domain.

1. A publication: no statement of rights on this source, but as defined by Gale’s Terms of Use, “For your personal, internal research and educational purposes only, provided such use does not violate the Terms, and there are no restrictions prohibiting such use,”
2. A book: “public domain and are free to use and reuse.”
3. A newspaper article : no statement of rights on this source, but as defined by the Understanding Copyright Page on LOC, since this source is over 95 years old (published 1897), it is under public domain.
4. A clipping: “public domain under the laws of the United States.”
5. An illustration: “No known restrictions on publication.”

For my secondary sources, the sources appear public domain, though I could not identify the copyright of one.

1. A review: The copyright listed on this source is “Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2017”
2. A book: According to ProQuest’s statement on the source page, “your institution has unlimited access to this book”.
3. A book: I could not find a copyright notice anywhere on this source as I am only looking at the information about this book, not the book itself.

What type of creative commons (or public domain) do you plan to select for your final project? Why?

While I am not sure exactly what type of creative commons I plan to use for my final project, I am thinking of using the same Creative Commons I have for my website, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). I like this creative commons because it requires users to give appropriate credit and indicate if they change anything, but it cannot be used commercially and if it is remixed, it must be kept under the same license as my original project. This feels as if it protects my project while still allowing people to learn from it and use it for their own work. Below is the statement regarding this license by Creative Commons.

What potential limitations will you encounter for your final project?

After learning about the different types of licenses online, one of the biggest potential limitations I feel I will encounter for my final project is finding reliable sources that will allow me to use their content on my website. Specifically in regard to images and clips from newspaper articles. A key part of my project will be an interactive timeline with primary sources about Victoria Woodhull. I will need to find images, illustrations and clippings that will allow me to use them on my website for the timeline to really take shape like I imagine for it.

The first step in locating sources for my digital history project was refining my topic. Although we worked on narrowing our thesis in class and I felt at the time that I had a solid topic to start researching, I was overwhelmed with how many different sources I found about Women running for the U.S. Presidency. The number of different sources on different women candidates of the past was extensive.

I decided to narrow down my thesis even further by changing it to “Victoria Woodhull was not just the first female candidate for the U.S. Presidency, but a catalyst for the feminist movement in American politics”. This drastically changed my search results and helped me to find a wealth of primary and secondary sources.

By using the links provided for us in Week 5 ,

I searched for “Victoria Woodhull” and Victoria Woodhull presidency” and found a number of useful sources from a variety of different collections.

For my primary sources, I used Gale Primary Sources Nineteenth Century Collections Online, Library of Congress, Chronicling America, and The NYPL Digital Collections. I chose these five:

1. A publication by Victoria Woodhull herself called “The Origin, Tendencies and Principles of Government”. It was published in her weekly reader the same year she ran for office, 1872.
2. A book written by Theodore Tilton that provides a “biographical sketch” of Victoria Woodhull in Number 3 of The Golden Age Tracts. It was published in 1871 and discusses Victoria Woodhull’s battle to become a candidate for the presidency.
3. A newspaper article in The Advocate and news, a paper from Topeka Kansas from 1897 that discusses the recent life of Victoria Woodhull.
4. A clipping of “Mrs. Woodhull asserting her right to vote” from 1870-1875.
5. An illustration from an illustrated newspaper that depicts “a lady delegate reading her argument in favor of woman’s voting”, the woman is known to be Victoria Woodhull. It is dated 1870.

Citations:

The Advocate and news. [volume] (Topeka, Kan.), 15 Dec. 1897. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. 

The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Print Collection, The New York Public Library. “Mrs. Woodhull asserting her right to vote” The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1870 – 1875. 

Tilton, Theodore. The Golden age tracts. New York, The Golden Age, 1871. Pdf. Lib. of Congress

Washington, D.C. The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives receiving a deputation of female suffragists, January 11th – a lady delegate reading her argument in favor of woman’s voting, on the basis of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Constitutional Amendments. United States, 1871. Photograph. 

Woodhull, Victoria. “The Origin, Tendencies and Principles of Government.” Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly 4, no. 8 (1872).

---

For my secondary sources, I used the sources ProQuest Ebook Central, Cambridge University Press, and George Mason University Libraries. I chose the following as my three sources:

1. A review by Mary A. Yeager of Ellen Fitzpatricks book “The Highest Glass Ceilings: Women’s Quest for the American Presidency”.
2. A book by Teri Finneman called “Press Portrayals of Women Politicians, 1870s–2000s : From “Lunatic” Woodhull to “Polarizing” Palin”.
3. A book by Lois Beachy Underhill called “The Woman Who Ran for President : the Many Lives of Victoria Woodhull“.

Citations:

Finneman , Teri. 2015. Press Portrayals of Women Politicians, 1870s–2000s : From “Lunatic” Woodhull to “Polarizing” Palin. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Accessed March 1, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Underhill, Lois Beachy. The Woman Who Ran for President : the Many Lives of Victoria Woodhull 1st ed. Bridgehampton, N.Y: Bridge Works Pub., 1995.

Yeager, Mary A. 2017. “Ellen Fitzpatrick, The Highest Glass Ceiling: Women’s Quest for the American Presidency.” Business History Review 91 (4). Cambridge University Press: 809–13. doi:10.1017/S0007680517001349.

---

For my image, I used an illustration by Thomas Nast of Victoria Woodhull depicted as “Mrs. Satan”. It was sourced from Library of Congress.

Click this link to interact with the Thinglink version of the image: https://www.thinglink.com/scene/1423189360387293186

Citation:

Nast, Thomas, Artist. “Get thee behind me, Mrs. Satan!” / Th. Nast. United States, 1872. Photograph.

---

Reading and examining these sources allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of Victoria Woodhull, not only as a the first woman to run for the U.S. Presidency, but as a deeply motivated and interesting woman both in and out of politics. This helped me to realize that focusing on the life and legacy of the first female candidate, instead of multiple female candidates will be a much more interesting and informative project. I also realized that finding relevant and useful primary sources online can be a little more difficult than secondary sources, but with a little digging, some really interesting and valuable sources can emerge. I hadn’t realized that Victoria Woodhull was a woman of so many firsts for her gender, and that could be an interesting perspective to approach her life and legacy as the first female presidential candidate.

Going forward, I want to further investigate the logistics of her path to candidacy and her campaign, as well as the other “firsts” of hers that may have been the guiding influences or motivation for a woman to want to run for president when women were at least 50 years away from even gaining the right to vote. For my next source adventure, I think I will focus on narrowing down my search parameters, and using the sources that seemed most fruitful this go-around to try to dig up more information.

I can humbly admit that one of the worst vices I have as a college student is being a raging Procrastinator.

Despite the pitfalls of pushing assignments to the last minute, there are some benefits that have allowed me to perfect my skills as a student, particularly in regard to researching for class assignments and projects. When I have a large assignment due that I’ve put off for days or weeks, I know I’ve got to buckle down and find the most efficient way to gather reliable data on my topic. This means, I won’t just go to Wikipedia and type in my subject.

Instead, I like to try and use common search engines, my personal go-to is Google, as a jumping-off point to learn more about my topic, find relevant news articles, possible university articles or data such as maps, graphs, and reputable websites.

Below, is an example of what I would enter into a search engine for my current HIST390 project.

From here, I am given a wealth of information about my topic. More specifically, “About 1,100,000,000 results (0.69 seconds)” as Google states.

The reason I like to use a common search engine for the first stage of my research is to gain a better understanding for myself on what direction I would like my project to go in. In using a search engine with a wide range of search results, I am better able to explore my topic and gain an understanding of what I envision for the project’s end result.

In this case, I have envisioned an interactive timeline of notable women in American politics. The idea in my head is very broad, and I do not have a deep understanding yet of how I want to accomplish this, let alone have the legitimate data to support the project.

By using a search engine I am comfortable with first, I form a clearer picture in my mind of what I am looking to accomplish. For example, the first result comes from Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics. This is a very reputable source, and displays facts on a timeline similarly to what I envision for my project.

This gave me a better understanding of what I would like to do for my project, and allows me to brainstorm how I would like to improve upon what I’ve seen.

Typically, I spend about thirty minutes gathering information this way, through simple Google searches and mindless clicking on anything that looks reasonable reliable (mainly something with an .edu and certain .org sites). I collect these websites and a small snippet of text, a quote, screenshots or somethings just links that I’ve found on a Pages (Apple version of Microsoft Word) to make sure I don’t loose track of anything I found useful.

Next, I move on to the more reliable sources of information. In this case, I am using the George Mason University Libraries website. This website has many useful sources that I am confident are more reliable to cite in my project than what Google has to offer. I use the same search parameters to start as I do on Google to see what I find, and then will dive deeper into specific names, dates, and subjects later.

Naturally, there are far fewer search results (before I specify what types of results I do and do not want) here, 1,520,389 Results to be exact, than Google, which raked in over a billion. I try to narrow my search results to include, due to COVID-times in particular, sources available online. Since this is a resource connected to the libraries at George Mason, I try to avoid sources that are only available in hard-copy books I would need to go pick up. I also ensure any journals are peer-reviewed and that these sources are open access, for good measure.

This helps me to gather information more quickly and lessens the search results to 47,716 results, just as a jumping-off point.

Once I have gathered up as many sources as I think are relevant and picked apart the pieces I want to use for my project, I begin to piece it all together. Projects for me are like puzzles, and once I have all the pieces laid out in an organized fashion in front of me, I am able to complete things relatively quickly. This drive to get things done efficiently once I have the information gathered is definitely a byproduct of my intense procrastination.

While I do feel I produce work that represents my abilities well, I think if I could change an aspect of my personal process, it would definitely be to give myself significantly more time to at least research my topics. Having more time to gather information would not only help me feel calmer when it comes time to put the final project together, but I know I would get higher marks on assignments as I would have more time to review what I have created rather than rushing to get something turned in by a deadline.

Unfortunately, myself and 11:59pm (on the night an assignment is due) have grown to know each other far too well both during my latter high school and college careers. This is a toxic relationship I am looking forward to someday learning to distance myself from. We’ll see…

In class, we were asked to review websites from a list in order to identify how they portray digital history. We examined Visualizing Emancipation, The Spread of U.S. Slavery, 1790-1860, and Virginia Secession Convention.

While all three websites conveyed information about slavery in the United States, each one used a different format to display its content. One of the websites that particularly caught my focus was Visualizing Emancipation. While I found the overall layout of one long, scrolling home page to be tiresome, I really appreciated the simple aesthetic of the website overall. I also found the mixture of maps, graphs and statistics with classic textual information really compelling.

Below, are three examples of the website’s use of mixed media and simple, reader-friendly textual information:

• 

• 

• 

This would be a great model to base my own work in the class because my project is going to also be based on a collection of historical data and information.

To further understand this website, I consulted the Organization of American Historian’s guidelines. It provided me with a deeper understanding of this website, and allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the type of project I am looking to create.

Based on the different categories of genre listed in the guidelines, it is clear Visualizing Emancipation is primarily, both a Digital Narrative as well as a Teaching Resource. As stated on the website, it “organizes documentary evidence about when, where, and how slavery fell apart during the American Civil War ” and “shows how emancipation occurred unevenly across the South, beginning before the first major battles and ending after the end of the Confederacy”.

In addition to categorizing the different genres of digital history projects, the Organization of American Historian’s guidelines also notes the five areas most reviews will address.

The first, content, asks if the scholarship is sound and current, how well it is communicated, and to identify the point of view. The ‘About’ section of Visualizing Emancipation identifies the scholarship of the project by stating funding by a “We the People grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities“. (figure 1.a) While sound, this scholarship is not current, as the website states on the top of the ‘Home’ page that a “New Version” is currently being worked on by the University of Richmond, the producer of the original site. (figure 1.b)

The next area, design, first asks if the website’s layout clearly communicates what is found on the site. We also look to see if there is a clear, effective, and original design. The highlight of this website’s design is the clear communication of its topic, as the opening text box clearly states the purpose of the site and what is to be expected while viewing. The design of this website is very simple, aesthetically pleasing, and clear. This makes it very effective.

Next, it is asked if the structure makes it easy for users to navigate and if all the sections function as expected. The structure of the website appears as one fluid page of content, but their is an easy-to-navigate and working ‘Menu’ in the header that also scrolls with the page. (figure 2.a) Most of the mixed media is not interactive, and is easy to save or share independently, and the ‘Animations’ posted on the website are simple to interact with. (figure 2.b)

Finally, we look to see if the website is accessible, to people of all abilities, as well as to all devices. The website’s font can be increased manually via the user’s personal computer, but the website does not posses any special features to simplify the website viewing experience for anyone with sight or hearing disabilities. The font is fairly small and the ‘Animations’, while they do not have any sound, do not indicate they are soundless or provide a Closed Captions option to clarify this. In terms of devices, the website is mobile-friendly but the layout could be improved as the text is much more scrunched together (figure 2.c) and the ‘Animations’ do not display with the maps in the icon, rather they appear black until clicked. (figure 2.d) I did however like how the menu could be clicked in the righthand corner and enlarged versus being listed out in the header, this made it easier to select a section to auto-scroll to.

• 

• 

• 

The next area is audience: is the project clearly directed at anyone and how well does it address that audience’s needs. The introduction makes the audience of this project clear by stating it is for scholars, students and the public’s examination of slavery’s wartime end. It addresses the needs of these audiences well by including a wealth of scholarly information that could be applied to a variety of fields of research or various needs.

Then comes the question of digital media: is digital media and new technology used effectively, and does it do something that could not be done in other media—print, exhibition, film? The use of digital media in this project is sparse, but thought use of the two maps (figure 4.a,b) , two graphs (figure 4.c,d) and eight videos in the website (figure 4.e), it does effectively convey the project’s purpose.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Finally, we ask about creators: identify who worked on this project and in what capacity. There is a lengthy section of the website under ‘Credits’ that elaborately details every individual and department who was involved in this project. The introduction to this section gives a general description, while the rest of the section discusses in detail what each person or department was responsible for in their entirety. (figure 5.a)

Nesbit, Scott, et.al “Visualizing Emancipation.” University of Richmond, Digital Scholarship Lab, 2020. https://dsl.richmond.edu/emancipation/#contact.

To me, history is defined most accurately and most poetically by R.G. Collingwood.

He states:

“History is for human self-knowledge. Knowing yourself means knowing, first, what it is to be a person; secondly, knowing what it is to be the kind of person you are; and thirdly, knowing what it is to be the person you are and nobody else is. Knowing yourself means knowing what you can do; and since nobody knows what they can do until they try, the only clue to what man can do is what man has done. The value of history, then, is that it teaches us what man has done and thus what man is.” R. G. Collingwood

If history is meant to serve as our understanding of the past, I cannot think of a more eloquent way to phrase this than to again repeat Collingwood’s description of history as a something “for human self-knowledge.” We each have multiple histories, related to who we are within our country, within our state, within our city, within our community, within our family, and within ourselves. History is an all-encompassing thing that allows for all other aspects of ourselves to grow.

From where I stand, history is something that not only defines who we are, but what we will become. As Collingwood states, “the only clue to what man can do is what man has done.” History can be used to define who we are as individuals, as family members, as community members, as citizens and as a species on our planet and beyond. Understanding history, of both ourselves and others, is so vital to the evolution of time and space. This is why I define history as Collingwood does, as a beacon for understanding what we as a people have accomplished, and therefore who we are today. In addition to this, I like to tack on the notion that not only is history how we understand the past and the present, but how we gauge what direction to look into for the future as well.

To follow up on my notion that history is what defines us today, I looked into the website History Bizarre and explored some of the posts regarding fashion. I specifically focused on two entries regarding women’s fashion from long ago.

Find screenshots (with links) to these two entries below:

• 

• 

My understanding of digital history is best represented by the video below, The World Trade Center Elevator Video.

This video embodies my understanding of digital history for a number of reasons. First, through the use of a public social media platform, YouTube, to share the content. Second, the use of a visual, engaging video to educate viewers on a piece of history, rather than the use of a lengthy, long-winded piece of text written in paper, or even through an online source.

My understanding of digital history is that it not only utilizes a digital platform to convey a piece of history, but it also embraces the evolution of technology and teaches you something through not only its content, but it’s publication, platform and content.