My question is pretty much 'X happened because of Y'. Discuss.
My plan was to write it like this but I think I'm doing it wrong:
Introduction
Point 1. Issue of how historiography of this topic is controversial. Thus it is difficult to show 'X happened because of Y' so I will disagree with the statement.
Point 2. Look at historiography surrounding a connection between X and Y and then use primary sources to support one side of the debate.
Point 3. Look at some small term effects of why X happened and also how some caused Y to happen and then of course link them together.
Conclusion.
Does this make sense? I don't want to share the topic because of plagiarism etc. Thanks :-)
Hey. Graduate student in history right now. I would say you're on the right track. The point of 'discuss' is to expand on the surface level knowledge of the situation. Looking at the historiography is a great way to explore that. As for your conclusion, I would suggest summing up the major differences between the common presentations of the subject and what you have discovered in your historical efforts. Generally you want to end with something substantial, not minor / small term results. Hope that helps a bit.
You're on the right track!
My advice:
The first point is important, but it shouldn't be one of three main points. It's actually a great thesis statement: move it to the top, and make it the center of your whole argument.
Point 2 is how you argue the argument that you made in your thesis (point 1). It should be the main body of your paper.
Point 3 sounds, at least as it's described here, as a bit of a grab bag for the little things that don't quite fit into the big argument? I would recommend cutting this stuff out of the finished paper, or else pushing it into the footnotes. You don't need an 'everything else' point if you do Point 2 well.
So, if point 1 is the thesis and point 2 is the main body of the paper, how do you organize the body of the essay?
A structure that works well is to talk about what you like, what you don't like, and what can improve it. For example:
Thesis: The historiography of this topic is controversial, and we cannot simply say that X caused Y. [this is a rephrase of your point #1]
Point A) Many within the historiography of XY have argued that X caused Y.
Talk about who said it, what their evidence was, and and how they built on each other's work.
Point B) HOWEVER, others disagree! (Or: you disagree, whichever)
Highlight the problems with the historiography you discussed in point A, and explain why we need a new approach.
Point C) SOLUTION! Here is how we should change our understanding to overcome the problems discussed above.
Conclusion: Go back to the thesis, and show how you accomplished your goal.
That's a pretty fool-proof structure. It works because it's telling a story: Here is what we know, here is how it comes short, here is something new we can learn to overcome that shortcoming. Most good history writing (and most good writing, period) follows a version of this outline.
Good luck!
I sympathize with your frustration over the "discuss" construction, it is popular but totally vague. I think the best interpretation is to mentally change "discuss" to "explain the extent to which this is true (and why), and explain the extent to which it is not true (and why)." 'Discuss' is a way for a professor to ask you to evaluate or analyze a position (the statement) without demanding that you only agree or disagree. The aim of the professor is to let you create a thesis statement that is nuanced, such as "Statement X is mostly accurate, but does not take into account the most recent scholarship, so should be adjusted to X-most-of-the-time to maximize its accuracy". If a Prof just gives you a statement and just says 'agree or disagree', some students will think they have to write and answer that is 100% in agreement, or 100% opposed. 'Discuss' is trying to encourage nuance. The other posters have offered a good assessment of your argument outline,and I agree with them- it sounds like you are on the right track! Good luck.