Is it important to learn history? - Page 8

[KaraBoo]

I find it difficult to separate out "subjects" like math, biology, history...it all overlaps, imo and ime. This is how I learn as well and if I have to separate it all out, it doesn't "stick" for me.

[Daffodil]

Originally Posted by theatermom

But it's how these "bunch of details" come together in a meaningful way that allows us to look for and hopefully find the answers to the questions you're asking.

Well, the details of human history aren't going to help much in answering questions like, "Is there life on other planets?" But of course details in general are important in answering big questions in general. I was thinking about the kinds of details that seem interesting to me, and actually came up with a way history could be useful. Let's say you were interested in chestnut-sided warblers. You'd want to know what they ate, and how that was different from what other warblers eat, their average reproductive rate, major causes of mortality, how they've been affected by the increasing human population in the Americas . . . Hmm, and for that it would be useful to know what the human population of North America was in 1700, 1750, 1800 . . . and what percentage of the people were concentrated in cities vs. living on farms? How much land had been cleared for farming? How much logging was going on? What sizes and species of trees were being cut down? History! This is actually the kind of history I've always thought was pretty interesting - what was life like for typical people in the past? I'd much rather learn about that than about major events and political leaders.

[PumpkinSeeds]

Originally Posted by Daffodil

This is actually the kind of history I've always thought was pretty interesting - what was life like for typical people in the past? I'd much rather learn about that than about major events and political leaders.

The way typical people live during any era is directly influenced by major events and political leaders.

[KaraBoo]

and I would dare say, vice versa.

This is something I'm learning more and more as I read and research and follow my interests...everything affects everything else. It is truly amazing! /geekiness

[Wolfmeis]

Originally Posted by Daffodil

Let's say you were interested in chestnut-sided warblers. You'd want to know what they ate, and how that was different from what other warblers eat, their average reproductive rate, major causes of mortality, how they've been affected by the increasing human population in the Americas . . . Hmm, and for that it would be useful to know what the human population of North America was in 1700, 1750, 1800 . . . and what percentage of the people were concentrated in cities vs. living on farms? How much land had been cleared for farming? How much logging was going on? What sizes and species of trees were being cut down? History! This is actually the kind of history I've always thought was pretty interesting - what was life like for typical people in the past? I'd much rather learn about that than about major events and political leaders.

There you go girlie! Dat's what we're talking about! (and of course to understand why the people are camping on one side of the river instead of the other, for instance, you'd want to know about the crazy French occupation on the other side, and the more filial British occupation on this side...would that make it appear that the warbler preferred the French?)

[theatermom]

Originally Posted by Daffodil

Well, the details of human history aren't going to help much in answering questions like, "Is there life on other planets?" But of course details in general are important in answering big questions in general. I was thinking about the kinds of details that seem interesting to me, and actually came up with a way history could be useful. Let's say you were interested in chestnut-sided warblers. You'd want to know what they ate, and how that was different from what other warblers eat, their average reproductive rate, major causes of mortality, how they've been affected by the increasing human population in the Americas . . . Hmm, and for that it would be useful to know what the human population of North America was in 1700, 1750, 1800 . . . and what percentage of the people were concentrated in cities vs. living on farms? How much land had been cleared for farming? How much logging was going on? What sizes and species of trees were being cut down? History! This is actually the kind of history I've always thought was pretty interesting - what was life like for typical people in the past? I'd much rather learn about that than about major events and political leaders.

Yay! I also find personal stories of individuals and their families much more interesting than the "great" leaders.

But I dare say that at some point one of your excursions into the lives and stories of ordinary folks will cause you to want to look more closely at how those lives were informed by the major events and political leaders of their times. It's difficult to understand what motivated people if you don't have at least a reasonable idea of the political landscape of the time period. I hear all the time "Why didn't they _random group of people_ "just" do X, Y, or Z" -- well, we can move a long way toward understanding others by understanding the political, social, and emotional constraints under which they live(d).

As for the answering life on other planets question, we have to be able to get to other planets or at least communicate with them in order to answer this question (unless we get visitors ). Our ability to work towards this is very much affected by politics. Many things don't even become a priority for funding in this country until they are a priority to rival countries. We may not have landed a man on the moon without the competitive push. Living on Mars *wasn't* going to be a priority for us, but it may well become a great one if the competition heats up. And the millions of historical details from Galileo till now have added up to help give us the tools we need to answer these questions and many more.

[the_lissa]

Originally Posted by Daffodil

So enlighten me - what are some of them?

I missed this before, but from the calendar when I was in school (some of these I took)-

Women in health care (talked about how health care used to be the sphere of women, midwives, etc and how and when men took it over, etc).

American cultural history

History of film

Canadian Labour History

Western INtellectual History since the Renaissance

Family Ties in History

History of Modern Western Sport

The Medium and the Message: Canadian Media, a History

[UUMom]

As an aside, my oldest, a history major, took Order and Justice in World Communities this past semester.

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by Daffodil

I've been puzzling over this. I was intrigued by your vehemence, since I think of you as someone whose posts are generally calm and diplomatic. Of course this one was too, really, but obviously you feel strongly about this. And I'm just not sure I get it. You're saying if I respected and cared about other people and nations, I'd want to know their history? But I'm not all that interested in learning about history that has directly affected me, either. And anyway, there are so many groups of people all over the world - no one could possibly understand the historical events that have affected ALL of them. But maybe the important thing is to see all those histories as valuable, even if you can't learn all of them?

Ha! I didn't think I was so diplomatic. I'm usually much nicer. In fact I came back to apologize.

There are a few things that affected my response.

1. I had a teacher in high school who defended Andrew Jackson's actions in the Trail of Tears. Because we'd had so little exposure to the history of American Indians, no one in our class contested this. We had several children of Holocaust survivors in my AP US History class. No one in the class knew enough of what the teacher was talking about to say, "No, it was wrong to force-march those people across the country, killing thousands in the process, in order to steal their land."

2. As a young adult, I was in Israel where I met some children of Chilean exiles. They were angry and bitter that the United States had supported the overthrow of their government in 1973 and that we Americans knew nothing about it. I sure didn't know.

3. I have a doctorate in European History. Not sure why that makes me think history is useful! A lot of the time I was working on my degree I was just embarrassed at how much the students from other countries knew that we didn't, about just everything.

4. My husband has been doing research into the history of racism against African-Americans in the United States. He came to it in a round-about way--he was trying to learn about his dad's life, and his dad (who was white and Jewish) had a close friend who was an African-American jazz musician. So he was reading and everything kind of spiraled out from there.

There is just a lot of untaught US history.

But yeah, I'm with everyone else on this thread. I think "causes of WWI" style questions are pretty dull, but there are other ways to approach these questions that help you understand what you want to know. It's a big challenge to find the books that historians have written that ask the questions in a new way.

I might have some recommendations.

[mammal_mama]

Captain Optimism, I agree that many in our nation are seriously uninformed about world issues. But are you thinking that it's really because the schools in other nations "require" more of their students, or teach the subjects more thoroughly? I realize you haven't said this, just wondering.

I just think it has a whole lot more to do with how interested the people in each particular nation generally are, and how much the kids hear these issues being discussed and cared about.

As you mentioned in your previous post, most Americans have had the luxury of not having to feel as vulnerable; many of us have never been uprooted from our homes or forced to experience, firsthand, the effects of U.S. foreign policy overseas. Therefore, many American children simply haven't seen their parents and peers taking more than a superficial interest in history and politics.

What I'm seeing in my own family, is that since dh and I are interested in figuring out what's really going in the world, and why various things are happening, we talk about it and our children hear us and think about it, too (well, I'm thinking more of our 7yo than our toddler at this time).

When dd encounters various issues in our culturally diverse neighborhood, she's interested in understanding things better, and in the connections we make between yesterday and today. This is where I see the scientific process as much more valuable than the "set in your ways, this is the way it is" thought-pattern.

Because the "this is the way it is" viewpoint blocks every attempt at problem-solving, whereas scientific process urges us to keep rethinking our current solutions and generalizations, and testing them and coming up with better, more accurate ones.

So history comes alive in interaction with the scientific viewpoint, but is reduced to a dry corpse when we think it's already been figured out by "smarter" people, and there's no point in asking any questions 'cause they've already been answered.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by PumpkinSeeds

The way typical people live during any era is directly influenced by major events and political leaders.

Yeah, like Jews in Europe under the Third Reich; Native Americans in both of the American continents during and after invasions and occupation; Cambodian under the Khmer Rouge; Americans during the Dust Bowl throughout the 30s and the Depression - to name just a few tiny spots in the immensity of human history. I couldn't get the pygmies off my mind all day yesterday - I've often thought about the way they live their daily lives, but that's now a thing of the past as they're faced with nightmarish outside interests coming into their forests and butchering them. The forces that affect people's lives aren't all bad - some of them are pretty marvelous - but no culture is an island.

It's pretty darned hard to talk about typical people in any time without seeing them as part of the major events and political leaders... - Lillian

[Quaniliaz]

Originally Posted by Oh the Irony

History, when it is taught well, is not about names, dates, famous white men or battles. You can look that up if you need to know.

It teaches you how to analyze information from different perspectives and sources. It teaches you how to think and how to understand. To see what complex factors are involved in why we are the way we are today.

I think it depends upon what your needs are, what you plan to do and what you enjoy.

ITA - furthermore, I think it is a mystery as to what is important or what touches each individual. My decision to have a homebirth was totally inspired by the advent of forceps and the history of the AMA, specifically how they took birth away from women. You never know what will make a huge and meaningful impact.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by mommy68

I agree with you. I'm not so sure that world history is as important as knowing about the history of our own country, but I do think history is important. .

As a previous poster explained, "David McCullough has said that history is the antidote to the hubris of the present." On those grounds, I strongly disagree with your opinion.

The last 400 years that define our country (beginning with European settlement, although you could certainly go back further) is a drop in the bucket compared to the 9,000 years or so of world culture. Just the numbers alone argue strongly that the world civilization that ultimately gave rise to this country might be somewhat more important than the last 400 years of this single country alone -- an idea I associate very much with stereotypically American hubris, the notion that this country is the best of all possible worlds, the most important thing since sliced bread, the apex of civilization and distinctly different from and better than any other civilization, country, or culture that ever has been or could be.

This attitude is what causes students in public high school to take a year of American history and have world history be "optional," and it's partly what is responsible for American jingoists thinking the only difference between Iraq and Iran is a letter, and for convincing the American public that the attacks on 9/11 were perpetuated by the Iraqis and Afghanis, not by people from Saudi Arabia -- and for being able to convince people that one Middle Eastern country is just like any other. A serious study of world history would have done a great deal to make pulling that snow job over on the American people a LOT harder, but then, world history study would have the tendency to make Amurrica a little less important in the grand scheme of things.

[gassadi]

Originally Posted by mz_libbie22

I use history to evaluate current events, to understand what brought us to this point and what needs to be done to get us in a better direction, which in turn helps me decide who I want to support in the '08 election.

People also use history to defend parenting choices. There is historical precedence for attachment parenting. The very reason that people call it a "natural" choice is because it is believed to be the way children were raised by our ancestors.

By studying history I discovered what educational method I wanted for my DS (classical).

By studying women's history I have a completely different view of myself and my place in the world. That obviously affects all kinds of choices.

Studying the history of agriculture has guided my choices about my own diet.

Studying the history of how boys have been raised in different societies has helped guide my own parenting philosophy.


History helps me make sense of WHY we're here to begin with. I don't have a religious belief, so I use it to try to find answers to the big questions. I also don't have much for family and I think studying history is a way to meet that instinctual need for a connection to those that came before me.

I also totally believe the old saying that if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it.

:

[mammal_mama]

It appears to me that practically everyone in this thread agrees that yes, history is inextricably interwoven into who we are today and where we're headed in the future.

However, since the whole of history is so vast that one lifetime isn't long enough to ever be able to do justice to learning all of it -- I think our real question is, who decides which areas are essential: the individual learner, the parent, or both.

I believe the individual learner should have the freedom to decide -- but I'm not so naive that I don't realize the things the parents are interested in and talking about, and reading and watching documentaries about, are going to play a huge part in shaping their children's perceptions of the world and of what's important.

I just believe that it's impossible for me to really know what's going to be most essential for each of my children as they fulfill their individual callings in the world. So it makes more sense to me to just open as many windows looking out onto the world as I can, while being attentive to what sparks each child's interests, and then respond to those interests by looking for windows that are likely to provide the most intriguing view for each individual child.

And then do everything in my power to help each child grab onto interesting trains of thought (interesting to the child) and run with them.

[theatermom]

So, picking up on the idea of whether or not a person needs to learn history in a structured, particular way -- I would argue not.

And, today, oddly enough, while I was in one of my ESL classes, the instructor brought up the importance of the students selecting their own materials. He said that there was a study done in which it was determined that students who were allowed to pick and choose the sections of a chemistry book they wished to study (basically being allowed to flip through and read and study what interested them) versus students who were told what to study, and when, did far better on the test and retained that information for far longer. This was in spite of the fact that the interest led group didn't study everything that was on the test, and definitely studied "extra" topics that weren't covered.

So, definitely, following one's interests in history, and being careful not to destroy another person's enjoyment of that learning process through too much (or any) forced learning is a valid and valuable way to learn.

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

Captain Optimism, I agree that many in our nation are seriously uninformed about world issues. But are you thinking that it's really because the schools in other nations "require" more of their students, or teach the subjects more thoroughly? I realize you haven't said this, just wondering.I just think it has a whole lot more to do with how interested the people in each particular nation generally are, and how much the kids hear these issues being discussed and cared about.

It's not really fair to compare graduate students in history from Europe and S. America to graduate students in history from the US, I suppose.

Schools in the US have an unfortunate tendency to teach history in a propagandistic fashion. We want to feel proud, to convey a sense of unity and legacy. Every time people writing curriculum make some weak, half-hearted gesture toward teaching our real history as a country, there is backlash.

Do you not find it appalling that Advanced Placement US History did not cover any material at all about slavery? I got a 5 on my AP exam (which was the highest grade) because the test questions were about slavery and the civil war, and I was interested in that. I had one of those teachers who tried to downplay the role of slavery as a cause of the civil war. That's been a trend in US education for a few decades now, even though the primary source documents don't support it at all. Of course I aced the test--I read the damn documents.

Teaching history is all about teaching people to read critically and to be a detective of motivation.

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

When dd encounters various issues in our culturally diverse neighborhood, she's interested in understanding things better, and in the connections we make between yesterday and today. This is where I see the scientific process as much more valuable than the "set in your ways, this is the way it is" thought-pattern.

I'm not sure what you mean by history here. What are you trying to find out? In college we learned the von Ranke phrase, "wie eigentlich gewesen"--how it actually was. The point of studying history is to learn how it actually was for people. I don't see that as quietistic, as encouraging people to accept "that's the way it is" now.

How are we supposed to understand how it is if we don't know how it actually was?

I think if teachers don't actively discourage us from pursuing it, we can learn history by asking questions about how things got to be the way they are now.

I don't agree that this has anything to do with science. Science is empirical. i don't advocate going out and doing experiments on people to see how they act! There's always going to be an element of uncertainty, a rashomon effect in writing history, no matter what kinds of documents we use to put the picture together. Which is a good thing to learn anyway.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by captain optimism

I'm not sure what you mean by history here. What are you trying to find out? In college we learned the von Ranke phrase, "wie eigentlich gewesen"--how it actually was. The point of studying history is to learn how it actually was for people. I don't see that as quietistic, as encouraging people to accept "that's the way it is" now.

How are we supposed to understand how it is if we don't know how it actually was?

I think we're still discovering new tidbits that cast even more light on "how it actually was." With the information we now have, we can make educated guesses about it actually was for the people living in that time, but we should always encourage an openness to the possibility that new discoveries will significantly change our perspectives on this.

I recall being asked to imagine what it would be like growing up without cars, electricity, central heating/air conditioning, running water, packaged foods, etcetera -- but the way that a child imagines "how it actually was" having to "do without" all the modern conveniences he's grown up depending on, is likely to be a far cry from what life was really like for children growing up in a particular time period.

I used to think it would have been "exciting" living in the times of the holocaust, and helping people to hide (or going into hiding myself), or being involved in the civil rights movements of the 60's and 70's. But now that I have small children dependent on me, the thought of living in a tumultuous time doesn't hold the same appeal.

I don't agree that this has anything to do with science. Science is empirical. i don't advocate going out and doing experiments on people to see how they act!

I don't advocate "doing experiments on people" either -- at least not in the sense that you seem to mean. I simply see much of my life as experimentation. I encounter problems, and I think about possible solutions, and I pull information from history (both from my immediate history and from history in general) in my quest for the solutions that are most likely to succeed both now and in the long-term. And I hypothesize and listen to the hypothetical theories of others.

So just as I can't separate my own life from history, I also can't separate it from science. Science is all about problem-solving and answering the question, "Why?" So is history.

[Daffodil]

Originally Posted by Meg Murry.

This attitude is what causes students in public high school to take a year of American history and have world history be "optional," and it's partly what is responsible for American jingoists thinking the only difference between Iraq and Iran is a letter, and for convincing the American public that the attacks on 9/11 were perpetuated by the Iraqis and Afghanis, not by people from Saudi Arabia -- and for being able to convince people that one Middle Eastern country is just like any other. A serious study of world history would have done a great deal to make pulling that snow job over on the American people a LOT harder, but then, world history study would have the tendency to make Amurrica a little less important in the grand scheme of things.

Originally Posted by captain optimism

Schools in the US have an unfortunate tendency to teach history in a propagandistic fashion. We want to feel proud, to convey a sense of unity and legacy. Every time people writing curriculum make some weak, half-hearted gesture toward teaching our real history as a country, there is backlash.

Yeah, I agree with all this. I had to take two years of US history in high school, and no world history. I learned a lot about how wonderful our system of government is, with its separation of church and state, and balance of power among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution blah blah blah. And never learned anything about any other systems of government, and what advantages or disadvantes they might have compared to ours. Actually, I think what would have been more useful than any history course would have been a comparative government course. (Though I'm sure the history buffs will be quick to point out to me that you can't study governments without understanding their history.)

I had one of those teachers who tried to downplay the role of slavery as a cause of the civil war. That's been a trend in US education for a few decades now, even though the primary source documents don't support it at all.

That's interesting! I guess my high school was part of that trend, because I remember learning that the civil war was about states' rights. I was left with the impression that it wasn't that the southern states wanted to keep slaves so much that they were willing to go to war over it - it was that they wanted more autonomy than the federal government was willing to give them, and they were willing to go to war over THAT. And that slavery was just the main issue that highlighted their lack of autonomy.

[malibusunny]

Originally Posted by heidirk

For instance I remember that 'World War Two was sparked off by the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand' . This means nothing really, it has no context. What I NEED to know about World War Two was that too much pressure was put on Germany after the first world war, AND IT BACKFIRED.

I think you know that you meant WWI, but if not, I think that's an excellent example of how unimportant that detail turned out to be for you.

However, I think details like that CAN be very important. When I tell kids that the world (36 countries) went to war over the death of a person with a title they've never heard of from a country that they didn't even know existed, they want to know WHY. Which is when I tie them all together with strings and explain how alliances work. Ten years from now, I don't really care if they remember good old FF, but I hope they remember which war was sparked by the assassination of a relatively minor political figure by a low ranking member of a relatively minor terrorist group.