Is it important to learn history? - Page 5

[theatermom]

Originally Posted by malibusunny

As I teach history, particularly from a project based approach, I have found that it's v. important. The adage that history repeats itself is true, certainly. As I teach history, I am teaching tolerance and the importance of peace, often through the clear example of the opposite. As learners begin to see the present through a historical perspective, they grasp so much about their role in shaping the future. It sounds corny, but it's true.

Yes! And I think that it's important to be able to understand through history how people acted and what they thought, because very often we lead ourselves into thinking of things in black and white terms: Evil people do X, and Good people do Y. The truth is that many people acting in their own self interest, or with little insight into the world around them, have made and continue to make decisions that have led our world to where it is today. Others with great insight, or a great sense of others, or simply with a great deal of fortitude in living their own daily lives well, have helped to make the world more sane. Understanding history as the story of the people who have lived on this planet helps us to define our roles. It both humbles us, and allows us to see the very large part that each of us has to play. I truly believe that one cannot internalize this without hearing the stories of the people and events that came before.

[dharmamama]

Originally Posted by Daffodil

All we really need to know is how the electoral college works now, compared to how different systems would work, and how most Americans would like elections to work.

I'd argue that you can't know how the electoral college works "now" without a knowledge of history. Without concrete examples, it's just an idea of what "might" happen or what is "supposed" to happen. What has "actually" happened historically is what shows us how the electoral college works "now." It's the difference between knowing the formula for the chemical reaction and knowing what has actually happened when that chemical reaction takes place.

whether its use is affecting society in harmful ways, whether its illegal status is affecting society in harmful ways, how its illegal status affects usage, etc.

None of these things can be known without history, because marijuana use doesn't affect society in discreet, unrelated segments of time known as "now." It's the cumulative affect of time that gives us our ideas of how marijuana "is" affecting society.

(Of course, we do elect people who make those decisions, so I suppose you could argue that we need to know enough to judge the quality of their decisions.)

Exactly.

You could convince me that everything that seemed important to me was actually history, and I'd still question the importance of the kind of history that's covered in history classes.

History as taught in "history class" in school is mainly social and political history, which are very important for all the reasons already expounded on in this thread (although the ways they are taught in school are wretched).

Yes, everything is history. I interpreted the title of this thread to mean political and social history.

dm

[theatermom]

Oh, and I do have to add, that if history as such isn't important, then why is it one of the first things that fascist or dictatorial governments try to tinker with? It's much easier to control people if they don't have a clear understanding of how they got to where they are, or if they don't know the reasons behind certain actions. It's also easier to incite them to violence or inaction or hatred or what-have-you if you manipulate the details of the past.

If it didn't matter, why try to control it at all?

[heidirk]

Going back to two different things...

We're doomed to repeat history anyway and; The ideas behind events are what's important.

What we need to teach is an appreciation of how History is important. If we neglect it, we WILL repeat past mistakes because we have not gone back to examine past events.

So I think, everyone having the entire timeline is NOT necessary, no, BUT knowing we can go back to history to learn and make better choices when the need arises, That IS necessary.

What we should have in our heads are the IDEAS behind the events. If we forget the dates and places, oh well...
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.

Our History can guide us to better dealings with our fellow peoples...IF we take the time to learn why we need it.

[mz_libbie22]

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 mean WWI was sparked off by the assasination of Franz Ferdinand.

[mz_libbie22]

Originally Posted by theatermom

Oh, and I do have to add, that if history as such isn't important, then why is it one of the first things that fascist or dictatorial governments try to tinker with? It's much easier to control people if they don't have a clear understanding of how they got to where they are, or if they don't know the reasons behind certain actions. It's also easier to incite them to violence or inaction or hatred or what-have-you if you manipulate the details of the past.
If it didn't matter, why try to control it at all?

Exactly. Isn't that how it was in 1984? The protagonist's job was to rewrite history.

And call me a conspiracy nut, but I do think there is a political reason behind our kids in public schools being (mis)taught history.

[homewithtwinsmama]

I don't know about anyone else, but I sure think it would have been a good thing if this president had paid more attention in school to getting good grades in history. I think history, especially American history if you live here, is hugely important. Fortunately, my kids seem to love learning about it (we always bring it back to how things are in current events).

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by Daffodil

I don't think your first example counts. When people talk about "history" (as a subject, as taught in schools) they usually mean "human history" and that's what I'm talking about in this thread.

But the other two examples are good ones. I have to say you're right, that kind of knowledge could be useful.

When does human history begin? When we started to write? When we diverged into this present genus and species? When our remote ancestors evolved from shrieky little tree shrews?

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

Anthropology is the study of human beings, past and present - much more closely related to sociology.

I vividly recall when I stumbled across the anthropology section in my college bookstore, was absolutely stunned to realize that people actually get to major in it and study all that stuff in the process - and went to the office that day to change my major from art to anthropology. Lillian

You said it better than I could. Thank you.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by CrazyRED

How about science? Isn't evolution the history of living things and how they change over time? ANY laboratory study invloves history, what changed over time to the end result. In fact I would say that history is the ONLY subject that can be universally applied to almost all other subjects.

Lillian, archaeology as you know, is a sub field of anthropolgy. I majored once upon a time in anthropology and I was NEVER involved in a dig that didn't have a plain old historian on the team.

Thank you -- I thought the idea that anthropology somehow isn't history was -- well, let's say it was "inaccurate" -- and I was hoping others would agree.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

And that's true even on the personal level. Our family histories are so much a part of us, whether we want to acknowledge that or not. They permeate our very body cells, and they also permeate our psychological, social, and emotional makeup to some extent, however small. -Lillian

Yes, a thousand times yes. Anyone who's had (for example) their genes examined for mDNA migration patterns (as in the National Geographic Genographic Project, for example) can see a direct linkage between their individual story and the story of their immediate family, their ethic group, their membership in the family of human beings going back to Africa. You get to see where you fit in to the "story."

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by phroggies

I don't know if this answer will have the level of exactitude you're looking for, but I am highly skeptical of our ability to determine "what makes sense" if we cut ourselves off from the rest of our culture (including our historical culture). What standards or parameters will we use to establish "what makes sense"?

Hey, ask some American people of color. They understand pretty well what it means to be cut off from their culture.

[Meg Murry.]

Originally Posted by CrazyRED

As mags and theatermom said, SOMEONE had to figure out the answers to these questions. You couldn't answer them without the answers that history has prvided. Or if you had to find the answers that history hasn't already provided, well then you just contributed to history.

I noticed a good many of them had to do with either biological evolution of a particular species (rat tails) or the geographical evolution of the planet (colder at heights), unless someone out there is going to argue that those don't count as history because they're too far in the past, maybe. Any takers??

[Dar]

Originally Posted by Meg Murry.

Thank you -- I thought the idea that anthropology somehow isn't history was -- well, let's say it was "inaccurate" -- and I was hoping others would agree.

Well, if you want to say that all sciences are history, then I suppose anthropology is history... but I reject that premise, as would most anthropologists and historians, IMO. The field of anthropology has a history, and historical knowledge is sometimes relevant to anthropologist, but I don't think this means that "anthropology is history." And the idea that anthropology is "really OLD history" seems even more impossible to support, unless you'd say that all sciences are "really OLD history"... but I don't know how you'd support that, either. I know anthropologists studying things like what people who go camping use their tents for, and the culture of Worlds of Warcraft, and the reasons people have breast augmentation surgery... but if you want to call that "really OLD history," well.... my mileage varies.

Dar

[Daffodil]

Well, any of you are free to come up with your own definitions of "history," but what I had in mind when I started this thread did not include the history of the earth's geographical features, the evolution of humans, individual or family history, or science. What I had in mind was the kind of subject matter you'd expect to see in a history class.

[famousmockngbrd]

Daffodil - like, wars and presidents and laws? Treaties and such? Arguments over things like slavery and voting rights? Those kinds of unimportant things?

[Daffodil]

Originally Posted by famousmockngbrd

Daffodil - like, wars and presidents and laws? Treaties and such? Arguments over things like slavery and voting rights? Those kinds of unimportant things?

Yep, that's just the kind of unimportant stuff I had in mind.

[Lillian J]

Edited to note: I wouldn't have bothered with all this if I'd seen Dar's latest post first!

Just because I love anthropology far too much to see the field categorized as history, much less really old history, I want to reiterate that anthropology is a field of its own - a huge field - and much of it is about very current cultures and concerns across the whole spectrum of humanity.

What Crazy Red said was:

"...archaeology as you know, is a sub field of anthropology. I majored once upon a time in anthropology and I was NEVER involved in a dig that didn't have a plain old historian on the team." But archaeology is, as she said, a sub field.

I spent an awful lot of time studying various facets of anthropology in the course of getting a degree in it, and never thought of it as history, but simply as the study of humankind (although history was an element that wove through some parts more than others, especially archaeology).

What Dar wrote is the way I experienced the study of anthropology:

"Anthropology isn't history at all. Knowledge of history is often useful to anthropologists, but anthropology is not history, much less "really old" history. Archaeology is one of the four fields of anthropology (the other three being linguistic, social/cultural, and physical/biological) and archaeologists often study old artifacts, but not always - this is a great book about the archaeology of modern artifacts. Likewise, physical/biological anthropologists sometimes study old DNA or bones, but just as often they study modern stuff.

Social/cultural anthropologists and linguistic anthropologists study people and languages today, all over the world... When Margaret Mead was doing her study that led up to her controversial book, Coming of Age in Samoa, for instance, she was dealing with what she found right then and there. And she had some influence in the sexual revolution of the 60s - all of which is now history, and yet an inextricable thread woven into today. .

Lillian

[PumpkinSeeds]

This is an argument for why SOME people should know history, but not for why EVERYONE should. Most of us are never going to make any kind of policy decision.

I find this line of thought dangerous.

[Needle in the Hay]

Originally Posted by Daffodil

Well, any of you are free to come up with your own definitions of "history," but what I had in mind when I started this thread did not include the history of the earth's geographical features, the evolution of humans, individual or family history, or science. What I had in mind was the kind of subject matter you'd expect to see in a history class.

I think at least some of the subject matter would be important to learn. This is something I think about fairly often because my DS is half-American, half-French and we live in a third country so there is a lot of history to deal with. I wouldn't wish an American high school history class on anyone though (probably not a French one either but I've only experienced the American kind).

I am with you though in that I think a lot of it can be learned in interesting ways but how much can just be casually be picked up can vary greatly from case to case. Those who have not been subjected to boring history lessons will fare better, I think.