History

Forums: History, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Alright I was having this conversation with a fellow history major of mine. Do you think that everyone (I mean EVERYONE) should have to learn and understand the importance of major historical events (good and bad) so history won't repeat itself? Or is it doomed to repeat itself anyway, dispite what we do?
Basically are we in control of our own futures, and can we use past example to help us? Or are our basic human natures going to make us repeat it anyway?

Shocked

Loaded question, I know ::is sorry:: Very Happy

Based on the posts, I'm just going to clear something up. Anyone can read facts and dates, yes I'm talking more about concepts and ideas. Abstract things, like affects of war on people. Just so that many will understand what might happen, so that they don't/do something

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,035 • Replies: 37

No top replies

History has a broader scope than you're portraying here. Why do we speak the language we have now? Why do the laws exist that we have to follow? What was the road taken to form our country? Why have changes happpened? These and other things are what history tells us.
To say that we will or will not be guided by history to prevent future decisions is being naive. Society and technology have changed dramatically and it would be an error to base now decisions on data that is now outmoded.

0 Replies

By the way, welcome to a2k. I should have noticed you're a newbie. I'm sure there will be a lot of people jumping in with their own thoughts. Be sure to keep an eye on your post to see if there's any refining of your contents if you're not getting the feedback you want.

0 Replies

Re: History
Very very good question. I hope you stick around a2k. Welcome.

Quote:

Do you think that everyone (I mean EVERYONE) should have to learn and understand the importance of major historical events (good and bad) so history won't repeat itself?

Yes, this way everyone will be so busy studying history that no one will have time to start wars. Razz

I'm teasing. A good understanding of history is an essential characteristic in the public knowledge of a society if you want that society to develop well. That's my opinion anyway. Others believe that the "common folk" should be kept ignorant but I've never agreed with that idea.

Quote:

Or are our basic human natures going to make us repeat it anyway?

This is why in addition to history we need to understand psychology. Until we understand ourselves we're not going to be able to develop beyond where we are.

0 Replies

I agree.

I think that, without a reasonable grasp of history - one is like a person groping along with the aid of a weak torch in the dark - unable to make sense of the world around you, except in its most basic forms.

And yes - I know that is an exaggeration - but I really do think it is an immensely important aspect of knowledge.

0 Replies

Re: History
SilverFox

Yes, everyone should learn History. As human beings we only exist in History - we are making it right know. History is not an archive of past events, it is our collective memory. It is our identity.
(But History does not repeat itself, the same way we don't repeat our actions).

0 Replies

I'm a bit intrigued by the responses so far.
Not to say that we should forget about history, but I mean, there are tons of history books, and millions of ways to draw back the past. This subject is hardly a governmental top secret one, and access to it is at the grasp of just about everybody.
So, should we now force people to read all that ?! Should each and every breathing soul take a daily dose of history ?! I just see no sense in that (not that it is actually possible to start with), and I happen to believe that this subject is quite fairly covered all around.
He who feels the need to dig deeper into the topic can freely do so, and he who'd rather watch another reality tv show can do the same.
It takes all kinds of people to make a world.

0 Replies

History cannot actually be portrayed, except through the filter of interpretation; a Marxist history of the world would not be the same as one written by a Capitalist or a Christian Fundamentalist. George Bush's interpretation would be at odds with the opinion of Osama Bin Laden, or even John Kerry.

Perhaps it is more important to teach the importance of critical thinking.

0 Replies

Yes, I do believe that everyone should have a basic education in History. For a Democracy to work, the voters must have a grasp of how the world works, and what has and hasn't worked in the past.

0 Replies

Greyfan

Yes, there is always the filter of interpretation. But that is also History.
And is not our memory also a filter of interpretation?
And our daily actions, do we not think them with the "filter of interpretation"?

I never defined History as objective. But the different theories about History are also part of History.
But I agree with you: the most important thing is to teach the importance of critical thinking.

0 Replies

Realising that there are differing filters and ways of seeing the past is one of the key concepts that makes history an important study.

That and having some sort of grasp of how the world came to be the way it is.

Of course only people with special interests can dig beyond the surface - the material is too big for anyone to comprehend it all.

However, I think that understanding how historial study is done, the importance and effect of the filters, and a working knowledge of world history - with the ability to research further if desired - is something we ought to expect from a high school education.

0 Replies

If history is written by the winners of every battle, then how is it that history is objective? Is it not then only a subjective telling from the angle of the victor? What I am saying is that had Hitler won WW2 we would have read about the dreaded capitalists in todays history books, and how "these evil men tried to destroy the third reich, in wich we prosper today".

The strife of mankind throughout history is a result of nature doing it's thing both in the world we see, but also within us. I don't think learning will change that, but it might help increase awareness about it. When it comes to repeating mistakes I do not think that is a good way of looking at things. We never repeat mistakes, we do what we have to when we have to do it, and if the problem seems to arise again it is because we were not done with it in the first place. There are no mistakes.

0 Replies

History is not objective. But it doesn't resume to the version of the winners. There was a man named Hitler. There was a 3rd Reich. They killed people in concentration camps.
That happened. It is not a version of the winners.
Now, the interpretation of the nazi period is another thing.

0 Replies

Val wrote:

Quote:

History is not objective. But it doesn't resume to the version of the winners. There was a man named Hitler. There was a 3rd Reich. They killed people in concentration camps.
That happened. It is not a version of the winners.

Yes it is val. It did happen, but had Hitler won the history books would have read something like: "There was a great man named Hitler. He buildt the 3rd reich and purified the human species. "

So I challenge your statement by saying that history ALWAYS corresponds to the winner's version. After all, that was what the fight was about. Every war is fought for the sole purpose of being the one to dictate change.

0 Replies

Well history is simply His Story with the cavity removed.

0 Replies

Greyfan wrote:

History cannot actually be portrayed, except through the filter of interpretation; a Marxist history of the world would not be the same as one written by a Capitalist or a Christian Fundamentalist. George Bush's interpretation would be at odds with the opinion of Osama Bin Laden, or even John Kerry.

Perhaps it is more important to teach the importance of critical thinking.

Events can always be spun to reflect one's philosophy.
However, if one studies the series and sequence of events, one can gain a fairly accurate picture of what happened.
If a person chooses to lie about what actually happened in order to reflect their philosophy, then they are simply delusional.
Eg: The Palestinians believe that Abraham was a Palestinian revolutionist; they believe that Moses was a Palestinian revolutionist; they believe that Jesus was a Palestinian revolutionist....
They are in agreement with whatever facts are "on the ground," they simply choose to interpret the facts to reflect a certain philosophy, thereby rendering the facts into fantasy.

0 Replies

Wow, this is a complicated question.

First off, maybe a little background about myself. I live in a country with the "old" educational system: the one where kids have to learn tons of useless facts. I've had eight years of history in school, and it was the subject I despised the most Smile

. Second, my country has been through 3 (or four, depending how you count) wars in the 90's. And third, I'm a psychology major (and a major nerd, completely in love with what I study), so I'm interested in how people function.

Now to answer the question - I think it's reasonable to have history a subject in the regular school curriculum, but I think that the way it is taught is crucial. While I went to school, the messages in the textbooks kept changing yearly. The state had too much input into what will be taught, because a lot of ideology is taught through history classes. I do believe understanding history is very important, and I also believe there are lots of historians out there interested in the most objective interpretation available.

However, I don't believe in the power of this knowledge to prevent us from making serious mistakes. I have whitnessed a normal culture go barbaric, and - while everybody has the right to vote, once the voting is done, my impression was that very subtle decisions on the top of the government can make a huge difference with regards to the consequences. The average person usually does not recognize this, or does not want to spend their day analyzing subtle political messages.

That's my impression, anyway. I'm all for knowledge and education, but I still believe an elite has the final word. Now if we could get the elite to practice critical thinking...

(sorry for the not-so-subtle wording)

0 Replies

psychonerd

I understand the problems you described.
But I insist in this:
There are facts, and there is the interpretation of facts. (I know that, talking about facts is also problematic, but that has to do with epistemology, not History).

So, I insist: Hitler existed, the 3rd Reich and it's laws existed, concentration camps existed. Those are facts.
A nazi would say that concentration camps were essential in order to purify the superior race. But that is an interpretation of a fact, not the fact in itself.
And different interpretations of History are also part of History.The problem of the need of learning History is simple: we exist as historical beings. Without History we would never know what we are and how we came to be what we are.
History is the memory of mankind, the same way my personal history is in my memory and in registered facts.
How would Einstein create his theory without the previous knowledge that light was not instantaneous but have a speed limit?
How would Beethoven create his Quartets without the example of Haydn's Quartets?

I still disagree with Cyracuz about History being the History of the winers. If that was true, how could we have such critical views about Cortez and Pizarro exploits? And slavery in America? And capitalism and imperialism?

0 Replies

val wrote:

So, I insist: Hitler existed, the 3rd Reich and it's laws existed, concentration camps existed. Those are facts.

Yes, which have been made part of history. Because America won.

Oddly the American (somewhat less extreme) concentration camps are glossed over. Why? Because America won.

Quote:

I still disagree with Cyracuz about History being the History of the winers. If that was true, how could we have such critical views about Cortez and Pizarro exploits?

Who? Oh yeah, Cortez was the guy who killed most of the native americans, wasn't he?

A) He was spanish. (And the English won).
B) Equal rights movements won.

Quote:

And slavery in America?

Because the north won.

Quote:

And capitalism

Because anti-corporatism won (the popular psyche anyway).

Quote:

and imperialism?

Because anti-imperialism won.

I trust the progression isn't lost on anyone...

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

val wrote:
So, I insist: Hitler existed, the 3rd Reich and it's laws existed, concentration camps existed. Those are facts.

Yes, which have been made part of history. Because America won.

Oddly the American (somewhat less extreme) concentration camps are glossed over. Why? Because America won.

Japanese concentration camps; Battle of Wounded Knee and American Indian forced assimilation - just to mention two rather large and ugly pieces of American History

Quote:
I still disagree with Cyracuz about History being the History of the winers. If that was true, how could we have such critical views about Cortez and Pizarro exploits?

Who? Oh yeah, Cortez was the guy who killed most of the native americans, wasn't he?

A) He was spanish. (And the English won).
B) Equal rights movements won.

Sorry Amigo, but the Spanish and then the Mexicans and the Peruvians won. The English won squat in Central and South America. History is written about Cortez because he had a rather major influence on what is now Mexico.
In the same fashion we learn about other conquerors.
For instance the Mongols - they won. They changed Asia for all time. And they eventually assimilated into the cultures they conquered.
They did not "lose" as such.

Quote:
And slavery in America?

Because the north won.

So we learn about the New England slave traders because New England was part of the Union that won the Civil War?
Reaching. Really stretching....

Quote:
And capitalism

Because anti-corporatism won (the popular psyche anyway).

You are descending into silliness... What planet do you live on and who do you work for? Ma Kettle?

Quote:
and imperialism?

Because anti-imperialism won.

So... the folks here at Able2know who believe that Bush is a imperialist lackey of Haliburton are a tiny minority; and the folks out there who believe that American Imperialism is the cause of the world's problems are in the minority and these people are not the majority of college professors who teach History at American universities??

Really?
What planet do you live on?

I trust the progression isn't lost on anyone...

0 Replies

History

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know