Never cared for History class in grade school

I think my interest in History, much like C.I.'s developed later on. In school it was names, dates, places. Rote memorization. While I liked history, I just didn't "get it". There was a lack of context in the way I was taught. In high school I just assumed that it would all come togethr in my Senior year or in college but it just never did. All that was ever discussed was the date and teh event, never why it happened or why it was relevant to me.

History didn't really become clear to me until later and really came from two other interests. The first being my interest in Constitutional Law. In digging around in the roots of our Constituion I found lots of references to events that had occured that led to how the framers got to hold the positions they did and all of the changes in the document over the years are our recent legal history.

The other was when I picked up researching the family genealogy. My mother had started this back in the 1960s but didn't get far. It took up the mantle in the late 1980s and with a few quick sucesses I was able to push the recorded family history back to 1600 for most of my lines. In there I found that the Reformation which swept Europe had a profound effect on my family. It was a major reason for them coming to North America. I found ties to the Salem Witch Trials, The settling of western NY state in the late 1700s and early 1800s and later WI in the 1840s. The Seige of Corinth, MS during the Civil War and hundreds of other events.

With all of that many of the dates/places I had learned about in my school years now have context. They mean something and are relevant to me now. Now when I see a historical documentary or read a historical document I can add what it contains to "my history". I can (hopefully) see how the events being discussed affected the people I've already discovered.

fishin, Thanks for sharing your family history. I'm the only one in our family that has any interest in geneology, so whatever family history information I have will "die" with me. Our grandfather came to the US in 1893. I wrote to the city's recorder's office in Hiroshima to get some family history about two years ago, and all they had goes back to our great-great grandfather. The written document was in the style of old Japanese, and not many contemporary Japanese are able to translate it, but my brother's friend from Japan was able to translate 95 percent of it for us. I don't think Japan recorded any family history before the 18th century, except for royalty. Both our great grandfather and great-great grandfather's were of the samurai class, but that doesn't mean too much, because there were many leaderless samurai towards the end of the 19th century. c.i.

A love of history for me began in high school when I read books like "The King's Mistress" and "Forever Amber." From there I read fiction based on truth, biographies about European history for probably 3 decades, along with ancient Rome & Greece, Japan, Africa, China. Learned a lot from Taylor Caldwell and her unique style of knowing things she had no way of knowing.

What I've learned is today is the best it's ever been. If you're having a bad day, get out some books about our ancestors and read, again, what they used to do to each other.

Two books by ERic Jennings, The Traveler (Marco Polo) and Aztec, were the most revealing about the past. The best way to learn now is thru the History Channel which I've watched for 10 years.

I took one history class in college.

Tex, if you enjoyed a book about the Aztecs, you might now be interested enough to read The Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz, who accompanied Cortez. It is one of the primary sources for that period. It should be readily available, although you might have to order it through a bookstore. I know it is reguarly printed in paperback form.

I think most of us are aware of the Spanish influence in South America, but many people are unaware of the Germans, Italians and Welsh that have settled there. If any of you know of any good books on the history of these immigrants to South America, I'd appreciate a list. c.i.

I couldn't tell you if any such book has ever been written, Boss--however, much of the European immigration into South America was to Argentina, so histories of that nation would be informative. I'm sure you're aware that there has been a fair amount of East Asian immigration in Pacific coast nations of South America. Another interesting historical figure is Bernardo O'Higgins Riquelme--the liberator of Chile. His father was an Irishman in the Service of the Spanish crown. Sorry, Boss, i don't have any book titles for you . . .

Setanta, If you don't mind, please don't call me "boss." Only my wife uses that title for me! I know about the Asian immigration to the west coast of South America. Two events brought it home to me: The first was Fujimori, a Berkeley educated politician of Peru, and the incarceration of South American Japanese during WWII into US camps to be used for trade with American prisoners of war held in Japan. I've mentioned this before, but there's a whole slew of Germans settled in Chile. I think most of that settlement occured during and/or after WWII. c.i.

c.i, I'll check out "The Conquest of New Spain." The "Aztec" book, however, is mighty different and is, in part, from the position of the native.

My son is marrying a girl from Mexico. She scoffs at the fact people think all Mexicans are very "brown." Some, in fact have blue eyes and lighter hair. Same can be said of Puerto Rico.

I just read that the Cherokee (Native Americans of which I am a part), were already living in houses, practicing advanced agriculture, and had a complex social system more than 1,000 years old, when Europeans came to America. The Cherokees are believed to be descendants of an early sea migration from the Caribbean to the Gulf Coast, which spread from the southeastern US to the Texas Trinity River.

How can anyone NOT be interested, fascinated with history!

Tex, I have a friend that has some Cherokee blood too! He loaned me a book about the Cherokees, and how the white man (mis-) treated them. Although the Cherokees were originally on the east coast, many migrated inland to Oklahoma. Sadly, most were slautered by the whites. After reading your post, I can understand more fully why some whites married the Cherokee. The beginning history of America was tough going for most white immigrants too, and they understood 'how advanced' the Cherokees were in their lifestyle. Thanks for sharing, c.i.

I've been fascinated by history from earliest childhood. I was fortunate to be of a family with great respect and regard for history. There was always a special thrill to visit an historic site which had some connection to family or ancestors, and later in life and broader of travel, to stand in a spot once occupied by a giant of history. I have always been far more interested in WHY a thing happened, and what effects it might have had, what it MEANT, than in merely knowing that a particular thing had happened in a particular place at a particular time. The latter always struck me as a particular waste of time, while the former is the most fascinating stuff of story imagineable.



timber

The Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz, is a must read for anyone interested in American History. I believe my copy is titled somewhat differently, The Conquest of Mexico, but perhaps not.

Read this book, it is one of the essentials. Its also a great read.

The one thing I learned early about history is that it is written by the victors. I try to read several books about an era or event before deciding what might have been the truth of the matter.
Husker was trying to point out a process that has been going on ever since anyone wrote a history -- re-writing. I don't know what re-writing he was referring to, but I can assure you that right now there are historians from all polictical persuasions writing a book that puts some faction in a better light than some other faction.

(My personal favorite is some of the writings of some in the Southern United States who somehow make the CSA the home of heros and the totally patriotic while the Northern Aggressors are reformed into patronizing interlopers of a pristine world. Southern highways and streets are studded with statues and plaques that proclaim the virtues of the Southern cause in such high tones a stranger might be led to believe that they had won the war..)
I was reminded of this when I read CI's post that said that the Cherokees [quote]migrated inland to Oklahoma.[/quote]
The Cherokees might question that verb when used to describe The Trail of Tears which was a forced march in winter of over a thousand miles. I know you meant nothing, CI, I'm just pointing out the power to change history through the use of different words. Joe

You're right as rain, Joe. The Cherokees didn't migrate anywhere. It was a forced march, a brutal expulsion into exile, instigated by none other than President Andrew Jackson. The ironic part, of course, is that, from a European standpoint, the Cherokee were probably the most "civilized" of all the Native peoples of the East Coast. They had adapted the white man's ways to the point of having developed an alphabet for their language and publishing a tribal newspaper. But they hadda go.

Timber, my childhood experience was similar to yours. My father, a man of little formal education, had an intense interest in history. On family vacations we'd visit Civil War battlefields (spent a whole day when I was about 12 or 13 walking all over the Gettysburg memorial field) or we'd go to museums like the Smithsonian. I loved it all, too.

Joe, My choice of words were really inadequate to describe the truth of that history, and my whole-hearted apologies to all I have offended. At the very least, it was a "forced migration." My ignorance is no excuse to make light to that horrific event, even though I read that book about five years ago. Thank you for correcting my error of words. c.i.

I still think that one of the most easy to read, but still scientific books about the conquest of Mexico is by Hugh Thomas: ´Conquest. Montezuma, Cortéz, and the Fall of Old Mexico', London, 1993.

I'm quite interested in history these days. But studying biology I don't have time to pursue it. And I don't want to read too much during the summer break and replace what I've learned so far.

Not that I've got any great understanding of the subject.

At the moment I'm studying history at an university... It's always been an interest of mine, and I'm very glad I finally take the time to indulge it. But frankly my favorite historical era is Ancient History, whereas most questions here are more contemporary. Still, they are interesting, and show that many of the posters here have a far more profound knowledge of history then I'm likely to develop! ;-)

naj, Your implied lack of knowledge of contemporary history is unfounded. Most people living on this planet have very little knowledge of either contemporary or ancient history. Most people are not 'experts,' and the contributions found on this forum may be knowledgeable in some respects, but somewhat limited. That is the reason why people "specialize" in regions or periods. We can all learn something from these exchange: That's the fun part of A2K. c.i.

Welcome, najmelliw. I too enjoy Ancient History; it is relaxingly settled, sparse in controversy. More contemporary events tend to have more immediate ongoing consequence, and thus perhaps generate greater contemporary attention. Issues rooted in the wars of the previous century, for instance, drive current developments. The Hittites and their concerns, on the other hand, are are of little immediate importance beyond the merely academic.


timber