|
I consider myself a student of history. Maybe that is a fair title, maybe it isn't. I have a bachelors in History, and am 1 credit hour way from finishing my MA in history (focusing on ancient history, ancient Roman to be more specific). So often I have asked myself, "what is the point of studying history?" In otherwords, does it actually contribute anything to society? Does knowing history collectively make society better? Let me also say that I don't much buy into the idea that "if you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it." That is ok, and might have a kernal of truth to it, maybe, but it doesn't hold a lot of water for me and here is why.
As a "student of history," if there is one thing that I've learned is that people, individually or collectively, do not learn from history. They just don't. When societies or individuals go about making decisions, they rarely use the past when they want to inform themselves about what decision to make. Which, honestly, isn't that terrible, as most older civilizations screw up their own history. They either get it wrong (and we have to correct it later with better evidence), or sometimes even get it right, but draw ridiculous conclusions from it. Sure there exceptions, and I'm not saying that no one EVER made an informed and well-thought out decision based on what they knew about the past, but it is a rarity. You see groups of people just make the same mistakes over and over again.
So, I'm fairly dubious about society in general learning from history. However, that is at odds with this next statement, a statement I would generally consider as factually true. The world is a better place today for the vast majority of people living in it than it was in the past,at almost any point. Notice I say for the MAJORITY of people, because, as always there are exceptions (if your family was a landed plantation family in the US South, you might be worse off today now that slavery is gone). So how did this happen? Are people actually learning from the past? As stated earlier, I don't believe that is true. Then what is going on?
My current theory regarding this issue is something like this (and I'm just coming up with this, so it isn't quite complete): People do not look at history to make informed decisions, however the human urge to constantly better their environment, particularly when it comes to technology, has lead to an overall "human progress." In other words, people basically wanted to make life better for themselves, and maybe their direct children, so therefore took some form of action to do that, and that action helps us now. This is particularly true with technological advances.
So what is going on here? Are people actually learning from history somehow? Why are things getting better? Is it technology?
Do you think that societies actually do learn from history, and I'm wrong on the first assumption? Does society benefit from the study of history directly?
Feel free to discuss, as I could be persuaded to change my view on almost any of these positions.
  
|
As someone who majored history for 3 years I noticed something else. History is almost never objective, and doesn't need to be. By interpreting dry facts we create the passion and everything else around it. In reality, history is dull. Like OP mentioned, people don't change and make same mistakes driven by similar motives.
It is only the historian that makes history epic. To a person involved it was just a mere fact of life, possibly drenched in regret and sorrow.
|
|
|
Well two simple things.
It's never exactly the same situation again so people tend to think it'll be different this time.
The people that make it into history books or on the news are people who are generally busy doing whatever it is that got them there and they probably don't have time to learn about history to know they are repeating the same mistake.
That's why people tend to not learn sometimes. But as information becomes more abundant it's easier for people to make informed decisions (or hear feedback on a decision). Someone who does study history has a much easier time weighing in on an issue now than in the past.
|
I love history. And I think, like you do, that most people don't learn a thing from it.
Let's take Freud as an example: to me, he's still brilliant. I'd simply love to see people actually deal with sick people the way he did, listening to them, explaining to them what's wrong and doing his best to help them. But what "modern" doctors see is that he had strange sexualised ideas as well (just like every single cokehead in the 1880s) and thus he's regarded as outdated and more of a clown than of a great researcher. Yes, he was wrong at times. And at other times, he was right.
What bothers me about this is not the way we today deal with Freud especially (it's just the first example that came to my mind since I've got a psychology exam on monday  ), it's that modern times generalize to much. Freud is the crazy sex guy, Napoleon the littlelittlelittle french guy, Nero's the guy who burned Rome down and the 2003 invasion of Iraq was inevitable - at least that's what the guys said back then.
Well, who those people actually were, what time they were born in, what they knew or just didn't, what made them who they were and do what they did - who cares? That Freud thought most of his early work bullshit by the time he died? That Napoleon was actually 1,68 metres what is average for 18th century? That Nero opened his palace to people who had lost their homes in the fire? That we are the people who watched the bombing of Bagdad live on TV while eating dinner?
We don't see the processes behind history, we only see results. That's why we don't learn.
|
"History is written by the winners."
|
Could somebody inform me why History is any usefull? To me it's truly the most boring class. You don't think, you just sit there, keep your mouth shut and listen, remember things....Write them down during test.
|
On February 11 2012 07:59 Recognizable wrote:
Could somebody inform me why History is any usefull? To me it's truly the most boring class. You don't think, you just sit there, keep your mouth shut and listen, remember things....Write them down during test.
History isn't meant to be learning about what old things are and then remembering them, that's antiquarianism. Historical study is all about interpretation of ideas and using a sense of empathy to put yourself into the perspective of the time period you are studying. The originiation of modern ideas or problems can be traced back centuries usually, but historical study is not to predict the future as those set of circumstances will never happen again(case in point, the Neo-Nazi movement cannot possibly have the same effect as the Nazi movement because this is not 1930's Germany, etc.) A different example could be that history can be seen as being revitalized from a different perspective in a whole new way(you could argue that the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were heavily influenced by Classical philosophy from the Latin and Greek times.)
Historians typically have a skill-set of interpretation, analyzing facts, reading, writing, and arguing points that are greater than most other professions. Whether that's actually true or not, I find that through my study of history that I have sharpened my mind to a great degree in those particular capacities.
http://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-History-4th-John-Tosh/dp/1405823518
The Pursuit of History by John Tosh is a great book concerning this topic, though it's more of a textbook as opposed to casual read. Memorization of facts and dates is not the purpose of learning history, though it is necessary to understand what you will be analyzing or interpreting later on. I couldn't possibly write a paper on the City-State of Muscovy coming out as the dominant power in Russia as opposed to Kievan Rus' after the Mongol invasion if I didn't know the basics first.
|
On February 11 2012 07:59 Recognizable wrote:
Could somebody inform me why History is any usefull? To me it's truly the most boring class. You don't think, you just sit there, keep your mouth shut and listen, remember things....Write them down during test.
While I'm certainly willing to accept the idea that the study of History may or may not be useful for society, please give some sort of explanation or reasoning for your statement. Just implying that history sucks isn't useful.
Also, I can assume you are in high school or maybe early college. History is mostly memorization at that level, as any serious field would be, because you don't have the knowledge or skills to "practice" history (just like you aren't going to make significant scientific discoveries at that level). What you have to understand is that the "facts" you learn about any given time period at level are actually people/events that some historian or group of historians have decided are important about that period. You aren't getting the whole story, because the whole story is too big.
That is the "practice" of history. Reading sources and deciding what is and is not most important or significant about a certain time period. Obviously, this is highly subjective, and is why arguments make the practice of history, not "facts."
Edit: Guy above me sort of beat me to it. Also, it is more complicated than I've said, but for simplicity's sake I'll leave it at that.
|
That's great, obviously, however I just find it hard for me to motivate myself for History when I don't know how it even benefits me knowing these things. I'd rather spent more time on trying to understand the world around me through something like physics ^^
|
You share my views, although I don't have mine at a high degree of certainty because I'm uninformed. These concepts seem to me to be most compatible with the institutional study of history, because it describes mechanisms that allow people to have little or no actual understanding of history and still benefit from the lessons of it.
There's some interesting thinking related to this in epistemology (The Black Swan) and social psychology. I also recommend The Fog of War by Errol Morris/Robert McNamara.
|
On February 11 2012 07:59 Recognizable wrote:
Could somebody inform me why History is any usefull? To me it's truly the most boring class. You don't think, you just sit there, keep your mouth shut and listen, remember things....Write them down during test.
The "history" you learn in high school is nothing like studying history. Not that it's useless, it's just the same way that "math" in high school is only the precursor to actually studying mathematics.
|
On February 11 2012 08:19 Recognizable wrote:
That's great, obviously, however I just find it hard for me to motivate myself for History when I don't know how it even benefits me knowing these things. I'd rather spent more time on trying to understand the world around me through something like physics ^^
Without history, we wouldn't have physics for you to study. Perhaps the history topic you're learning doesn't appeal to you, but you shouldn't generalize all of history into one boring subject. There's history behind everything and you can argue its benefits toward you as well. You learn from history and can formulate your future actions based on it.
It's just a matter of thinking with a different mindset.
|
History provides perspective and that is invaluable in my opinion. That a lot of people don't learn from something does not invalidate the usefulness of learning from that source, it simply means a lot of people didn't learn from it. I find people arguing for things all the time that a simple cursory glance at history would show them what they are arguing for has never worked well in previous societies.
Again its a matter of perspective, choosing to learn, or remaining ignorant and repeating mistakes where they could have been easily avoided. Most people will choose ignorance because its easier for them.
|
As stated before History is not just a bunch of facts, but what these facts mean. The analysis of the past gives you insight on the nature of humanity. Almost every subject is the the analysis of past. You only learn from the PAST. You can't learn from the future because it hasn't happened. Learning about the societies, politics, economics from the past all give you insight in to human nature. Why do people study science? They want to know how the world works. Why? Most of the time there is no reason to learning how a plant's cells works or how the universe was created. This shows us the unquenchable curiosity of the human race, even though it has no use, we still want to know. This is most evident in children, they have this curiosity as they are famous for asking "why?" Yet after we grow up this curiosity is beat out of us by society, we don't ask why anymore. We are just fine living in ignorance.
So to ask what is the point of history also questions learning in general. Why do we learn? To make our lives better? To quench our curiosity?
On February 11 2012 07:59 Recognizable wrote:
Could somebody inform me why History is any usefull? To me it's truly the most boring class. You don't think, you just sit there, keep your mouth shut and listen, remember things....Write them down during test.
Why don't you think? All the information is there. I agree History in high school is plain stupid, but that basically applies to every other class also. All you do in math is remember formulas and how to solve equations. How is that any different then remembering facts? I think History has more potential than math and science to teach. It can teach you how to mold your lives in accordance with lives in the past. Science only tells you how a plant works. What can you do with that? Of course I'm overgeneralizing subjects but the point is still there.
Also to the question why societies don't learn from history is because they don't analyze it, and most people live their lives asleep anyway so that makes it hard. Also it's hard to think, and humans are naturally lazy so yea.
And you should stop worrying so much about society. (it's usually pretty bad) Also probably the best way to improve your life is through knowledge and not just making it easier to be fat.
I hope I helped anyone get more out of history, because I'm still in high school and I'm probably going to major in it.
|
I HATE history teachers that just go on about facts for their entire course. That is not history. Being a historian means that you can interpret the information that you are reading and not just accept it at face level.
One of the most fun subjects to discuss is the concept of "Diabolical" and "Trivial" evil. (Trivial evil is not a perfect translation from the Swedish word "banal" but it means roughly the same thing.)
Diabolical evil is the kind of person Voldemort is. He did evil things because he liked it, he knew what he did was evil but did not care.
Trivial evil is a person that does evil things, but "for the greater good" or any reasons at all really. If the person can justify what he does to himself then what he is doing is just Trivial, not diabolical evil.
To put this into perspective; Hitler believed that what he was doing was the right thing, he saw the Jews as a big problem that needed to be fixed. It is well documented that the Nazi's did not plan a holocaust from the beginning, rather they were forced to follow that route due to logistical problems (they wanted to create a ghetto for all the Jews on Madagascar).
In today's society we often hear people refer to Hitler as evil. They way they use evil is equal to our Diabolical evil.
Was Hitler really diabolically evil? I can't give you an answer that is 100% certain.
Personally I believe that there is no such thing is diabolical evil but this is where history gets so damn exiting. You get to think for yourself, no one can provide the right answer for you. This leads to amazing discussions and sometimes fist-fights 
When you start thinking like this it also becomes much more fun to read about new historical periods because you are in the mindset of doubting everything and trying to really decipher what actually happened.
Just my 2 cents
|
On February 11 2012 20:26 Stenstyren wrote:
Was Hitler really diabolically evil? I can't give you an answer that is 100% certain.
I will. The answer is yes. Let's not overthink this guys.
edit: Oh man I can't believe I just used the word overthink. I must be drunk.
|
History is crucial in recording continuity in the human narrative. Also, I disagree heavily with your claim that "When societies or individuals go about making decisions, they rarely use the past when they want to inform themselves about what decision to make." Machiavelli's The Prince was largely based on analysis of past regimes, and this document became a fundamental influence in shaping the nature of political theory. The federalists and antifederalists of the United States both used extensive reference and study of the past to support their arguments. That little guy named Karl Marx employed an entire political ideology that shaped the world that was based off an analysis of history. The list goes on and on. Now, from your post, it seems that the actual point that you're making is that society actually derives incorrect conclusions from their study of history, which then answers your question. That means that the study of history obviously is important, as it must be done to continually contest readings of history to strive towards an ideal understanding of Truth in history. The fact that people fuck up doesn't mean that the goal should not be pursued, that's like saying "I sometimes get answers wrong on a test, therefore I should not answer any questions on the test" - no, you obviously want to improve your answering of tests so that you get all the answers right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
