this quote -"“History is written by the victors.” (attributed to many from NApoleon to Churchill) has not been included yet - In studying history, we learn the stories a culture tells themselves - and can see that despite technology's growth the human "character" hasn't (may not ever) changed much in the time of record. - It does enhance a comprehension of humanity to look deeper than the moment of time we are in, or the stories the "victors" hope survive.
An argument could be made that if Germany had undergone much harsher treatment after WW1 or much more lenient treatment, the soil would not have been fertile for Hitler. Why didn't history help the makers of the Treaty of Versailles realize this? But let's say you are correct, in this instance. I was making a much broader challenge to the assertion that knowledge of history helps one avoid repeating history. This assertion on you part, in terms of verification, is similar to a Christian who says that the Bible keeps one from sinning or leads to a better society, etc. Imagine what hoops you would demand such a person leap through to back up the assertion - I do not think deduction would satisfy most humanists and certainly not most atheists. Can you leap through those hoops in relation to your first quote. It may seem straightforward, but I see, so far, no reason to accept either assertion as correct.
I am not sure which side of the debate you are weighing in on. I am sure all the Western planners of the war/occupation of Iraq 'knew' about Vietnam. And little good it has done any of us. But perhaps that was your point.
i was taught history is important otherwise you could end up believing in certain bad people you might think are good for a country or good for talks they can suck you into their lies and through history say like hitler one can interpret the lies from the truth thaqt way i have a clean thought of what is real i know reality from the crap sum leaders make us believe i know a good leader and i know Kevin Rudd is good ive read up on him before he even thought of being a prime misinter years ago and other leaders even said he was good he was the one to be a speaker for our country leaders all over the world even know this before the manb knew himself maybe he was made to take this position and chose very carefully by very big people and they are open about their words maybe their is such a thing as leaders in power having a choice whats that word again when leader have discussions and do things behind everyones backs and have meetings in secret all that stuff well i guess its true they do have authority over who is going to be a leader or not consiracies thats it i guess its true there are consipicies going on but for good reason when one leader is not good all get together and make choices and help that man or woman get where they want them to be and they boot the idiot out so to regain power again and get things back to the way life should be peaceful its not a good journey all takes time kinda like how things are dunno why they let me know before it all eventuated but i guess could be cause they got sick of me annoying them hahaha
In order for history to really sere the purpose of educating future generations it should be written as it actually happened, or to quote Leopold von Ranke, "Wie es eigentlich gewesen war." History is all too often distorted to fit a particular purpose.
What makes you so sure this is the case? Why couldn't literature be used? (as in your example Orwell) or films? (Brazil, Reds, some Costas Gravas)
River Ape's definition: History is nothing more nor less than everything that has happened up to now -- subjected to the severest form of precis. So pretty clearly it is of some interest. Question is: how well have historians learned the art of precis?
And one of the oldest "histories" we have...from the biggest "losers" of all time. The Hebrew Jews. History is written by historians, of varying degrees of skill, bias and aptitude to hold attention. For the last, the Jews were the first. As for the "events", of course history is mostly a series of conflicts. Usually a winner and a loser.
I am still wondering if anyone can back up the notion that you are less likely to repeat history if you study it with something along empirical lines.
Because unlike literature, history often lays the basis for our cultural Identity History is also something we all share.
I would not call Jews "the biggest losers of all time". Jews are still here. Most of their oppressors and conquerors are gone. To me, this makes Jews the winners. To answer OP, I think it is very important to know history, but it is also very difficult to convince a typical teenager WHY it is important. My solution to this was to give my children (when they are old enough) one of Harry Flashman books. By the time they are done, not only they are hooked on history but also understand its relevance to modern world.
I never really thought that the dates in most cases were not important. It's more what was learned after making a certain mistake in history, or what we did good, and can improve on more.
Why do you suppose I put "loser" in quotes? That was my point, what you just said. Yes they are still here, they simply refused to die/give up, despite being defeated utterly, many times. The Hebrew Bible/Torah is still a legitimate source of history(this from someone who thinks it's a bunch of bullshit in the "spiritual" sense).
history is cultural shit if not, qualifiers are required even then application is severely delineated /so there
In public school we learn it as a societal foundation upon which we base our values. ie White guilt. This stuff is planned to make us be good workers who don't make too much fuss so we don't rock the boat for our leaders. Beyond that, when we study history we find censured and uncensured truth. When enough history is studied in different areas certain themes start to form from the pieces and the picture of history as it was begins to take shape in some surprising ways. Of the previous quotes I found Cicero to be the most agreeable.
We share it because we are all taught it in school. If we were taught other things we would share these. I still see no proof that it prevents anything bad from happening.
White guilt? Not the history I got. Even with short vague apolagies for slavery and the treatement of native americans all the social studies books I was ever forced to read made the US out to be the greatest country and focused primarily on great white americans. Perhaps you are from some other country. But given that history in school tends to be to socialize, as you in fact say, I doubt many of them make much effort to make whites feel guilty. Whatever small emphasis on the mistakes of white is made is, I am sure, overwhelmed by the back patting of the rest of the book.
I know what I learned and I read what my children are taught. They are not the same. We've gone from President's day to Martin Luther King Jr. day in more ways than one.
I can't see how the addition of Martin Luther King day and sections in social studies text books on the Civil Rights Movement makes the whole thing White Guilt. I will bet that most of the Great Men in your children's texts are white men. I will guess that the US is still presented in a positive light in many, many historical situations and that the electoral and economic system is presented,also in a positive light. I know a bit about the publishing climate for school texts. If the publisher will lose one state, they change the book to satisfy them. So Texas and other very conservative states have tremendous influence over what must be left out and what must be included in the texts. I am quite sure it has changed - though I definitely learned about MLK when I was a kid - but that social studies texts are guilt trips for whites I hardly believe. If you mean that they include actions by whites that were wrong, well that is a very childish definition. That would be a whitewash.
