What good is studying/researching/doing history?

[Pensioner]

To learn why history is important, look at the places where it is perverted. In 1995 I gave a stack of atlases to Russian professor visiting Purdue. They were on WWI and WWII and he didn't recognize most of the battle names on the maps. They had been edited out of Soviet history.

Shock horror Stalin, that bastard did not airbrush folk out of history, did he?

[klr]

To learn why history is important, look at the places where it is perverted. In 1995 I gave a stack of atlases to Russian professor visiting Purdue. They were on WWI and WWII and he didn't recognize most of the battle names on the maps. They had been edited out of Soviet history.

I'm guessing the WW II battles were mainly in 1941. As for WW I, they probably just couldn't resist some creative editing.

The Soviets were notorious for re-writing history, even relatively recent history. If some lackey wanted to curry favour with Stalin, he could always write a "historical" account dealing with some aspect of the revolution (or thereafter) that painted Stalin in the most favourable light possible. Then there was the airbrushing of photographs ...

It's important to know the real truth, and about such attempts to distort history.

To learn why history is important, look at the places where it is perverted. In 1995 I gave a stack of atlases to Russian professor visiting Purdue. They were on WWI and WWII and he didn't recognize most of the battle names on the maps. They had been edited out of Soviet history.

Shock horror Stalin, that bastard did not airbrush folk out of history, did he?

SNAP! As someone once observed: Things would have been so much easier for Stalin if he had Photoshop ...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To learn why history is important, look at the places where it is perverted. In 1995 I gave a stack of atlases to Russian professor visiting Purdue. They were on WWI and WWII and he didn't recognize most of the battle names on the maps. They had been edited out of Soviet history.

I'm guessing the WW II battles were mainly in 1941. As for WW I, they probably just couldn't resist some creative editing.

The Soviets taught D-Day like it was a slightly larger Dieppe.

[klr]

To learn why history is important, look at the places where it is perverted. In 1995 I gave a stack of atlases to Russian professor visiting Purdue. They were on WWI and WWII and he didn't recognize most of the battle names on the maps. They had been edited out of Soviet history.

I'm guessing the WW II battles were mainly in 1941. As for WW I, they probably just couldn't resist some creative editing.

The Soviets taught D-Day like it was a slightly larger Dieppe.

Ah, it was Western battles. I was thinking along the lines of some of the biggest cock-ups the earliest phase of The Great Patriotic War might have been pushed quietly out of the way.

But it's still the case that histories of WW II (in particular) are coloured by agenda/perceptions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To learn why history is important, look at the places where it is perverted. In 1995 I gave a stack of atlases to Russian professor visiting Purdue. They were on WWI and WWII and he didn't recognize most of the battle names on the maps. They had been edited out of Soviet history.

I'm guessing the WW II battles were mainly in 1941. As for WW I, they probably just couldn't resist some creative editing.

The Soviets taught D-Day like it was a slightly larger Dieppe.

Ah, it was Western battles. I was thinking along the lines of some of the biggest cock-ups the earliest phase of The Great Patriotic War might have been pushed quietly out of the way.

The prof wrote a book on the differences between "western" and Soviet history of WWII. 857 pages in Russian.

But it's still the case that histories of WW II (in particular) are coloured by agenda/perceptions.

That's one reason I went into being an archivist rather than a writer. I know what is needed for an accurate history. Whether people choose to take advantage of my work is up to them. With 100,000 hits per month I think a few people have chosen.

[LaMont Cranston]

It is absolutely true that Stalin and countless others have manipulated history and will continue to do so for their own purposes. However, the fact that it may often seem as if such things as truth...and love, kindness and compassion...are in such short supply doesn't make them any the less valuable. If anything, the apparent shortage of these things makes them all the more dear.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It is absolutely true that Stalin and countless others have manipulated history and will continue to do so for their own purposes. However, the fact that it may often seem as if such things as truth...and love, kindness and compassion...are in such short supply doesn't make them any the less valuable. If anything, the apparent shortage of these things makes them all the more dear.

True. History can teach us of the bad ends so many bad actors came to, how many good people they took with them, and give us clues as to how keep it from happening in the future.

[Trolldor]

I mean, unless you're planning to make a career of it, it's not likely to ever contribute much of any value to your quality of life, is it? As far as I can tell, people - especially politicians - rarely use it to inform their decisions or behavior. What's the use of being able to spout off that the Norman Conquest started in 1066 or some such piece of data? You'd think that after all this time of doing history, we'd have come up with some sort of set of useful instructions on how to live well, both individually and as societies. I don't know of one, at least, not one that came from doing history.

I'm not saying we ditch it, only that I don't understand why it's considered to be anything more than a (legitimate) hobby, and why it's a part of core curricula, rather than an elective subject. I'm willing to be convinced, but at the moment...

Quite a bit, actually.
History is as vital to understanding ourselves as any of the sciences, certainly more important than knowing how to sew a pillow case. It's no good looking to the past for solutions on the future, either, but it does show us where we went wrong and what we can do to prevent those same circumstances from repeating themselves.

[FBM]

It might be helpful to distinguish "history", that which professional historians do, and "the past". I'm talking about the former. How often is it actually used to guide decision-making? Rarely, as far as I know. It's a worthwhile endeavor, but I can't see how it has been used in the way many of the previous posts imply. I don't want to see it disappear, but I don't think the rhetoric about it being a resource to inform our behavior is either very accurate or very helpful. I could be dissuaded with some concrete examples (you know, like from history ).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It might be helpful to distinguish "history", that which professional historians do, and "the past". I'm talking about the former. How often is it actually used to guide decision-making? Rarely, as far as I know. It's a worthwhile endeavor, but I can't see how it has been used in the way many of the previous posts imply. I don't want to see it disappear, but I don't think the rhetoric about it being a resource to inform our behavior is either very accurate or very helpful. I could be dissuaded with some concrete examples (you know, like from history ).

I think you're trying to distinguish between "writing" and "literature", FBM.

[FBM]

It might be helpful to distinguish "history", that which professional historians do, and "the past". I'm talking about the former. How often is it actually used to guide decision-making? Rarely, as far as I know. It's a worthwhile endeavor, but I can't see how it has been used in the way many of the previous posts imply. I don't want to see it disappear, but I don't think the rhetoric about it being a resource to inform our behavior is either very accurate or very helpful. I could be dissuaded with some concrete examples (you know, like from history ).

I think you're trying to distinguish between "writing" and "literature", FBM.

Is there no difference? The past is the events that happened, history is what historians write about it. Is that not a reasonable distinction?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It might be helpful to distinguish "history", that which professional historians do, and "the past". I'm talking about the former. How often is it actually used to guide decision-making? Rarely, as far as I know. It's a worthwhile endeavor, but I can't see how it has been used in the way many of the previous posts imply. I don't want to see it disappear, but I don't think the rhetoric about it being a resource to inform our behavior is either very accurate or very helpful. I could be dissuaded with some concrete examples (you know, like from history ).

I think you're trying to distinguish between "writing" and "literature", FBM.

Is there no difference? The past is the events that happened, history is what historians write about it. Is that not a reasonable distinction?

The only past we know is that which has been written about. The past exists in tangible objects and history (including the history of the tangible objects.)

[FBM]

Is there no difference? The past is the events that happened, history is what historians write about it. Is that not a reasonable distinction?

The only past we know is that which has been written about.[/quote]

Or handed down in oral traditions, but I see your point and agree.

The past exists in tangible objects and history (including the history of the tangible objects.)

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding. There only exist the objects and the history that was written about them. The past is gone and can't be retrieved, as far as I know. People look at the objects and write the most accurate explanation of them they can. That's fine and I'm glad they do. I like knowing about what they consider to be the best explanation of what happened and why. But again, I just don't see people actually using it to inform their decision-making. Where was the wisdom gained from WWI that should have prevented WWII? Where was the wisdom that should have prevented the forced creation of a Jewish state in the midst of their sworn enemies and the subsequent bloodshed? How is it being used in Afghanistan and Iraq to inform those policies? (Answer: poorly, if at all) If history can be useful, instead of just very interesting, we need to do a lot better job of applying it. Seems to me that whatever potential for usefulness history might have is overwhelmed by the Butterfly Effect.

Edit: "Peoples and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deducible from it."
G. W. F. HEGEL

[charlou]

If history can be useful, instead of just very interesting, we need to do a lot better job of applying it. Seems to me that whatever potential for usefulness history might have is overwhelmed by the Butterfly Effect.

Agreed on both points ... and the ironic juxtaposition of the two is notable, too.

[FBM]

If history can be useful, instead of just very interesting, we need to do a lot better job of applying it. Seems to me that whatever potential for usefulness history might have is overwhelmed by the Butterfly Effect.

Agreed on both points ... and the ironic juxtaposition of the two is notable, too.

I didn't think about it like that, but . A review of history teaches us that we aren't very good at applying it...which should be a useful lesson... see the Hegel quote edited into my previous post...