What good is studying/researching/doing history?

[amused]

I think some knowledge of history is good so that a person can have some sense of the trajectory of human events. But when I think back on the history classes I took, I really see no need for the average person to know the sequence and location of the major battles of the Civil War, for example. We should know the broad sweeps of history.

[charlou]

I think some knowledge of history is good so that a person can have some sense of the trajectory of human events. But when I think back on the history classes I took, I really see no need for the average person to know the sequence and location of the major battles of the Civil War, for example. We should know the broad sweeps of history.

In a Guns, Germs and Steel kinda way.

[Trolldor]

You mean... not in the Black Adder sense?

[charlou]

You mean... not in the Black Adder sense?

[Hermit]

History has its place, but I'm questioning whether or not it actually produces results IRL wrt to, in particular, our leaders choosing the most effective response to international tensions. I see history as taking the back seat to immediate (usually petty) concerns. The importance of history in education seems to be over-inflated. It's very interesting and I feel better for knowing the history that I do, but except for making us feel more educated, what good does it actually do? I'm very willing to change my tune in the face of a few concrete examples.

Leaders are not interested in reducing international tensions as such. They will happily let them escalate to the point of a shooting war if they deem it the best means to advance or defend the interests of the oligarchy they represent, but even keeping that limitation in mind, sometimes lessons are learnt. It could be argued that the punitive provisions of the Versailles Treaty was a critical factor contributing to the creation of the Third Reich and thus WWII. So, instead of having Versailles Mark II in 1945, we had the Marshall Plan. Instead of creating a breeding ground for the germination of a Fourth Reich Germany became civilised, democratic and - most importantly - a buffer zone between the "free" world and the "red menace". It is one huge example of people learning from history. Mind you, it had nothing to do with compassion, or any idealistic motivation. It was no more than a case of exceedingly successful Realpolitik.

[FBM]

Leaders are not interested in reducing international tensions as such. They will happily let them escalate to the point of a shooting war if they deem it the best means to advance or defend the interests of the oligarchy they represent, but even keeping that limitation in mind, sometimes lessons are learnt. It could be argued that the punitive provisions of the Versailles Treaty was a critical factor contributing to the creation of the Third Reich and thus WWII. So, instead of having Versailles Mark II in 1945, we had the Marshall Plan. Instead of creating a breeding ground for the germination of a Fourth Reich Germany became civilised, democratic and - most importantly - a buffer zone between the "free" world and the "red menace". It is one huge example of people learning from history. Mind you, it had nothing to do with compassion, or any idealistic motivation. It was no more than a case of exceedingly successful Realpolitik.

Good example. It steers me away from the suspicion that the study of history is completely useless, though I still think the potential lessons of history are more often ignored rather than heeded. I didn't mean to set it up as a black-or-white issue. Your example gives more credence to the claim that it has been used to prevent repetition of at least one world-class blunder.

[Pappa]

My original major, which I had transferred schools to be a part of because it was very unusual and specific, was cancelled the semester I got there so I needed a new major. I enjoyed both history and English, so I double-majored in them. Unfortunately my decision was all from the heart and not the wallet - I was foolishly thinking of my own satisfaction rather than a future career. Silly, in retrospect.

I've thought this too. I wish I'd considered the financial consequences of my degree choice at the time. I don't want to be rich, but a bit more financially comfortable would be nice. Though even if I could go back and try to persuade myself, I wouldn't listen. Actually, I think deep down I don't care enough about earning more money, or I'd concentrate on making money out of the skills I have now anyway.

[klr]

My original major, which I had transferred schools to be a part of because it was very unusual and specific, was cancelled the semester I got there so I needed a new major. I enjoyed both history and English, so I double-majored in them. Unfortunately my decision was all from the heart and not the wallet - I was foolishly thinking of my own satisfaction rather than a future career. Silly, in retrospect.

I've thought this too. I wish I'd considered the financial consequences of my degree choice at the time. I don't want to be rich, but a bit more financially comfortable would be nice. Though even if I could go back and try to persuade myself, I wouldn't listen. Actually, I think deep down I don't care enough about earning more money, or I'd concentrate on making money out of the skills I have now anyway.

As I've said before, my choice of what to study at third level was dictated by sheer necessity. Hell, I couldn't even take history in the Leaving Cert. ('A' levels to you in the UK) because I needed to take other subjects instead to improve my chances of getting job, or being accepted for certain third-level programs. Unemployment was rampant in Ireland in the 1980's, and the only thing that counted was what the work prospects were at the end of it. I could just as easily have not gone to university at all if there was a suitable job available.

[Pappa]

My original major, which I had transferred schools to be a part of because it was very unusual and specific, was cancelled the semester I got there so I needed a new major. I enjoyed both history and English, so I double-majored in them. Unfortunately my decision was all from the heart and not the wallet - I was foolishly thinking of my own satisfaction rather than a future career. Silly, in retrospect.

I've thought this too. I wish I'd considered the financial consequences of my degree choice at the time. I don't want to be rich, but a bit more financially comfortable would be nice. Though even if I could go back and try to persuade myself, I wouldn't listen. Actually, I think deep down I don't care enough about earning more money, or I'd concentrate on making money out of the skills I have now anyway.

As I've said before, my choice of what to study at third level was dictated by sheer necessity. Hell, I couldn't even take history in the Leaving Cert. ('A' levels to you in the UK) because I needed to take other subjects instead to improve my chances of getting job, or being accepted for certain third-level programs. Unemployment was rampant in Ireland in the 1980's, and the only thing that counted was what the work prospects were at the end of it. I could just as easily have not gone to university at all if there was a suitable job available.

I was lucky in that I didn't need to do that. My main reason for going to university (in hindsight) was because I still wasn't exactly sure what I wanted to do as career. To be honest, I still don't. I studied photography, learned a bit of web design on the way and got a job as a web designer right after Uni. I leaned programming on the job out of necessity, and realised I really enjoyed it (the problem solving thing really appealed to me). But I hate working in an office and would like to do something else. My photography is way to rusty to turn to that and I don't have any other skills that are good enough to pay the mortgage with.

[FBM]

Good thing there's always work to be had for people who know how to blow things up.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

History sucks, philosophy rules. Get over it!

[Svartalf]

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?

You'd make a better distinction by differentiating between historian's hitory that is researching the data to try to discover or establish actual facts from the past, from common histories that are not as truth driven and that may be used to drive a point (whether truthfully or not) or for simple entertainment.

[Svartalf]

Good thing there's always work to be had for people who know how to blow things up.

Yeah, I wanted to do that too, but the army found me physically unfit.

[Svartalf]

History sucks, philosophy rules. Get over it!

History is fact, philosophy is tales, and in the worst case soporific ones.

[Feck]

History is important so We can teach the future Generations all the Myriads of reasons why you can never trust the French .......