Another thought-provoking post, Bill. It reminded me of this Ira Berlin quote: “History is not about the past; it is about arguments we have about the past. And because it is about arguments that we have, it is about us.”
Very good. I couldn't help think of the Monty Python joke "what have the Romans ever given us?". History is about freedom lost and won about struggles to establish prosperous and secure communities. But one can only learn from history if one seeks the truth and is honest. The USA is a first world free society and we should want to stay that way. How we got here and how we progress into the future or decline depends, in part, by our honest understanding of our history and the history of Western Civilization.
Nationalistic histories tend to romanticize one point of view and omit negative or embarassing moments.
I recall a Spanish tour guide at Castillo Gormaz in Soria, Spain. He was recounting the Reconquista and saying the Spanish Christians heroically won this battle and that one.
One of the tourists with us in the group was an Arab and he said, "Hey didn't the Moors win some battles?" The tour guide answered, "As long as I am the guide here they won't win any!" Isn't that the attitude of some people towards history?
One thing I am impressed with our academy is most practitioners are still willing to mix up opinions and discussions in a true open fashion. While it seems many history departments are much more dysfunctional (like much of America's institutions), the ones I have interacted with are still interested in debate, reasoned arguments, etc.
Coming from a former analytical profession, I think historiographical debate should be thought of as a regression. There is no question that there are "independent variables" that cause the dependent variable. All an historian does is question the weighting and importance of each one. Much easier to put large events like wars or financial upheaval into a framework to analyze.
From a pedagogical standpoint, It also engages the business/econ majors who tend to coast through a history survey course due to boredom...
Great perspective. We like to say we're telling a more nuanced story these days when in fact it's often just as simplistic. We're just picking different heros and villains...
I'm just coming back around to this entry, but am always on the lookout for ways to help my high school students understand that without understanding the uncomfortable and painful parts of our history, the story is incomplete. Your writing makes me think of one of my favorite recent quotes I've read from Jon Meacham in "The Soul of America." He wrote, "A knowledge of our past failings may equip us to confront evil without delay when evil comes again–for it will.”
Another thought-provoking post, Bill. It reminded me of this Ira Berlin quote: “History is not about the past; it is about arguments we have about the past. And because it is about arguments that we have, it is about us.”
Very good. I couldn't help think of the Monty Python joke "what have the Romans ever given us?". History is about freedom lost and won about struggles to establish prosperous and secure communities. But one can only learn from history if one seeks the truth and is honest. The USA is a first world free society and we should want to stay that way. How we got here and how we progress into the future or decline depends, in part, by our honest understanding of our history and the history of Western Civilization.
Nationalistic histories tend to romanticize one point of view and omit negative or embarassing moments.
I recall a Spanish tour guide at Castillo Gormaz in Soria, Spain. He was recounting the Reconquista and saying the Spanish Christians heroically won this battle and that one.
One of the tourists with us in the group was an Arab and he said, "Hey didn't the Moors win some battles?" The tour guide answered, "As long as I am the guide here they won't win any!" Isn't that the attitude of some people towards history?
One thing I am impressed with our academy is most practitioners are still willing to mix up opinions and discussions in a true open fashion. While it seems many history departments are much more dysfunctional (like much of America's institutions), the ones I have interacted with are still interested in debate, reasoned arguments, etc.
Coming from a former analytical profession, I think historiographical debate should be thought of as a regression. There is no question that there are "independent variables" that cause the dependent variable. All an historian does is question the weighting and importance of each one. Much easier to put large events like wars or financial upheaval into a framework to analyze.
From a pedagogical standpoint, It also engages the business/econ majors who tend to coast through a history survey course due to boredom...
Great perspective. We like to say we're telling a more nuanced story these days when in fact it's often just as simplistic. We're just picking different heros and villains...
I'm just coming back around to this entry, but am always on the lookout for ways to help my high school students understand that without understanding the uncomfortable and painful parts of our history, the story is incomplete. Your writing makes me think of one of my favorite recent quotes I've read from Jon Meacham in "The Soul of America." He wrote, "A knowledge of our past failings may equip us to confront evil without delay when evil comes again–for it will.”
Thanks for your work!