The article's argument seems to be semantical in nature. I don't think many people would argue that learning about history is useless. The author and I hold the exact same beliefs -- knowing that the Pilgrims landed in American in 1690 is useless, but knowing why they left, the rough state of colonization in America at the time, etc. is useful. But when people refer to "historical facts", they think of the former. It…
I think that you've missed the point. Knowing that the Pilgrims landed in America in 1620 is very important! You have to memorize dates in order to place events in their proper context. I suggest you reread the article and then read his more detailed explanation here: http://www.secular-homeschooling.com/008/powell.html
Scott Powell, the guy who wrote this article, recorded a set of lectures covering the history of Western Civilization. They're available for purchase on his website here: http://www.powellhistory.com/1hfa.html. I'm too poor to purchase them, so I can't give a first-hand account, but I've heard good things.
The important thing in history isn't the who, the where, or the when, it's the what and in particular, the why. History classes almost never cover that, most important, part. Instead it's an exercise in rout memorization. If you focus on the why, everything else falls into place because it actually has meaning. If it doesn't have meaning, it's just a number that needs to be remembered for a few hours to be regurgitat…
Why do you think that is? Do you realize how much pressure a textbook writer or school district would face for teaching, in so many words, that the Pilgrims tried setting up a theocracy, and the problems inherent in that led the Founding Fathers to build a secular government? How dare the schools suggest such a thing! Next they'll try and teach kids that evolution is true.
The important thing in history isn't the who, the where, or the when, it's the what and in particular, the why. History classes almost never cover that, most important, part. Instead it's an exercise in rout memorization. If you focus on the why, everything else falls into place because it actually has meaning. If it doesn't have meaning, it's just a number that needs to be remembered for a few hours to be regurgitat…
Why do you think that is? Do you realize how much pressure a textbook writer or school district would face for teaching, in so many words, that the Pilgrims tried setting up a theocracy, and the problems inherent in that led the Founding Fathers to build a secular government? How dare the schools suggest such a thing! Next they'll try and teach kids that evolution is true.
The reason is the same as in math, physics, chemistry, English. It's more important to cover a larger amount of material than it is to actually have students learn useful knowledge in a subject. There are lots of high school students who could tell you the dates of Napoleon's reign, the dates of Otto von Bismark's reign, the dates of WWI, WWII, and the cold war, but only a tiny fraction of those students could explain with clarity and insight how those disparate events are related and linked. Yet it's that knowledge, more than X significant event happened during year Y at location Z, which makes knowledge of history valuable.
The important thing in history isn't the who, the where, or the when, it's the what and in particular, the why. History classes almost never cover that, most important, part. Instead it's an exercise in rout memorization. If you focus on the why, everything else falls into place because it actually has meaning. If it doesn't have meaning, it's just a number that needs to be remembered for a few hours to be regurgitat…
I kind of agree.
I hated History all through school but I found a copy of Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" I all of a sudden found myself engrossed by it. It was a bit above my level when I first picked it up but I kept going back to it.
The same critique applies to all the disciplines that are currently taught at the undergraduate level in all universities and the part about smart students becoming cynical especially rings true.
I, for one, could not agree with this article more. I was one of the kids who viewed the study of history as I knew it as completely superfluous to my life goals and have only recently (at the age of 22) started to appreciate the value of historical study as described by the author of this post. I was almost proud to declare my contempt for the subject all the way through my high school years.
I enjoyed some history at high school but not history lessons in general they never really engaged me. But then I'm wondering if this is like someone saying "I enjoy blowing things up but chemistry lessons never really engaged me".
Basically are the type of historical facts, Plymouth harbour or whatever, that are taught in high school instead the basis on which to build later historical understanding. An 11 year old won't normally be able to combine the relevant facets of the events in James I court with the leaving of the Pilgrims, the situation in Europe and the differences in the main North American colonies to create wisdom. What they can do is learn facts about these situations to use later as the basis for such more complex understanding.
I, for one, could not agree with this article more. I was one of the kids who viewed the study of history as I knew it as completely superfluous to my life goals and have only recently (at the age of 22) started to appreciate the value of historical study as described by the author of this post. I was almost proud to declare my contempt for the subject all the way through my high school years.
I enjoyed some history at high school but not history lessons in general they never really engaged me. But then I'm wondering if this is like someone saying "I enjoy blowing things up but chemistry lessons never really engaged me".
Basically are the type of historical facts, Plymouth harbour or whatever, that are taught in high school instead the basis on which to build later historical understanding. An 11 year old won't normally be able to combine the relevant facets of the events in James I court with the leaving of the Pilgrims, the situation in Europe and the differences in the main North American colonies to create wisdom. What they can do is learn facts about these situations to use later as the basis for such more complex understanding.
The article's argument seems to be semantical in nature. I don't think many people would argue that learning about history is useless. The author and I hold the exact same beliefs -- knowing that the Pilgrims landed in American in 1690 is useless, but knowing why they left, the rough state of colonization in America at the time, etc. is useful. But when people refer to "historical facts", they think of the former. It…
Knowing that it was half a century after the reformation but before the English civil war, yet after the establishment of other colonies is important. Knowing that it was 1620 rather than 1619/1621 isn't important - but that's all you are tested on. Treating it as maths where being 1year out is completely wrong is stupid.
There's two problems with this approach:
1) A practical one: suppose you would be lenient on a test and allowed the students to be 5 years off. How much would that change? How many students are actually only a few years off? Is 5 years reasonable or should they be allowed to be 7 years off? What about the situation where a set of events are closer in time than your deviation?
2) One from generalization: if you have to know it was half a century after the reformation, you still know nothing if you don't know the reformation started in 1540 (I'm making this year up; it depends much on the country). Which still doesn't mean a thing if you don't know Michaelangelo died in 1480 (still making stuff up), which is 400 years after the Dark Ages started (...). Do you think they should know whether Raphael and Thomas of Aquinas lived in the same times? Should they know whether the Austrian-Hungarian empire existed already when Newton invented gravitation? The more facts you start relating, the more important precision becomes. The more you want to describe detailed chains of events, in which the details matter, the more facts you need to relate.
Knowing that it was half a century after the reformation but before the English civil war, yet after the establishment of other colonies is important. Knowing that it was 1620 rather than 1619/1621 isn't important - but that's all you are tested on. Treating it as maths where being 1year out is completely wrong is stupid.
There's two problems with this approach: 1) A practical one: suppose you would be lenient on a test and allowed the students to be 5 years off. How much would that change? How many students are actually only a few years off? Is 5 years reasonable or should they be allowed to be 7 years off? What about the situation where a set of events are closer in time than your deviation? 2) One from generalization: if you have t…
That's what happens if you teach the facts devoid of the relations. The history classes where they taught relations I got something out of. The others are just useless footnotes in my education.