Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
littlebitofcode.com
Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
#2I read this post and the post that it was critiquing and both came to the same conclusion: Knowing the who/what/when/where throughout history is only useful when understanding the Why as well.
Re: Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
#3The history classes I had (post, let's say, eighth grade; I’m from Germany) were all about the “why”. The credo was not to even bother remembering historical facts unless they help you explain why something happened. I always hated remembering facts. But I always really loved history. It wasn’t about facts, it was about explaining why something happened (with the facts as your tool) and finding out whether some explanations are better or more plausible than others.
Remembering just facts is no fun if you can’t use them for anything.
(The “whys” of history are more than cute little stories about individuals as this article makes it sound, though. Explanations can include economic data, statistics, maps, laws, newspaper articles, cartoons and all kinds of documents.)
PS, history as taught in the United States can’t be that bad. I just finished listening to a lecture about Germany prior to the First World War by Margaret Anderson (Department of History UC Berkeley – http://history.berkeley.edu/faculty/Anderson/ – the lecture is available as a podcast – oh, the joys of the internet) and it pretty much echoed exactly all the things we discussed in the last two years in school. It was pretty nostalgic all around.
Re: Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
#4What evidence does Mr. Greene provide for British connivance at Napoleon's escape from Elba, or for Talleyrand's masterminding the plot? Talleyrand was a thoroughly crooked operator, but prudent enough to see dangers in such a plan. Waterloo was anything but a walkover for the British and Prussian forces.
Heaven knows that a lot of history instruction can render the most fascinating characters boring, but some overview of Talleyrand's earlier and later career, the history of the Congress of Vienna, the campaign that led to Waterloo, etc. etc. might enable to raise such questions. Is it really a gain to escape from the world of disconnected dry facts to a world of dubious theories?
Re: Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
#5The history classes I had (post, let's say, eighth grade; I’m from Germany) were all about the “why”. The credo was not to even bother remembering historical facts unless they help you explain why something happened. I always hated remembering facts. But I always really loved history. It wasn’t about facts, it was about explaining why something happened (with the facts as your tool) and finding out whether some expla…
You're bringing up a world-class institution of higher learning, whereas the article is talking about average, run-of-the-mill education. History taught at the upper-college levels can be pretty good. History taught in public high schools, not so much. There are some good teachers out there, so YMMV, but history, as well as math, have a habit of being short-changed by memorization-focused learning and testing. Not even because it's easy to teach, but because it's easy to grade.
Re: Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
#6I read this post and the post that it was critiquing and both came to the same conclusion: Knowing the who/what/when/where throughout history is only useful when understanding the Why as well.
The two authors have completely different views about the purpose and nature of history.
Justin Cunningham, the author who doesn't think that memorizing historical facts is important, has the view that history is just a collection of disconnected, but interesting stories. He refuses to memorize anything that doesn't pique his interest.
Scott Powell, the author who does think it is necessary to memorize history, has a much different perspective. He thinks that the purpose of history is to "use the past as a resource for living in the present." In order to do that, he thinks that it is necessary to memorize all relevant historical facts -- even the ones that don't have fun interesting stories. Memorizing what happened and in what order is the only way one can fully integrate the historical context into ones understanding.
Here is a link to Scott Powell's article for comparison: http://www.historyatourhouse.com/?p=154
Re: Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
#7I read this post and the post that it was critiquing and both came to the same conclusion: Knowing the who/what/when/where throughout history is only useful when understanding the Why as well.
The two authors have completely different views about the purpose and nature of history. Justin Cunningham, the author who doesn't think that memorizing historical facts is important, has the view that history is just a collection of disconnected, but interesting stories. He refuses to memorize anything that doesn't pique his interest. Scott Powell, the author who does think it is necessary to memorize history, has a…
It's not that I refuse to memorize things, it's that things don't just happen. Everything happens for a reason. The reason behind things is usually very interesting, whereas what actually happens isn't necessarily interesting. Although I will say that memorization without understanding is useless.
Re: Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
#848 Laws of Power was pretty dumb, unfortunately. It celebrated con artists and manipulators as the powerful. As I recall from having read it 10 years ago, it strongly suggested Napolean's advisors were the powerful, whereas its dearth of stories about Napolean's actions themselves suggested by comparison that he was not. Instead of discussing true, active, forthright power, it pretended passive aggressiveness was the epitome of power.
Re: Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
#9Imagine you've just arrived at a new town and you're chilling at a coffee shop and you get into a conversation with a local. "Tell me about this place" you ask them.
"Well, Lexington is 3 blocks away from Jones St, the bakery is located on 875 Jackson Heights Rd and you can't park on Woodrow St between the hours of 8 & 6 PM."
This makes about as making high school students memorize dates & places. Historical facts provide context to the broad sweet of history. They help you navigate through the historical space. But they're close to useless if you don't have an understanding of the historical space to begin with.
Now, imagine you've been in town for a few years, you're starting to understand how everything is oriented around the hill, what the major thoroughfares are, the general nature of different suburbs. You're starting to get a feel for how the city operates. Now it's helpful to know if someone lives on Lexington St, you can just go down Jones and turn right at the light, that it's ok to drive to meet someone at a bar on Woodrow because the streets are free parking after 6pm and that the bakery is 3 blocks south of where you're meeting your friend because she's at 511 Jackson Heights Road. What were previously useless pieces of trivia are now what make you "street smart" around the place. They're what help you navigate around the city by feel rather than directions.
Of course, you're never going to be a professional taxi driver so it would be pointless to memorize all the streets and how they are laid out. But, at the same time, you understand how owning a GPS and relying on that exclusively is missing out on some vital part of what it is to live in this city.
So many people I meet pooh pooh history because they don't understand this analogy. They're bumbling around without a mental map and they don't even know it.
Re: Why Most People Think Memorizing Historical Facts is Useless (and Why It Is)
#10I read this post and the post that it was critiquing and both came to the same conclusion: Knowing the who/what/when/where throughout history is only useful when understanding the Why as well.
I am confused by this assertion. I always thought the Who/What/When/Where were more useful, in general, than the Why. Why is tagged with bias; you are receiving somebody's perspective and interpretation of an event, especially as you look further from the source. Who/What/When/Where gives you the facts.