141–150 of 186 posts
Not just music history, but history in general. History told forwards is superstition: trying to show that what came after was inevitable, when in fact it was one future among an infinite number of different possible futures. History told backwards makes sense: look for the seeds of post events, in the past. However the human mind loves nothing more than causation; we see cause and effect everywhere even where it's n…
I'm going to disagree with everyone! You should learn history — or any subject — by starting with the things that interest you and working outward from there. Studied that way, nothing is dry, because your motivation to learn stems from what you're passionate about. For example, I learned 20th-century world history based on its relation to aviation, and in the process gained a real, abiding interest in history; I lea…
This is the best answer, but it raises a difficult question, which is what do you do with a classroom of thirty students?
[disclaimer: I'm an independent community teacher/tutor who somehow avoided for-better-or-worse getting into the normal classroom teaching role, and I'm writing from an outsider perspective, albeit on things I think about a lot.]
Well, what ought to happen in a class of 30 kids? There ought to be at least 2 teachers (1 main, 1 assistant maybe) for a class that size, and they should do a mix of multimedia, field trips, reading, open discussion, group activities, and some amount of inviting each student to explore their own questions and have them help each other research those questions while you work to guide them and go around the class discussing fascinating insights of interest to each of them. They can share with each other what they've learned and not have to all be doing the same things. The focus should be not on learning facts about history but on understanding how one goes about critically researching history so that they have good critical thinking and research skills going forward in their lives and interest in history as a topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would not only be a great way to teach history, but also literature and probably other things like philosophy as well. In literature, it is not uncommon to start with the past reading things like the Odyssey, moving forwards to Beowulf, then Canterbury Tales, then Shakespeare, then John Milton, then Dickens, and on and on. The result is you start with the least accessible work and move forward to the most access…
I don't think that would work with literature, because modern literature often makes allusions to earlier literature.
I think the article's idea is that people engaged by the current book will be motivated to look up the references.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree in the sense that this will end up putting an overemphasis on contemporary work, and not enough on classic works. Think about how often cirriculum never gets to the end of, when such seminal and formative works such as Plato and Aristotle are fit into the last weeks you will inevietably gloss over them. We already make Gods out of our contemporary world view at the expense of downplaying the brilliance of…
Specifically with history, contemporary topics being skipped over is not only common but an incredible disservice to humanity. Many schools spend months on Columbus but only 1-2 weeks on the entire post Cold War era. Which one is more important for future voters to understand?
Contemporary events are often thought to be outside the scope of "history":
History depends on perspective: We don't know the consequences and thus the significance of many events; what will happen with climate change? The consequences of the Iraq War and 9/11? And also we are emotionally lost in the trees and can't see the forest, so to speak.
Also, history depends on having lots of information, much of which isn't available for a long time (declassified info, memoirs, archives, other things later revealed, etc.).
Finally, arguably history is studied so we can learn from it, not act on it.
I think the topics the parent brings up are very important, but arguably they belong in another class.
Not just music history, but history in general. History told forwards is superstition: trying to show that what came after was inevitable, when in fact it was one future among an infinite number of different possible futures. History told backwards makes sense: look for the seeds of post events, in the past. However the human mind loves nothing more than causation; we see cause and effect everywhere even where it's n…
But this is not how historians think about history. This risks presentism. History should be understood in its own context, not by the events that came afterwards. Presenting history backwards makes it feel like prior events happened in the context of future events when historical actors had no understanding of those future events. Instead history is best understood in the context available to the people at the time.
I disagree whole heartedly. This will end up putting an overemphasis on contemporary work, and not enough on classic works. Think about how often cirriculum never gets to the end of, when such seminal and formative composers such as Bach are fit into the last weeks you will inevietably gloss over them. We already make Gods out of our contemporary world view at the expense of downplaying the brilliance of past thinker…
Bach is to music as Shakespeare is to literature - if you don't nod your head in agreement like a brainwashed zombie when either of these men are stated to be the best in their respective fields, you're automatically dismissed by the crowd of "elitist snobs", for lack of a better redundant phrasing.
I don't side with contemporary works either. The current era (90s+) is so disgustingly cookie-cutter, superficially manufactured by record labels to shovel down our throats in bulk. The 50s through the 80s fared somewhat better; the studios still heavily controlled every aspect of the artists they signed, again following an (as-of-yet unperfected) recipe. At least back then, _some_ of the music managed to weave a story capable of evoking emotion and meaningful thought. I would agree that something has largely been lost over the past century: music no longer being composed, instead being "arranged"(?) to fit specific molds.
tldr; I suppose: a) Fuck record labels; and b) Stop with the "Bach is best" culture.
Not just music history, but history in general. History told forwards is superstition: trying to show that what came after was inevitable, when in fact it was one future among an infinite number of different possible futures. History told backwards makes sense: look for the seeds of post events, in the past. However the human mind loves nothing more than causation; we see cause and effect everywhere even where it's n…
There was a great essay a while back that I can no longer find that summarized Guns, Germs, and Steel by continually asking the question "why?" It start with "Why is Western Europe and America so dominant culturally and economically?" Then regressed back to questions like "why did Europeans colonize the Americas instead of the other way around" to "why did the Europeans have steel, disease, and gunpowder but the Nati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a great essay a while back that I can no longer find that summarized Guns, Germs, and Steel by continually asking the question "why?" It start with "Why is Western Europe and America so dominant culturally and economically?" Then regressed back to questions like "why did Europeans colonize the Americas instead of the other way around" to "why did the Europeans have steel, disease, and gunpowder but the Nati…
The essay you read might have been by Yanis Varoufakis. (Former Greek finance minister.) The aboriginal peoples of the world .... had everything they needed, so tend not to invade for "more." To answer the question, "why" maybe a bit deeper view is worthwhile. An alternative way to look at it could be Yanis Varoufakis passage: "Debt, money, faith and state all go hand in hand. Without debt there is no easy way to man…
I don't think this works as an explanation. Could not all countries in what we now call Europe have sustained themselves if they so chose?
And anyway, assuming we all agree on what is meant by aboriginal peoples, aren't there plenty of examples of aboriginal peoples carrying on extended wars and raids?