Is History Relevant to the World

[LordTenaim]

In having an A-level in both History (tudor) and Class. Civ. (Archaeology), I wonder if we all need to have at least a basic knowledge of history and if this will help us create a better world or if it should be left to the scholars in dusty/clean libraries (yes some of us do tidy!!!) to study.

 

1. can we see any reflections of now in the past?

 

2. is the past just is past with no relevance to today?

 

3. is a basic knowledge in history necessary to people?

 

please back up your arguments and where possible give examples of what you mean.

[Hateful_kat]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, or something.

[LordTenaim]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, or something.

Yes there are many examples of this the easiest to see is the rise and fall of the great empires the longest lasting being the Persian under seeral long lastin dinesties and under three names (Persian (twice), Median and Parthian) but surely many things in history are not repeated and are one offs could it not be in fact human nature that causes these repititions, for instance the two great wars in the early twenteth century (hopefully spelt right) where things were lead to more by peoples idiologies then to lack of historical knowledge.

[Chaosblade02]

I think America is comparable to the classical Greeks, and even the Romans in quite a number of ways. The problem is that I don't see actions made today by people in power taking into consideration that some of these actions have been made in the past with miserable failure. History is absolutely relevant, you can look back and learn from mistakes and successes that were made, or choose to be ignorant and think they don't apply to modern situations.

[dragonpen61]

As somebody who studied hisotry including of how history is created etc. I would like to humbly say the following. I know it may all seem obvious but as a past active history shcolar at university and in private I can tell you that it is very easy to fall into various pit traps.

 

History is not truly objective because it is near impossible for any historian to be truly objective and any who believes so is probably fooling him or herself.

 

Historical records are lost or distorted through copying, translation etc.

 

Many things that actually happened were not actually recorded especially when it came to the acitivities of more common peoples even if those actions were vital to the survival of an empire etc.

 

Sometimes the teaching, broadcasting etc. of history is oppressed or even faked by regimes. (i.e. everybody knows we Russians invented the telephone etc.)

 

The victor does often write the history.

 

:wallbash:

 

But for all of this the study of history is important and it is vital that history be taught to every new generation even if it is fairly recent history and done for more practical reasons.

 

:thumbsup:

[DreamEmpire]

Its very relvant to today. In first Iraqi war the americans used Hannibals tactic at the battle of Cannae - http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html

 

In world war one the Schlieffen Plan by the germans going through Holland and Belguim caught the Frence by suprise. In the build up to world war 2 the french buildt the Maginot Line to stop the germans on their border with Germany and got caught by the same tactic again. (Stupid!)

 

Everyone has done somthing simliar to what you will do before...its a question of leanring and improving or falling into pits that should have been avoided. The only way we can learn without having experinced somthing ourselves is to look at others and not make their mistakes.

[Ihoe]

"History will repeat itself, Because everyone forgot to Listen."(!)

 

I think America is more comparible to Persia than Greece.

They were a Large super power, they had the Best economy, they varied in Culture, Women had Major roles and Equal Rights (unlike greece)...etc.

But I must Agree with Rome. they are comparible to Persians to they are comparible to Americans.

[Chaosblade02]

You also have to consider that in the past, same as today, history is written by the victors, at least what we can get from ancient writings and teachings. So what we see as historic fact may very well be lies, but we have nothing else to go on unless it is dis-proven.

[Lisnpuppy]

I myself have a B.A. in History and minors in Anthropology and English Literature. I have to agree that history is written by the victors, those in power and is often misleading. However I believe an objective "truth" can be found, though it usually requires some distance from the subject at hand.

 

Now I do NOT believe that history's relevance is simply reciting datea and names. It is the WHYS of history that are just as important as the WHATS.

 

To not understand and know history is being doomed to make the same mistakes. It is a gap in being able to look at today's world and understand the WHY of what is happening and possibly making a solution for it. Imagine walking into a room and seeing to people beating the crap out of each other and being told to choose the person who is in the right. Could you do this without some history of what had come before?

 

As for some examples of the importance of knowing history: look a the invasion of Napoleon of France into Russia in the 1800s and then the invasion of Russia by Hitler in the Second World War. Hitler did not heed his history and the Russian people were able to eventually be victorious over Hitler by doing the exact same thing they did with Napoleon. The pulled into the interior, scorched the earth so there was no food to support a huge army (which as Napoleon himself said lives on its belly) and pulled the army so far in that they were caught and killed by the fridged Russian winter.

 

I am not saying history is always interesting to everyone. Also I was fortunate to have some really wonderful, exciting and interesting instructors that would make a great deal more people enjoy the subject. But not all important things are always interesting. In my mind to be able to confidently move forward you need to know where you have moved along the path before.

[dragonpen61]

Lisnpuppy,

 

agree with most of what you say but still believe that true objectivity is impossible but is still a good objective to aim for anyway while being honest about one's subjectivity is important.

 

being at a distance to achieve objectivity can create its own problems because the distance itself can cause problems as one becomes too removed or too reliant on second hand material.

 

also, please define what do you mean by distance

do you mean geographical, time or some kind of neutrality

 

being too close can create its own problems because being too close means being swamped or biased or etc.

 

History is problematic but for all that is still rich and very important.

Best kind of history is one that is given full, open and free debate.

 

I learned museum studies that spoke of how does one represent history through museum displays, artefacts etc. in a 'successful' manner. Trying to design museum displays that reflect as much realism, as much truth as possible while still being both entertaining and educational taught me much about the troubles of being a historian. That is because it turned out that creating an objective museum display was very difficult because the very limitations and nature of a museum display had its influence on the history being displayed.

 

Museum artefacts actually become historically important objects by being defined as important museum pieces. The museum pieces become the pride and joy of a museum and become removed from their historical context like a 100 year old exhibit of a stuffed bison in my home town Museum of Western Australia, in Perth. Historical texts, such as famous books on history, gain a status of their own seperate from the history.

 

One plans for objectivity

but accepts subjectivity as a fact

Or so I believe.

 

Thanks for the opportunity to try to recall stuff that I learned back in the 1980s to 1990s but never really got around to using.