"if you know your history ,then you will know where you're coming from "
Buffalo Soldier ,Bob Marley and The Wailers
www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5FCdx7Dn0o
Buffalo Soldier ,Bob Marley and The Wailers
www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5FCdx7Dn0o
I am genuinely surprised how many comments about how history is useless are on chess forum (there should be a lot of intelligent people). It isn't useless, we have to learn about history so we don't repeat the same mistakes. Somebody here mentioned that he doesn't need 1000 years of history, he needs only 100 years or so. So we shouldn't be told about slavery in the US? And what about ancient Greek and Rome? These are the basics of our democracy and our society.
Of course, you won't remember all those dates and facts, but if you learn 500% of information you need, you will remember at least 20% of it (100% of what you need) for the rest of your life. Everybody forgets and it is normal (for example I changed school in 5th grade and now I am in 9th grade and I can name maybe 60% of my classmates from old school only in 5 years)
Of course, you won't remember all those dates and facts, but if you learn 500% of information you need, you will remember at least 20% of it (100% of what you need) for the rest of your life. Everybody forgets and it is normal (for example I changed school in 5th grade and now I am in 9th grade and I can name maybe 60% of my classmates from old school only in 5 years)
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana
George Santayana
To help us avoid repeating stupid mistakes. But enough people always get comfortable, get selfish, and forget, and then we're back where we started.
History can inspire us.
Inspired us to learn
Either we learn from others mistakes and the knowledge they gained from their mistakes.
Forget about commanders like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan and Napoleon. All great generals and conquers. But they all left only a small legacy.
Small achievement compared to giants such as Socrates, Confucius, Louis Pasteur or Isaac Newton.
History proves, through repetition and test of time, what is important in this world.
Without history, we would have no statistics.
Without statistics, we would have no medical understanding, no understanding of the cosmos, no understanding of how sewage system works, how powerplant works or how ships sails.
History isn't about learning of the past.
Understand history, is about understand the present and having a glimpse of the future.
Inspired us to learn
Either we learn from others mistakes and the knowledge they gained from their mistakes.
Forget about commanders like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan and Napoleon. All great generals and conquers. But they all left only a small legacy.
Small achievement compared to giants such as Socrates, Confucius, Louis Pasteur or Isaac Newton.
History proves, through repetition and test of time, what is important in this world.
Without history, we would have no statistics.
Without statistics, we would have no medical understanding, no understanding of the cosmos, no understanding of how sewage system works, how powerplant works or how ships sails.
History isn't about learning of the past.
Understand history, is about understand the present and having a glimpse of the future.
I mean, I enjoy searching through history, especially music history. Learning about history is learning about ourselves, what we have done before, a track of our progress, a track to show our impact. History reminds us of all the good and bad we have done, and the techniques that was used back then that are now forgotten, history tells us about how life was back then and how we have changed.
I mean, one (usually) learns and remembers a mistake he/she did, and uses that knowledge to improve and avoid it again, history is just a scaled up version of that reflection and example.
Also, I feel like humanity has a want of being remembered, therefore we pass down the knowledge we have to the next generation to use it for the best and repeat, because after every new generation new knowledge and figures appear, but we also forget older and lesser knowledge that might be important later on.
I mean, one (usually) learns and remembers a mistake he/she did, and uses that knowledge to improve and avoid it again, history is just a scaled up version of that reflection and example.
Also, I feel like humanity has a want of being remembered, therefore we pass down the knowledge we have to the next generation to use it for the best and repeat, because after every new generation new knowledge and figures appear, but we also forget older and lesser knowledge that might be important later on.
The problem with knowing history is that people tend to think "this time it's different", thus reinacting earlier history lessons.
But if anything, learning a bit of history will get you a few cheap points on Bar trivia nights.
But if anything, learning a bit of history will get you a few cheap points on Bar trivia nights.
Usually when people confront with a feature of modern society like learning history in schools, they ask a question to themselves: "What's in it for me?" In principle, this is a legit question to ask for yourself, but if you want to understand the real cause of why it exists the way it does, you should ask another question: "What's in it for our society/country/nation?" In fact, it is widely known that most of the things you learn at school will be barely usable in your real life (although some people hesitate to admit it), yet all the most powerful and developed nations spend enormous amount of resources into >10 years of universal school education and have an implicit social norm that makes people with unfinished school education kinda second-sort.
So in any case, even if it's not useful for you, it gotta be somehow useful for your society. Here the views may vary and go into the political sphere, but I'll try to outline mine nevertheless. A modern society, be it democracy, autocracy or hybryd regime with elections, is an enormously complex machine with hierarchic distribution of power without which it cannot function properly, so one of the issues it needs to resolve is the legitimization of the said distribution of power. Thus it performs some legitimizing activities, which one can call propaganda, but we will not use this term further because of its mostly negative connotations, although it is pretty obvious that propaganda in some contexts might be viewed as a good thing. Obvious examples of such legitimizing activities are elections (however hilarious or theatrical they are), supporting some mainstream media, and even the whole entertainment industry can be regarded as such, since having a proper entertainment will have a human more inclined to prefer modern institutions with all their deficiencies to a simpler way of life.
Teaching history at school can also be regarded as such kind of legitimizing activity. The society needs to support several important myths, most notably the following:
1) Myth of progress - that everything gets better over time thanks to our ever advancing technologies (this is mostly addressed by world history such as mentioned Mesopotamia);
2) Myth of moral superiority - that we are good guys and have defeated bad guys in the past, and that the way our nation came into existence is justified, and that our current institutions are also historically justified (this is mostly addressed by local history, but ofc comparisons with other states are useful as well).
When I say "myth", I don't necessarily mean those are false - I only mean those are ingrained as truth despite one can raise many logical objections to them if you start doubting and thinking. But the education must be inevitably slanted towards these "myths", and that is the reason the way history is taught usually doesn't incorporate any significant amount of critical thinking, the issue already raised in this thread.
Another logical reason why history might be useful for society is that it still needs people competent in history to be able to make competent political decisions. Not everyone knows in advance whether he wants to be a historian or have a profession for which history will be useful. As such, interesting some people in history from the childhood might be a good investment for politics, although it will inevitably force some people who know for sure that they will NOT need it learn it as well. Similar logic is applicable to many other school subjects for which it is hard to apply the legitimization argument.
In any case, as I said in the beginning, the most developed societies have history learned in school, so this alone is enough evidence to show it is useful for a complex society; the causal analysis above can be viewed as speculation, but I consider the reasons suggested plausible. Returning to the question "what's in it for you?", unfortunately, if I'll be completely honest here, I could only advice to view school history lessons as a necessary evil to get the school education. Such way of thinking might look a bit grim, but I consider it more beneficial in long-term perspective to give an honest reason why are you doing something and schedule your time accordingly, rather than realize time after time that your previous justification was basically a self-deception.
So in any case, even if it's not useful for you, it gotta be somehow useful for your society. Here the views may vary and go into the political sphere, but I'll try to outline mine nevertheless. A modern society, be it democracy, autocracy or hybryd regime with elections, is an enormously complex machine with hierarchic distribution of power without which it cannot function properly, so one of the issues it needs to resolve is the legitimization of the said distribution of power. Thus it performs some legitimizing activities, which one can call propaganda, but we will not use this term further because of its mostly negative connotations, although it is pretty obvious that propaganda in some contexts might be viewed as a good thing. Obvious examples of such legitimizing activities are elections (however hilarious or theatrical they are), supporting some mainstream media, and even the whole entertainment industry can be regarded as such, since having a proper entertainment will have a human more inclined to prefer modern institutions with all their deficiencies to a simpler way of life.
Teaching history at school can also be regarded as such kind of legitimizing activity. The society needs to support several important myths, most notably the following:
1) Myth of progress - that everything gets better over time thanks to our ever advancing technologies (this is mostly addressed by world history such as mentioned Mesopotamia);
2) Myth of moral superiority - that we are good guys and have defeated bad guys in the past, and that the way our nation came into existence is justified, and that our current institutions are also historically justified (this is mostly addressed by local history, but ofc comparisons with other states are useful as well).
When I say "myth", I don't necessarily mean those are false - I only mean those are ingrained as truth despite one can raise many logical objections to them if you start doubting and thinking. But the education must be inevitably slanted towards these "myths", and that is the reason the way history is taught usually doesn't incorporate any significant amount of critical thinking, the issue already raised in this thread.
Another logical reason why history might be useful for society is that it still needs people competent in history to be able to make competent political decisions. Not everyone knows in advance whether he wants to be a historian or have a profession for which history will be useful. As such, interesting some people in history from the childhood might be a good investment for politics, although it will inevitably force some people who know for sure that they will NOT need it learn it as well. Similar logic is applicable to many other school subjects for which it is hard to apply the legitimization argument.
In any case, as I said in the beginning, the most developed societies have history learned in school, so this alone is enough evidence to show it is useful for a complex society; the causal analysis above can be viewed as speculation, but I consider the reasons suggested plausible. Returning to the question "what's in it for you?", unfortunately, if I'll be completely honest here, I could only advice to view school history lessons as a necessary evil to get the school education. Such way of thinking might look a bit grim, but I consider it more beneficial in long-term perspective to give an honest reason why are you doing something and schedule your time accordingly, rather than realize time after time that your previous justification was basically a self-deception.
@Maximralph Yes I agree that arithmetic is not very useful practically, but it is the foundation for you to learn more useful things such as calculus or geometry, if you know little about arithmetic then you stand no chance with things you are going to learn later.
I also agree about exercises or examples , they get very repetitive and boring, but they solidify the methods and information to help you remember. Lastly, I think the education system is a broken they aim to teach people in the middle section of the class, they never or little pay attention to the top or the bottom of the class, the whole point of education is to educate the next generation for them to make better choices and solve problems that the world has, teachers are 100% underpaid for their job and it is sad that we are not investing into the new generation. Anyway I’ll do my puzzles now. Thanks for reading!
I also agree about exercises or examples , they get very repetitive and boring, but they solidify the methods and information to help you remember. Lastly, I think the education system is a broken they aim to teach people in the middle section of the class, they never or little pay attention to the top or the bottom of the class, the whole point of education is to educate the next generation for them to make better choices and solve problems that the world has, teachers are 100% underpaid for their job and it is sad that we are not investing into the new generation. Anyway I’ll do my puzzles now. Thanks for reading!
Teachers of History ' teach my students a lot of useless garbage '
because they have superiors who have their superiors, and each lesson must have politically correct (in old sense) detailed roadmap written before according to wishes from above in stiff jargon, it counts ,not level of interesting performance.(' if I knew U don't have the written plan I wouldn't allow to conduct lesson/lecture' ). .
If you deviate from plan -means you're bad teacher - doesn't matter that everyone in classroom was v. interested in lecture, a half-dim girl with nicely handwritten plan will be preffered even if most students were half sleeping....
Personal experience of month long practise in high school at end of university years. ( 1990 - but I am pretty sure the same is everywhere now )
because they have superiors who have their superiors, and each lesson must have politically correct (in old sense) detailed roadmap written before according to wishes from above in stiff jargon, it counts ,not level of interesting performance.(' if I knew U don't have the written plan I wouldn't allow to conduct lesson/lecture' ). .
If you deviate from plan -means you're bad teacher - doesn't matter that everyone in classroom was v. interested in lecture, a half-dim girl with nicely handwritten plan will be preffered even if most students were half sleeping....
Personal experience of month long practise in high school at end of university years. ( 1990 - but I am pretty sure the same is everywhere now )
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.