History in schools.
Comments
-
Flasheart wrote:Limburger wrote:Will, Dmclite is right. I managed to put in as little work as possible during my degree and now have a job which allows me to come in when I please and leave when I like. Plus some other benefits such as the 42 days paid holiday, C2W scheme where you are just given a bike every two years - no payments required. Not least forgetting all the foreign trip I can go on as part of my job.
I managed all this by being occasionally brilliant, but mostly lazy. Not everyone can do that.
History has taught me this: The guy who does the most work gets the least recognition. (Or money and holidays and the like) and all that.
Need an assistant :?:
And who do you think will end up doing all the work?
0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:stories like this, attempts to politicise the past for political gain, would become less relevant.
The Daily Mail told me that you're speaking politically correct, trendy liberal-left nonsense and you're responsible for the downfall of the Great British education system which used to be the best in the world, but is now churning out kids with qualifications which aren't worth the paper they're written on.
I like the Daily Mail. It has lots of pictures in it.0 -
johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:stories like this, attempts to politicise the past for political gain, would become less relevant.
The Daily Mail told me that you're speaking politically correct, trendy liberal-left nonsense and you're responsible for the downfall of the Great British education system which used to be the best in the world, but is now churning out kids with qualifications which aren't worth the paper they're written on.
You're right.
When I turn up to interview, I don't hand over a copy of my degree, I hand over a copy of the mail. It's definitely worth more.
My current state of unemployment is a conspiracy made by those bleeding heart left liberals who give my jobs away to foreign immigrants, who aren't even CoE!
It's enough to give me cancer I tell you!0 -
johnfinch wrote:Flasheart wrote:Limburger wrote:Will, Dmclite is right. I managed to put in as little work as possible during my degree and now have a job which allows me to come in when I please and leave when I like. Plus some other benefits such as the 42 days paid holiday, C2W scheme where you are just given a bike every two years - no payments required. Not least forgetting all the foreign trip I can go on as part of my job.
I managed all this by being occasionally brilliant, but mostly lazy. Not everyone can do that.
History has taught me this: The guy who does the most work gets the least recognition. (Or money and holidays and the like) and all that.
Need an assistant :?:
And who do you think will end up doing all the work?
Funnily enough the Super tried to offload a minion only this afternoon. How very convenient! Some young'un needs some experience for something and I just happen to be doing something interesting. I have some thing to find out which will be technically arduous so, hey presto, instant job!
It's a bum deal being a minion around here. They have to pay, don't get an office and have to do the experiments I cannot be bothered to.
It's not all rosy for me though. I must be responsible for their education and future employment prospects. Ha!God made the Earth. The Dutch made The Netherlands
FCN 11/12 - Ocasional beardy0 -
'He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future'Cycling weakly0
-
-
I find this thread amusing,i always did,and i always will.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:If the focus was on the process, and less about the narrative,
BTW, what does this mean in plain English? (You're more likely to win converts to your cause like that, and I suspect I agree with you).
Does process mean underlying causes of events and narrative just mean describing what happened?0 -
johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If the focus was on the process, and less about the narrative,
BTW, what does this mean in plain English? (You're more likely to win converts to your cause like that, and I suspect I agree with you).
Does process mean underlying causes of events and narrative just mean describing what happened?
Not really.
The process is how you write history > look at evidence, analyse texts, deconstruct, structure and write essay etc.
The narrative is the period specific question of what, who, how, where, why.
Conventional history writing refers to the past like it is a chain of events, rather like a story, or a narrative.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If the focus was on the process, and less about the narrative,
BTW, what does this mean in plain English? (You're more likely to win converts to your cause like that, and I suspect I agree with you).
Does process mean underlying causes of events and narrative just mean describing what happened?
Not really.
The process is how you write history > look at evidence, analyse texts, deconstruct, structure and write essay etc.
The narrative is the period specific question of what, who, how, where, why.
Conventional history writing refers to the past like it is a chain of events, rather like a story, or a narrative.
OK, and what's wrong with narrative exactly? Assuming that the writing is rigourous enough and not politicised, is that not the main aim of history, to teach what happened, how, why, etc. and how it is relevant to today's society?
Or am I missing something? :?0 -
history is just another way of thinking. The actual facts are pretty much irrelevant, it doesn't matter what happened when, but more why.
What really really really bugs me is that you're considered poorly educated and ignorant if you know no history, yet there isn't that same prejudice with science which is just as crucial if not more so because the though process you learn in science are the counterpoint to the historical skills, ie they allow you to probe the unknown.
The history of science is however, fascinating.0 -
johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If the focus was on the process, and less about the narrative,
BTW, what does this mean in plain English? (You're more likely to win converts to your cause like that, and I suspect I agree with you).
Does process mean underlying causes of events and narrative just mean describing what happened?
Not really.
The process is how you write history > look at evidence, analyse texts, deconstruct, structure and write essay etc.
The narrative is the period specific question of what, who, how, where, why.
Conventional history writing refers to the past like it is a chain of events, rather like a story, or a narrative.
OK, and what's wrong with narrative exactly? Assuming that the writing is rigourous enough and not politicised, is that not the main aim of history, to teach what happened, how, why, etc. and how it is relevant to today's society?
Or am I missing something? :?
I don't think learning the narrative, indeed any narrative, adds much value to people.
I think learning to think and approach things in a particular way, very much is. That should come first. What happened in the past, should come second.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I don't think learning the narrative, indeed any narrative, adds much value to people.
I think learning to think and approach things in a particular way, very much is. That should come first. What happened in the past, should come second.
OK, I can see the value of learning process, now I understand a bit better what it is, but surely narrative has a very high value as well. For example, when I studied Ancient History, it was probably the first time that my eyes were really opened to the fact that there were other values besides modern Western ones, which were equally moulded by circumstance.
Or would that be process, rather than narrative? Maybe I'm more confused than I thought. :?
Also, how do you propose to get more people interested in history in the first place without concentrating on events?0 -
johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I don't think learning the narrative, indeed any narrative, adds much value to people.
I think learning to think and approach things in a particular way, very much is. That should come first. What happened in the past, should come second.
OK, I can see the value of learning process, now I understand a bit better what it is, but surely narrative has a very high value as well. For example, when I studied Ancient History, it was probably the first time that my eyes were really opened to the fact that there were other values besides modern Western ones, which were equally moulded by circumstance.
Or would that be process, rather than narrative? Maybe I'm more confused than I thought. :?
Also, how do you propose to get more people interested in history in the first place without concentrating on events?
I'd say your example is narrative.
Given the excessive quantity of history graduates from university (myself included), I don't really see getting people 'interested' in history is a particularly pressing issue.
To learn the thought processes used in history you need something to work and practice on anyway < and that is where the 'events' come in. So you practice x approach to a historial text on the Armenian genocide or something.
The past became a useful and easy subject to practice my ways of approaching information and texts on. I now feel I can take those skills elsewhere, beyond the past < and that's where the value lies. There's not much value knowing about the ins and outs of 1920s Russia.
*shrugs* Maybe my exposure to academic stuff at university has totally put me out of touch of what people and society actually want from history and the past. But if scientists are allowed to rue the 'dumbing down' or simplification of science and the way it's taught, then I guess I feel I should to the same for the subject I know about.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Given the excessive quantity of history graduates from university (myself included), I don't really see getting people 'interested' in history is a particularly pressing issue.
Is this not as much because history is seen, rightly or wrongly, as an easier subject? At least in some universities anyway.
And what got you (and other graduates) interested in history in the first place? For me, it was learning about the Roman Empire. Pretty much anything else I could take or leave, so if I had been taught exclusively 20th century history I'd have lost interest permanently. Now I'm much more interested in other time periods as well, so in this case, I guess narrative served me pretty well, and probably you too when you were but a wee lad.Rick Chasey wrote:To learn the thought processes used in history you need something to work and practice on anyway < and that is where the 'events' come in. So you practice x approach to a historical text on the Armenian genocide or something.
Any examples of different approaches you can give in a few succinct sentences?Rick Chasey wrote:*shrugs* Maybe my exposure to academic stuff at university has totally put me out of touch of what people and society actually want from history and the past. But if scientists are allowed to rue the 'dumbing down' or simplification of science and the way it's taught, then I guess I feel I should to the same for the subject I know about.
I don't know enough about how science is taught in schools these days, but the complaints I've heard are that scientific method and experimentation aren't being taught properly. If any science teachers hang out in this forum, could you confirm or refute that?
My step-dad's a history teacher and has been for about 30 years, and he says that the way history is taught now is better than ever. When he was a pupil, the subject was basically reduced to a list of events, something that was just starting to go out of fashion when he started teaching c.1980. Now there is a lot more analysis of underlying movements, interpretation of source material, etc.
As for being out of touch with what people want, then you will of course be out of touch with what some people want, because everyone wants different things. Personally I want a glorified account of my nation's history with all the nasty bits (by modern standards) airbrushed out. 0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If the focus was on the process, and less about the narrative,
BTW, what does this mean in plain English? (You're more likely to win converts to your cause like that, and I suspect I agree with you).
Does process mean underlying causes of events and narrative just mean describing what happened?
Not really.
The process is how you write history > look at evidence, analyse texts, deconstruct, structure and write essay etc.
The narrative is the period specific question of what, who, how, where, why.
Conventional history writing refers to the past like it is a chain of events, rather like a story, or a narrative.
Doesn't this make it the study of "How to study history" rather than the actual study of history though? In other words, if you want to cross a river, knowing how to build a bridge doesn't really help if you don't actually build a bridge. Or am I thinking too much or in the wrong way.Who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?0 -
Domhnall Dearg wrote:Doesn't this make it the study of "How to study history" rather than the actual study of history though?.
That question occurred to me as well, but I can't quite visualise how Rick is suggesting history should be taught, especially at school level.0 -
I studied history but now find anthropology and sociology much more interesting. They tell you much more about 'people' in my view; the historical context is always significant though.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0
-
Domhnall Dearg wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If the focus was on the process, and less about the narrative,
BTW, what does this mean in plain English? (You're more likely to win converts to your cause like that, and I suspect I agree with you).
Does process mean underlying causes of events and narrative just mean describing what happened?
Not really.
The process is how you write history > look at evidence, analyse texts, deconstruct, structure and write essay etc.
The narrative is the period specific question of what, who, how, where, why.
Conventional history writing refers to the past like it is a chain of events, rather like a story, or a narrative.
Doesn't this make it the study of "How to study history" rather than the actual study of history though? In other words, if you want to cross a river, knowing how to build a bridge doesn't really help if you don't actually build a bridge. Or am I thinking too much or in the wrong way.
Historiography? The study of the history and methodology of the discipline of history?
I don't think so. It's more learning the tools of history. Not looking at the use or the value of those tools. You can't do history without those tools. Schools however, don't make students do history like that, but instead spend most of their time focussing on "what happened" and "how it happened", specific to the period.0 -
passout wrote:I studied history but now find anthropology and sociology much more interesting. They tell you much more about 'people' in my view; the historical context is always significant though.
Aren't sociology and anthropology just the same thing, but one refers to 'developed' societies, and the other one doesn't?
Definitions of both:
anthropology: the social science that studies the origins and social relationships of human beings
sociology:The study of society, human social interaction, and the rules and processes that bind and separate people not only as individuals, but as members of associations, groups, and institutions0 -
History is a collection of facts and dates, how they are interpreted is largely decided by 'who wins'.
WW2 - The fight against a Nazi Dictator megalomaniac bent on destroying anything and everything in his path.
or (if he'd won)
One mans crusade to unify europe and the world for a common good?
Francis Drake - An explorer who brought great riches and countries to England.
or
A vagabond pirate who pillaged and looted wherever he travelled?
It's all in the interpretation of the facts. Cycling weakly0 -
skyd0g wrote:History is a collection of facts and dates, how they are interpreted is largely decided by 'who wins'.
WW2 - The fight against a Nazi Dictator megalomaniac bent on destroying anything and everything in his path.
or (if he'd won)
One mans crusade to unify europe and the world for a common good?
Francis Drake - An explorer who brought great riches and countries to England.
or
A vagabond pirate who pillaged and looted wherever he travelled?
It's all in the interpretation of the facts.
How d'ya decide what's a historical fact then?
And what about gender, counter, and revisionist history?0 -
The winning side generally gets to decide what actually is fact or what is discredited, also what is left in or what is simply omitted. I doubt if Spanish history (for instance) focuses too sharply on the Spanish Armada.Rick Chasey wrote:skyd0g wrote:History is a collection of facts and dates, how they are interpreted is largely decided by 'who wins'.
WW2 - The fight against a Nazi Dictator megalomaniac bent on destroying anything and everything in his path.
or (if he'd won)
One mans crusade to unify europe and the world for a common good?
Francis Drake - An explorer who brought great riches and countries to England.
or
A vagabond pirate who pillaged and looted wherever he travelled?
It's all in the interpretation of the facts.
How d'ya decide what's a historical fact then?
And what about gender, counter, and revisionist history?Cycling weakly0 -
skyd0g wrote:
The winning side generally gets to decide what actually is fact or what is discredited, also what is left in or what is simply omitted. I doubt if Spanish history (for instance) focuses too sharply on the Spanish Armada.Rick Chasey wrote:skyd0g wrote:History is a collection of facts and dates, how they are interpreted is largely decided by 'who wins'.
WW2 - The fight against a Nazi Dictator megalomaniac bent on destroying anything and everything in his path.
or (if he'd won)
One mans crusade to unify europe and the world for a common good?
Francis Drake - An explorer who brought great riches and countries to England.
or
A vagabond pirate who pillaged and looted wherever he travelled?
It's all in the interpretation of the facts.
How d'ya decide what's a historical fact then?
And what about gender, counter, and revisionist history?
In short, I think you're talking bollocks.
Just no.
Edit: it's the oldest cliche in the book, and it's simply not true.
Whatever history gets written is a direct reflection of the concerns and interests of the people who write it. It's got nothing to do with 'victory' since very very few things actually boil down to a 'victory' or otherwise. Wars, possibly, but even then, I don't think your "winners write" history stands up.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:skyd0g wrote:
The winning side generally gets to decide what actually is fact or what is discredited, also what is left in or what is simply omitted. I doubt if Spanish history (for instance) focuses too sharply on the Spanish Armada.Rick Chasey wrote:skyd0g wrote:History is a collection of facts and dates, how they are interpreted is largely decided by 'who wins'.
WW2 - The fight against a Nazi Dictator megalomaniac bent on destroying anything and everything in his path.
or (if he'd won)
One mans crusade to unify europe and the world for a common good?
Francis Drake - An explorer who brought great riches and countries to England.
or
A vagabond pirate who pillaged and looted wherever he travelled?
It's all in the interpretation of the facts.
How d'ya decide what's a historical fact then?
And what about gender, counter, and revisionist history?
In short, I think you're talking bollocks.
Just no.
Edit: it's the oldest cliche in the book, and it's simply not true.
Whatever history gets written is a direct reflection of the concerns and interests of the people who write it. It's got nothing to do with 'victory' since very very few things actually boil down to a 'victory' or otherwise. Wars, possibly, but even then, I don't think your "winners write" history stands up.
Perspective can only be gained by looking at something from differing viewpoints. There is 'the truth' and then there are 'versions of the truth.' History is simply a version of the truth (rightly or wrongly) that is accepted by those who are told that particular version. The people who write that version of the truth are likely to be on the winning (or dominant) side.
Bo11ocks? Cycling weakly0 -
There is no truth, merely perception.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:I don't think so. It's more learning the tools of history. Not looking at the use or the value of those tools. You can't do history without those tools. Schools however, don't make students do history like that, but instead spend most of their time focussing on "what happened" and "how it happened", specific to the period.
Could you give us an example of how you would like a history lesson to be taught to, say, a class of 14yo students?
It's a bit hard to see what you're proposing while it's all abstract.0 -
johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If the focus was on the process, and less about the narrative,
BTW, what does this mean in plain English? (You're more likely to win converts to your cause like that, and I suspect I agree with you).
Does process mean underlying causes of events and narrative just mean describing what happened?
Not really.
The process is how you write history > look at evidence, analyse texts, deconstruct, structure and write essay etc.
The narrative is the period specific question of what, who, how, where, why.
Conventional history writing refers to the past like it is a chain of events, rather like a story, or a narrative.
OK, and what's wrong with narrative exactly? Assuming that the writing is rigourous enough and not politicised, is that not the main aim of history, to teach what happened, how, why, etc. and how it is relevant to today's society?
Or am I missing something? :?
Narratives are not very useful, as they (often) artificially link events turning History into a progression of these major events, that all link together nicely to become 1 big straight line story.
That's not true, there's so much randomness, and events that arent really linked at all, or links that we don't know about, to make a narrative valuable.
If you just chart some dates, then what does that tell you? You create an artificial narrative yourself, and then use this to base analysis on. Which is flawed.
A better way of adressing it is to look at specific case studies, which take a small part of a big event, and look at it closely, then take these specifics and see what that tells you about the subject as a whole. This would be pretty easy to create in a High School.
E.g you look at Knights/Chivalry. Instead of looking at all of it (say this is GCSE level), you focus on 1 small part of Chivalry, e.g Chivalry in A battle (Crecy/Poitiers springs to mind), and then use what you learn from this specific battle, and apply it to the wider area of Chivalry (or for higher levels, CAN you apply it to the general?).
So what do the events in this battle tell you about Chivalry as a whole. That's a great skill, and could be done in such a way that it was accessible to High School kids. More interesting than memorising dates, and better prep for loads of things."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
In reference to the original point, while the modern "liberal" agenda , may not like it, isn't it blatentely obvious that Americas founding was significantly influenced by religion?
Ineed even the Historians the Guardian interviews agree that "Religion was an important force in American history". Surely this justifies its teaching?
I'm sure the Texan school board is probably taking this too far, but then the idea of attempting to re-write History to suggest that religion was not a significant force, is rubbish too.
"On the education board, Dunbar backed changes that include teaching the role the "Jewish Ten Commandments" played in "political and legal ideas", and the study of the influence of Moses on the US constitution. Dunbar says these are important steps to overturning what she believes is the myth of a separation between church and state in the US." (Quote)
When addressing an issue such as this the approach of "the study of the influence of Moses on the US constitution", seems legitimate. While I can understand it causing consternation, isn't it obvious that the 10 commandments were probably used as a basis by the religiously fundamentalist founding fathers in their drafting of a constitution?!
However what is important when teaching that is to look at different views. So those who say that Moses was influential, and those that say Moses wasn't influential. You should look at both sides, and foster a culture that encourages individual interpretation of the evemts.
But it is a legitimate area of study, with implications for the wider question of the impact of religion on the creation of the American state, a pretty significant issue!
I think it's ironic someone mentioned the abandoning of the study if Isaac Newton to look at religious areas, when Newtons primary reasoning behind the use of mathematical laws as a govern of nature was that God had created the Earth, and everything, and God's consistency would have filtered down to his creation. Therefore mathematics COULD be used to describe the world only because God had made it consistent.
God was the proof and justification used to turn mathematics from an irrelevant subject, into the basis of Science.
How's that for irony?
"I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0
