I think one of the problems with history, as a field of study, is that it has two different facets: rote memorization and investigation/speculation. Sadly, rarely anymore does one find a balance between the two in modern education.

For those that complain that “History is boring” or “I just can’t remember names and dates”, I can see their viewpoint to some extent. Many teachers avoid getting “dirty” by simply having their students memorize data with no sense of context: The battle of Hastings was? Abe Lincoln was the ___ President? Much of this data is important but some of it can be generally useless: What date was FDR born? How old was General Lee at the Battle of Gettysburg? Simple reiteration of dates and names, in and of itself, has no real relevance to learning “History”.

The other side is investigation/speculation. This is where history gets the chance to come alive: Why did Truman drop the bomb? Why did the Roman Empire fall? Was the Industrial Revolution inevitable? Much of this aspect of history has no real right-or-wrong answer but it provides the framework for learning about the past in a visceral way. To understand why and how things got to be the way they are and enable us to relate to our current situation from a grounded historical perspective.

However, both sides are mutually dependant. One can’t have a really valid opinion about the American Civil War if they don’t know what century it occurred in or the various events that led up to it in a chronological order.
History is not just data and not just ideas. The good teachers always find a balance and therefore make history come alive and give students an education that matters. And History does matter. It ‘s a shame that it is being given such short shrift, as evidenced by the OP.

not suprising at all. I doubt most people discuss history with the people they work or hang out with anyway. so you'd have no way of knowing that people are ignorant to U.S. history. and if you do talk about it, it's because you have made friends who have similar interests. When I worked in retail a running joke for me and 2 of my buddies was to have ex-presidents paged over the intercom. just to see if we could slip it past the person doing the page, and to gage the customers reactions, if any. we got Zachary Taylor by them every time, once a young lady who was in school to become a teacher even fell for it. she later told me she thought something was weird about Zachary Taylor, but claimed he was a kid on Home Improvement. *sigh* people can be funny

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
What many people fail to realize is that some of the greatest discoveries in history have come about as a result of speculation and subsequent investigation. History is no different than science. It is constantly EVOLVING, at least our view of it.

Not only does it evolve but the evolution demands monitoring. History does repeat itself just as evolution also replicates itself. Maybe not in an exact and identical way but in such a manner as that certain results can be anticipated from prior manifestations. Just as say, eyes have evolved and been replicated in similar manner - so have dictatorships. Just as legs have common similarities – so do economic collapses. Nothing evolves in a vacuum and history doesn't exist there either. That’s why history stands as an important field of study and why it’s such a tragedy that it’s being neglected so much.


[edit on 19-2-2008 by passenger]

Well my definition of truth is something that isnt a lie, fact, i understand what you posted, im just going by my opinions, obviously but as someone else posted here, they downplay historical facts, ill cut this short i have a extremely bad headache ill continue tommorow.

Another aspect of this issue that I find so disturbing is that not only are so many ignorant of history – but they revel in that attribute.
I have heard so many comments along the lines of: “Well I don’t care about that, them people are all dead anyway”, or “Well, that was sooooo long ago…who cares anymore?”

Also, many seem to hit upon historical events and use them as a foundation of their belief system with no sense of the context of the event itself. When arguing with people decrying the Hiroshima bombings (on the anniversary) , I queried them if they had ever heard of the Nanking Massacre or the Bataan Death March. Many replies were of this sort: “I didn’t know we bombed them too!” or “What does that have to do with anything?” I find that this sort of isolation and extraction of events, from history proper, allows people to establish credulous opinions on events that they have no real perspective on. That itself can be a very dangerous thing.

you guys are so right. especally you passenger with the "I dont care, their dead, doesnt affect me" thing. I think as a social experiment you guys should go into work and ask people to name the first 3 pres. in order. simple right? and with pres. day being only 2 days removed you can say its just out of curiosity. I bet some people will get obtuse, and then you may even get a few answers like -washington, ben franklin and Lincoln..?

and dont get me wrong, when me and my buddies did this we never berated people. we didnt even tell them they were wrong. it was just AMAZING how little people knew. I mean, I had that stuff shoved down my throat in grade school. so did all other americans. yet we(as a collective) fail at out own history. *sigh*

Passsenger and Totalstranger,
Have you ever heard newscasters mispronounce famous historical figures' names, or get well-accepted historical facts wrong? It happens all the time. Occasionally, my wife and I will be watching the news, and that will happen, and I'm ready to jump out of my easy chair. My wife will softly say "Honey, now calm down, they can't hear you". The wisdom of women!

The unfortunate part of that, though, is that many people get their "news" and information from TV, and of course, most of it is pure glitz, with no substance. How many times have you heard people say something like "Well, I heard it on the CBS/ABC/NBC news, so it must be true" ?

Of course, most of the news involves Britney or Paris Hilton or Brad Pitt or some other Hollywood figure. I'm sure those news viewers could tell you who is divorcing whom, or who is now dating whom.

My wife and I are fortunate. When we were growing up, TV was in its infancy, and in fact went off the air at times, around 9pm, and there were only a few channels. But that is another topic.......

ah yes I too remember when tv went off air, but it was more in the days like the first poltergeist movie! but as to people on tv making mistakes, I too have thrown an unnecessary fit seeing that. my wife yells at me but she thinks that I'm really smart and I just think that I listened to what I was taught in school. I mean c'mon Ben franklin and A. Hamilton are presidents because they are on money? It's just sad. I bet everyone knows what year mom and dad were born but cant necessarily put a pres. on that year. its frustrating and I'm not even a "history buff"

To ProfEmiritus and Totalstranger,

Yeah. “President” Ben Franklin. I have heard news/TV personalities refer to him as such. Makes my teeth hurt every time. I can only suppose because they see him in their wallet next to the other “dead Presidents”, that they assume he must be one of them.

As regards the first three Presidents - I’m constantly shocked by how many people can’t name the LAST three. Oh, they always get Clinton, sometimes George the First, after that it gets foggy quick. I don’t like to ask these types of questions too much any more, as it makes it hard to sleep at night.

oh yeah, and one more thing. true story. I had it out with my own father(R.I.P.) once over who was the president when I was born. he swore,literally, up and down that it was Nixon. It was Ford, I was right, and he was standoffish the rest of the night!

Originally posted by passenger
To ProfEmiritus and Totalstranger,

Yeah. “President” Ben Franklin. I have heard news/TV personalities refer to him as such. Makes my teeth hurt every time. I can only suppose because they see him in their wallet next to the other “dead Presidents”, that they assume he must be one of them.

As regards the first three Presidents - I’m constantly shocked by how many people can’t name the LAST three. Oh, they always get Clinton, sometimes George the First, after that it gets foggy quick. I don’t like to ask these types of questions too much any more, as it makes it hard to sleep at night.

don't forget "president Hamilton"! thats if the people calling him that even KNOW who is on their 10 spot. every year it seems this comes up and it makes me frustrated. I've been to the Hayes household/grave in Ohio, I signed the Reagan memorial book inside the Ford library..maybe I'm just a history nerd?!