Why Learn History?
Zero
kids frequently say things like:
"why do i have to learn history?"
"why do i have to know names and dates?"
"this war, that war, this good guy, that bad guy."
"who cares what happened back when?"
"it has NOTHING to do with me!"
it seems like, no matter what you tell them,
_because_ they're so young and inexperienced,
they never seem to understand your reasoning.
it never really sinks in.
well... now there's finally a good answer.
clearly, it's time to tell our children the truth.
if history has taught us anything, it's this:
there's really only ONE good reason to learn history...
it's hilarious.
...
this post brought to you by,
yet another saptural production, inc.
Archer070
it? And how you were more careful the second time you rode your bike? Well,
history is just like that. Except the second time you get chased by a Gorilla."
Jim R Feliciano
give them a lot of different reasons for studying history. The question I tend
to stress is "Why are we here and why are things the way they are?" Sometimes
I will find Science Fiction drawings from the 50's or 60's and I will ask the
students why busses don't look like that. Since I work in San Francisco,
almost everyone has a story about how their family got to California. As we
ask questions about our own lives, we find that we might want to know a little
more about 'why my grandpa left Louisianna?' The students usually enjoy
looking at what served as entertainment 'back then.' It is a struggle but
students usually find something interesting in each era we investigate. It
really helps when I can relate it to things going on around them.
In article <20020525014808...@mb-mr.aol.com>, shakub...@aol.com
says...
--
Sincerely from,
Jim R Feliciano
jfe...@muse.sfusd.edu
Hey!!! Buy My Book
"The Guys" it's a fun Book.
http://www.publishamerica.com
you need IE 5 or Netscape 6 to make publishamerica work, or go to
http://amazon.com
enter my name Jim R Feliciano to get it quickly and at a cheaper price.
Buy My Book. Thank You!!!
Hey my site Take your sense of humor with you.
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/banzai/834/shake1.html
Zero
heh. pretty comforting thought with that genius of history
in the white house, huh?
anyway, very good analogy.
meets the hilarious test.
meets the truth test.
one possible tweak, though.
riding a bike is the kind of knowledge that is not soon forgotten.
it becomes instinctual. falling off a bike isn't the kind of
activity that is likely to be repeated once learned..
therefore, the learning-from-past-mistakes metaphor doesn't
completely work. however, since you included the "second time"
qualifier, it may drive the point home.
i can't think of a better metaphor to substitute right now.
so... who really cares.
of course, i'm really raking your analogy over the coals, here.
kids would _never_ do that. they'd get the idea. they'd learn.
well... some kids might grill you on these fine points, but...
there's plenty of gorillas around to chase them away.
like i said... possible tweakzone. otherwise, brilliant sapture.
Bob Pastorio
>
>
> riding a bike is the kind of knowledge that is not soon forgotten.
> it becomes instinctual. falling off a bike isn't the kind of
> activity that is likely to be repeated once learned..
I had a particularly dry sexual spell between wives a while back. But I
can vouch for the essential truth of that bike thing. As soon as I
started up sexually again, sure enough, I fell off the first couple
times.
No, seriously...
--
Bob Pastorio
http://www.pastorio.com
Keera Ann Fox
> When I teach history (usually US History for Juniors in High School), I
> try to give them a lot of different reasons for studying history. The
> question I tend to stress is "Why are we here and why are things the way
> they are?" Sometimes I will find Science Fiction drawings from the 50's
> or 60's and I will ask the students why busses don't look like that.
> Since I work in San Francisco, almost everyone has a story about how their
> family got to California. As we ask questions about our own lives, we
> find that we might want to know a little more about 'why my grandpa left
> Louisianna?' The students usually enjoy looking at what served as
> entertainment 'back then.' It is a struggle but students usually find
> something interesting in each era we investigate. It really helps when I
> can relate it to things going on around them.
I hated history - until I got a teacher who taught it in terms of what
the _people_ were thinking and feeling, basically by going through
Benjamin Franklin's life. It's easy for a college student to relate to a
14 year old, for example. Makes the guys in powdered wigs come alive.
Your method above does the same thing: Teaches that history is about the
choices people made, for better or for worse, and why. Which also
explains why history repeats itself.
I enjoy history much more now, though I'm still lousy with dates, places
and names.
--
***** Keera in Norway *****
* Think big. Shrink to fit. *
http://home.online.no/~kafox/
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
wrote:
>Jim R Feliciano <jfe...@muse.sfusd.edu> wrote:
>
>> When I teach history (usually US History for Juniors in High School), I
>> try to give them a lot of different reasons for studying history. The
>> question I tend to stress is "Why are we here and why are things the way
>> they are?" Sometimes I will find Science Fiction drawings from the 50's
>> or 60's and I will ask the students why busses don't look like that.
>> Since I work in San Francisco, almost everyone has a story about how their
>> family got to California. As we ask questions about our own lives, we
>> find that we might want to know a little more about 'why my grandpa left
>> Louisianna?' The students usually enjoy looking at what served as
>> entertainment 'back then.' It is a struggle but students usually find
>> something interesting in each era we investigate. It really helps when I
>> can relate it to things going on around them.
>
>I hated history - until I got a teacher who taught it in terms of what
>the _people_ were thinking and feeling, basically by going through
>Benjamin Franklin's life. It's easy for a college student to relate to a
>14 year old, for example. Makes the guys in powdered wigs come alive.
>Your method above does the same thing: Teaches that history is about the
>choices people made, for better or for worse, and why. Which also
>explains why history repeats itself.
Lucky you! I also hated History until I was in High School. There we had a
program called Combined Studies. We studied history through literature and
literature through history. And not just historical novels, either. Hard to
explain, but it worked a charm with me.
>I enjoy history much more now, though I'm still lousy with dates, places
>and names.
Ditto. However, that experience made me more open to historical novels. I read
the Colleen McCullough "Masters of Rome" series and that made a visit to Rome
come alive for me.
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to
add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
- Antoine de Saint Exupery
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Keera Ann Fox
Since all of us taking US History in 11th grade also were in the same
American Lit. class, we got to do a combined book report/history essay.
I chose, of all things, "The Great Gatsby", and found myself in a decade
I have absolutely Nothing In Common With. Could not relate to the
mindset at all. I may get a different impression now, but am not
motivated to. Still, history is wasted on the young, IMO, because we
don't have enough experience of life itself.
> >I enjoy history much more now, though I'm still lousy with dates, places
> >and names.
>
> Ditto. However, that experience made me more open to historical novels.
> I read the Colleen McCullough "Masters of Rome" series and that made a
> visit to Rome come alive for me.
I'm still not a history buff, as it were, but I do enjoy personal
stories of the past. I grew up with my maternal grandparents and got two
different points-of-view of WWII. To hear what ordinary folks made of
what was later to become major history did teach me a lot about people
and governments.
Dan
>Why Learn History?
>
I agree with most of the other responding to this thread.
I hated history in school. Now I can't get enough of it.
The way history was taught to me was a serial of dates and someone's
idea of key events in Western Culture. Of course, since histories are
usually written by the victors in any struggle, it often gets
distilled as propaganda and we miss the true lessons of history.
I also remember how I was puzzled that the World History was
essentially the History Western Civilization and being surprised that
Asia, Africa and the Americas never qualifited as part of the world.
Mostly formal histories never provided context or connection with real
people and the problems they face. It was very sociological and
abscract. My only context was memorizing abstract events preparing
for exams. I never saw the real people and thier struggles.
Then one day I read a biography of Teddy Roosevelt and was knocked
over. The Tea Pot Dome scandal, Pres. McKinnley's assasination in
Buffalo and the Bull Moose Party came alive. I understood them not as
isolated events of long ago, but as the fabric of the times. The
culture came alive for me.
Now when I need to understand significant events, I usually read and
study the people living and being affected by the events under review.
It allows one to avoid reacting emotionally. Something most of our
politican and news reporters could learn.
Dan
It's very exciting.
goddess
"Dan" <Ve...@ames.com> wrote in message
news:6C11D15A20A5A69F.4C8E91DA...@lp.airnews.net...
> On 25 May 2002 05:48:08 GMT, shakub...@aol.com (Zero) wrote:
>
> >Why Learn History?
> >
> I agree with most of the other responding to this thread.
As do I.
> I hated history in school. Now I can't get enough of it.
I hated history in school UNTIL the 10th grade. Then, I had a history
teacher, Mr. Rudolph, who made it come alive for me. I've loved history
ever since. Can't get enough of it.
> The way history was taught to me was a serial of dates and someone's
> idea of key events in Western Culture. Of course, since histories are
> usually written by the victors in any struggle, it often gets
> distilled as propaganda and we miss the true lessons of history.
Absolutely! And it does get dull and boring just memorizing dates, facts,
events.
> I also remember how I was puzzled that the World History was
> essentially the History Western Civilization and being surprised that
> Asia, Africa and the Americas never qualifited as part of the world.
Me too. Of course, in order to fit everything in, teachers would have to be
more knowledgeable themselves as well as spending less time on certain
areas. I think it behooves, however, to know that we don't/didn't exist in
a vacuum.
> Mostly formal histories never provided context or connection with real
> people and the problems they face. It was very sociological and
> abscract. My only context was memorizing abstract events preparing
> for exams. I never saw the real people and thier struggles.
History, IMO, IS the study of real people and their struggles, successes,
failures etc.
> Then one day I read a biography of Teddy Roosevelt and was knocked
> over. The Tea Pot Dome scandal, Pres. McKinnley's assasination in
> Buffalo and the Bull Moose Party came alive. I understood them not as
> isolated events of long ago, but as the fabric of the times. The
> culture came alive for me.
The turning point for me was the French Revolution and Napoleon. Maybe
because I'm 4'10'? :-)
> Now when I need to understand significant events, I usually read and
> study the people living and being affected by the events under review.
> It allows one to avoid reacting emotionally. Something most of our
> politican and news reporters could learn.
I don't think we can ever completely remove ourselves from the emotional
(who would want to?) but yes, it is important to study the people affected
by the events and not just the events themselves. History is comprised of
real people, like us, doing real things for various reasons. I enjoy
studying the people and their reasons and the results of the events.
> Dan
>
> It's very exciting.
Yes, indeed!
Marg
Hippolyte Lizard
>
> I hated history in school. Now I can't get enough of it.
>
> The way history was taught to me was a serial of dates and someone's
> idea of key events in Western Culture. Of course, since histories are
> usually written by the victors in any struggle, it often gets
> distilled as propaganda and we miss the true lessons of history.
In the mid 1970s, my high school decided to replace early American
history with Something Relevant. So all we learned about was Cesar
Chavez and his struggles. That must have planted a seed, because within
months of graduation and my eighteenth birthday, I went down and voted
for Gerald Ford. Haven't voted much to the left of him since.
Nothing like getting a balanced education, what.
> I also remember how I was puzzled that the World History was
> essentially the History Western Civilization and being surprised that
> Asia, Africa and the Americas never qualifited as part of the world.
That was a handicap of our day. I'm very glad that my kids are learning
entire civilizations that I knew nothing about.
> Mostly formal histories never provided context or connection with real
> people and the problems they face. It was very sociological and
> abscract. My only context was memorizing abstract events preparing
> for exams. I never saw the real people and thier struggles.
>
> Then one day I read a biography of Teddy Roosevelt and was knocked
> over. The Tea Pot Dome scandal, Pres. McKinnley's assasination in
> Buffalo and the Bull Moose Party came alive. I understood them not as
> isolated events of long ago, but as the fabric of the times. The
> culture came alive for me.
Individual threads through history can be very enlightening. Read up on
Armand Hammer and his pop Julius, and the connections with Senator Gore
and his son Albert, and it boggles the mind that anyone could have
trusted the latter to be President. Do so many people really believe a
well-spoken liar is better than a (relatively) honest guy who fumbles
his words? (Just my narrow opinion.)
> Now when I need to understand significant events, I usually read and
> study the people living and being affected by the events under review.
> It allows one to avoid reacting emotionally. Something most of our
> politican and news reporters could learn.
>
> Dan
>
> It's very exciting.
Also why historical fiction is entertaining on multiple levels, if it's
topical enough. A great soapbox, should you have the talent.
h.l.
Jenna Thomas-McKie
> Individual threads through history can be very enlightening. Read up on
> Armand Hammer and his pop Julius, and the connections with Senator Gore
> and his son Albert, and it boggles the mind that anyone could have
> trusted the latter to be President. Do so many people really believe a
> well-spoken liar is better than a (relatively) honest guy who fumbles
> his words? (Just my narrow opinion.)
There are many people who would rather hear a pretty lie than the ugly
truth.
Many politicians - of every ilk - got where they are by playing to this
facet of human nature.
--
Jenna Thomas-McKie
jth...@aug.edu
"We can think. We can reason. We can be better than we are."
- C. Eric Lincoln
Archer070
>truth.
>
>Many politicians - of every ilk - got where they are by playing to this
>facet of human nature.
Well, I don't think you'll get elected if you get up and say: "My fellow
citizens: The heaviest tax you pay is the tax imposed by your own laziness,
greed, incompetence, and stupidity. I admit that's a crushing burden, and if
you elect me, I will do my best to shift the blame for it; but whether you ae
rich or poor, I assure you that the same burden will weigh you down long after
I am gone."
Chris McLaughlin
> In the mid 1970s, my high school decided to replace early American
> history with Something Relevant. So all we learned about was Cesar
> Chavez and his struggles. That must have planted a seed, because within
> months of graduation and my eighteenth birthday, I went down and voted
> for Gerald Ford. Haven't voted much to the left of him since.
It's too bad that the struggles of the farm workers wasn't put into
the context of struggles of workers throughout history. Now THERE'S a
fascinating story, and one that never ends. Weren't you one of the
people who responded with indignation to the tales of African diamond
miners?
Or the story of food: who "owns" it, how it gets "made" and
distributed, and so forth: that's a wonderful set of stories, too.
Chris.tine
Hippolyte Lizard
>
> Hippolyte Lizard <no_sp...@se.com> wrote:
>
> > In the mid 1970s, my high school decided to replace early American
> > history with Something Relevant. So all we learned about was Cesar
> > Chavez and his struggles. That must have planted a seed, because within
> > months of graduation and my eighteenth birthday, I went down and voted
> > for Gerald Ford. Haven't voted much to the left of him since.
>
> It's too bad that the struggles of the farm workers wasn't put into
> the context of struggles of workers throughout history. Now THERE'S a
> fascinating story, and one that never ends. Weren't you one of the
> people who responded with indignation to the tales of African diamond
> miners?
Yes, I was.
> Or the story of food: who "owns" it, how it gets "made" and
> distributed, and so forth: that's a wonderful set of stories, too.
It's quite possible that an entire semester was filled with more than
just the gripes of the grape pickers. But I was seventeen and had my
own interests. I now recall a jury selection exercise for a mock trial
over marijuana possession. Naturally, we all said we wouldn't convict.
That would have required not denying we were all technically criminals.
I don't suppose the teacher was thrilled with the mass
missing-of-the-point.
One point, though, I guess, is I still don't know much about this
struggle you describe. Being as so many prominent and successful
Californians started life as the children of migrant workers, and
today's migrant workers started out in some other country wishing they
were here, I can only conclude the system is working well enough.
(Here. The horrors in Africa are of another degree entirely.)
HL
Joe - Dirt Nap
Zero wrote:
> Why Learn History?
So as not to repeat it.
"Everyone is insane, some of us just get caught"
"Sleep is a waste of valuable time"
Dan
<no_sp...@se.com> wrote:
>In the mid 1970s, my high school decided to replace early American
>history with Something Relevant. So all we learned about was Cesar
>Chavez and his struggles. That must have planted a seed, because within
>months of graduation and my eighteenth birthday, I went down and voted
>for Gerald Ford. Haven't voted much to the left of him since.
>
>Nothing like getting a balanced education, what.
>
I have been trying to make sense out of this incongruent post since I
first read it.
It requires an enormous leap into blind irrationality or hubris to
view Cesar Chavez as a springboard for right wing thinking. Perhaps
if one studied Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, I could understand this,
but how one studies the hypocrisy, oppression and injustice
surrounding America's treatment of migrant and immigrant workers and
then leaps to the right, is astoundingly insensitive an without
compassion for the suffering being studied.
Certainly many Latinos have entered politics and that is healthy, but
it's a far cry from saying the "system works". Groups of people enter
politics "en masse", not because everything is working but because
they believe it is not working for them. Its usually a sign that this
group of people are experiencing injustice, persecution or desire to
protect some privilege they enjoy. Of course there are individuals
within any group that are unique and or swim against the tide, but
they need to be seen as unique. Proportionately few Latinos identify
with right wing perspectives. In California these views have lead to
legislation that has tired to deny immigrant workers' children health
care, education, various social services including minimum wage
protections and adequate police protection against predators. They
have tried to turn these social institutions into spies and enforcers
who target the parents and the children for legal actions and
deportation. Legislation has been passed by the right ensuring
"English Only" ballots. Thus denying whole segments of citizens, who
otherwise live, pay taxes and conduct their businesses as good
citizens, adequate representation. These are the kind of policies
advocated by the right and the type of things Mr. Chavez worked so
hard to curtail while working to bring about better working
conditions, fair wages, social fairness and justice.
The current attempt on the right side to the political spectrum to use
several successful people within the minority community to justify
turning their backs on valid concerns of the oppressed is shameful.
Explaining that studying the migrant worker plight and Cesar Chavez
leads to right wing ideology is preposterous. A compassionate review
of their suffering would cause us to look hard at the conditions the
allow people to prey on others this way and lead us to insights on how
to end those conditions rather than blame the suffering for their
suffering. Mr. Chavez pretty much stood on the opposite end of the
political perspective from the laizze faire view of the right.
Perhaps the seed planted in high school .
was that of a weed.
Dan
Hippolyte Lizard
Maybe it was THE weed. But I came out of there understanding nothing of
the plight of the migrant farm-workers, just cynical about a school
system that would show me Chavez filmstrips in a class supposedly about
early American history. It was perhaps not fair of me to react in a way
that led me to vote conservatively by the Ford vs Carter timeframe. But
however my political development went at the time, I'm sure that
experience was part of it.
You are right, it was an incongruent post. I was (badly) pointing out
how their agenda had an opposite effect on me at the time. Which isn't
all bad. Maybe they didn't have an agenda at all, and the Chavez info
only strengthened my nascent suspicion that aggressive governmental
social policies were not the best answer. Who knows. I don't mean to
start that debate (though your chosen wording in describing the
situation begs for a response, I'm not knowledgeable enough to mount
one). There's also the fact that, in a left-liberal town, the rebel
will be a conservative. Strongly libertarian, of course.
HL
Blanche Nonken
I hated history until I had a history teacher who taught us all the
*weird* stuff about historical figures. I also learned what the word
"coprophile" means.
Keera Ann Fox
> I hated history until I had a history teacher who taught us all the
> *weird* stuff about historical figures. I also learned what the word
> "coprophile" means.
Hrm. Merriam-Webster online has no clue.
Wendy Chatley Green
Ann Fox) wrote:
:Blanche Nonken <bla...@newsguy.com> wrote:
:
:> I hated history until I had a history teacher who taught us all the
:> *weird* stuff about historical figures. I also learned what the word
:> "coprophile" means.
:
:Hrm. Merriam-Webster online has no clue.
"-phile" from Greek philos, love
"copro-" think "kaka", but not the Norweigan word for cake-- the
other meaning.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Towse
>
> Blanche Nonken <bla...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > I hated history until I had a history teacher who taught us all the
> > *weird* stuff about historical figures. I also learned what the word
> > "coprophile" means.
>
> Hrm. Merriam-Webster online has no clue.
A coprophile is someone who has coprophilia -- An abnormal, often
obsessive interest in <ahem> excrement, especially the use of
feces for sexual excitement.
also: a coprophiliac
[ref: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000]
Keera learned something NEW! today.
Sal
--
useful links for writers:
<http://www.internet-resources.com/writers/>
Hugh Watkins
"Keera Ann Fox" <thinkbigs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1fd2pzk.1t3rrd69du16oN%thinkbigs...@yahoo.com...
> Blanche Nonken <bla...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > I hated history until I had a history teacher who taught us all the
> > *weird* stuff about historical figures. I also learned what the word
> > "coprophile" means.
>
> Hrm. Merriam-Webster online has no clue.
spelling !!
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=coprophilia&btnG=Google+Search
http://dictionary.msn.co.uk/find/entry.asp?search=coprophilia
coprophagy
http://dictionary.msn.co.uk/find/entry.asp?refid=138454&wwi=20009
http://dictionary.msn.co.uk/find/entry.asp?refid=138451&wwi=20009
coprolalia
nice word
Hugh W
Archer070
>>I also learned what the word >>"coprophile" means.
> Hrm. Merriam-Webster online has no clue.
"Coprophile" is a polite version of "coprophage." A coprophile likes shit
(presumably, e.g., to build little castles, or maybe save and display for
guests, etc.); a coprophage makes a meal of it.
"A coprophage calls for a plate, shits on it, and eats the shit, exclaiming
'mmm, that's my rich substance.' "
---William S. Burroughs, "Naked Lunch"
Hope this helps! :)