Benefits of *not* knowing history

[nerdgirl 0]

Heard an interesting and intellectually provocative, im-ever-ho , commentary today by Ralph Peters (LTC USA, ret, foreign area officer; controversial inside & outside the DoD; author and regular columnist for the New York Post) on CSPAN-2 Book tv.

In the context of the arrest of Radovan Karadzic, Peters commented that Americans don’t know history and that an occasional benefit is that Americans don’t pervasively hold onto history … and perceived offenses of history. A further consequence, perhaps unintentional, is that Americans focus instead on the future.

One could speculate that some part of the reason that Americans don’t focus on our history is because it is so short, compared to the Persians, Chinese, English, or the inhabitants of the area of the former Yugoslavia. (Of course, one can trace the influences on the formation of the US to England, France, Scotland, Native Americans, etc.)

If one knows anything about Peters, one appreciates that he is a voracious bibliophile and erudite scholar of history. He’s not saying ‘being dumb about history is a good thing.’ Not at all.

One can speculate on how that comparative lack of depth of history has driven the US in very good ways. And how that has impacted our foreign policy choices, particularly in the 20th Century. One of the implicit cautions of Peters’ commentary, as he tied into politics and challenges of the Middle East, is how that might change for US foreign policy in 21st Century.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

That's one perspective. I don't entirely agree with him, but don't care to spar with the concept.

I think it depends on which "American" he's talking about. There is definitely an unfortunate and notable group of the population that has no concept of our role in history.

There is also a less notable element that understands all too well, the history of the US role in the world,

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Muenkel 0]

We should also take into account the common trend to teach revisionist history in our schools and universities.

_________________________________________
Chris

[vortexring 0]

Quote

One can speculate on how that comparative lack of depth of history has driven the US in very good ways. And how that has impacted our foreign policy choices, particularly in the 20th Century.

I'd see it more as having driven America in bad ways. Such as Afghanistan.

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370271

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[nerdgirl 0]

Another interesting topic, albeit, different from what Peters was referring.

Quote

We should also take into account the common trend to teach revisionist history in our schools and universities.

Such as?

One person's "revisionist" history is often another's truth or hidden history. Most often I’ve encountered “revisionist” used as a pejorative label for those historians who write about and expose facts of our history that we would prefer we not have to hear or acknowledge … & occasionally “revisionist” is re-interpreting history through the author or historian own frame of reference, which may be a-historical, e.g., the controversy surrounding CA Tripps’ The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln – trying to apply early 21st Century mores and homoerotic interpretations to pragmatic behaviors of the 19th and early 20th Century is “revisionist,” and like much of history it says more about the time when it was written (2000-2005) than it does about the Lincoln or his time.

Otoh, a recent book that I read, which some might label “revisionist” is Joseph Ellis’ American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic. Ellis also wrote Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, which received the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for History and was adapted as a PBS series.

American Creation has a fascinating chapter on the Louisiana Purchase and how President Jefferson acted with extreme executive privilege – to such an extent that would make Pres GW Bush by comparison seem like a proponent of reduced executive power.

At the time, there was such opposition from the New England Federalists, who used a strict constitutionalist argument to oppose the expansion of the United States, and Jefferson himself was concerned about how the acquisition would increase executive power and make slavery a federal regulatory or legislative issue rather than perpetuating the Virginia “code of silence.” The concern was so great that Jefferson drafted a proposed amendment to the Constitution to permit the annexation of the Louisiana Purchase (to become the Louisiana Territory) as well as Florida (letter of Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 13Jan1803, published in Henry Adams, ed. The Writings of Albert Gallatin, 1879).

Maybe in some ways that is related to Peters’ comments on the a-history of America: because we don’t (generally) cling to past perceived offenses against us -- such as those of the Anglo-Dutch Wars of 1662-4 & 1665-1667, in which the Dutch recaptured control of New York and New Jersye; we re-interpret history through a modern lens. Hmmm … so perhaps in the end the invocation of the question of “revisionist” history is also an artifact of our a-history.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Another interesting topic, albeit, different from what Peters was referring.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We should also take into account the common trend to teach revisionist history in our schools and universities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Such as?

One person's "revisionist" history is often another's truth or hidden history.

I agree. There should be one truth in regard to history. When I refer to revisionist history, I am referring to teachers or professors who use history to slant it according to their own political leanings.

A basic example of the point I am trying to make:

Fact: I accidentally slipped and fell down a flight of stairs on August 16, 2003 resulting in Traumatic Brain Injury.

Revised fact: I threw myself purposely down a flight of stairs on August 16, 2003 resulting in Traumatic Brain Injury.

The 'fact' states the truth and what happened to me is labeled as an accident. The 'revised fact' infers that I was in a negative mental state and leads people to believe I was purposely at fault.

_________________________________________
Chris

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Another interesting topic, albeit, different from what Peters was referring.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We should also take into account the common trend to teach revisionist history in our schools and universities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Such as?

One person's "revisionist" history is often another's truth or hidden history.

I agree. There should be one truth in regard to history. When I refer to revisionist history, I am referring to teachers or professors who use history to slant it according to their own political leanings.

A basic example of the point I am trying to make:

Fact: I accidentally slipped and fell down a flight of stairs on August 16, 2003 resulting in Traumatic Brain Injury.

Revised fact: I threw myself purposely down a flight of stairs on August 16, 2003 resulting in Traumatic Brain Injury.

The 'fact' states the truth and what happened to me is labeled as an accident. The 'revised fact' infers that I was in a negative mental state and leads people to believe I was purposely at fault.

In your example, the only 'fact' is that you fell down the stairs and suffered brain injury. The 'accidentally vs purposely' is subjective to a degree. OK, you say that you of course did not mean to misstep and hurt yourself -and you honestly believe it. That makes it fact to you. But then someone could say that you were negligent in not watching your step, or tying your shoe, or whatever happened that led you to fall down the stairs... etc.

In any case, that wasn't why I wanted to reply - your comments (and Marg's prior to that) made me think that now that we're in an age where information is easier to get than ever, with more sources of information increasing the chances that the ever-elusive "truth" WILL get out...I think that now history will be remembered more than it ever has before.

Maybe it's because when I was younger I didn't have as long a time on this planet to remember, but it seems to me that things that have happened in the last 10 years are better remembered than people of 1998 remembered in the 10 years prior to that (I have no way of proving this - just a theory of mine) simply because of how things are preserved now in this digital age.

Also, w/r/t Marg's original post about a cultural/national collective short memory - I wonder if it has to also do with the fact that this country is made up of people from all over the place, so there is no predominant "cultural memory" that predominates over everything else and drives a culture (such as national hatred for neighboring cultures/countries that happens in other parts of the world).

[Muenkel 0]

Actually, there was negligence but not on my part. Otherwise I don't think the courts would have awarded me my huge financial settlement. I won't go into the details regarding that.

Your points though are well taken.

_________________________________________
Chris

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

When I refer to revisionist history, I am referring to teachers or professors who use history to slant it according to their own political leanings.

Nearly all history is revisionist history, because it would generally take as long to re-learn all of the details as to experience them in the first place.

Those stairs -- were they concrete, tile, rough, broken, carpeted, was there a railing? What kinds of shoes were you wearing -- flip flops, sneakers, loafers, none, slippers? To different people, trying to fit your fall into their own personal experience and make sense of what happened, different details help. And if the detail that adds meaning for them is left out, then it's revisionist history.

Not to say that history is never taught wrong. There probably isn't a lot of thought given to an even-handed presentation in N. Korea. For many years in the US, race relations and slavery have had a pretty single-sided perspective (yes, really). And right now the Catholic priesthood probably can't get a fair shake.

So much of the time it's the facts that are left out or kept in that make it revisionist, and not stuff that's made up. Just like one has to be careful about taking quotes out of context, one should also be careful about historical events.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

We should also take into account the common trend to teach revisionist history in our schools and universities.

The revisionist movement isn't as bothersome as the trend over the last 100 years or so to teach myth and complete untruths about historical persons.

Part of it was started to make history easier to package and understand for the masses and school children; however, this has perverted what people "know" to be "true" about history.

That's said with an understanding that history, many times, records persons' actions with the glow of the results that aren't readily understood at the time.

I do find it interesting that people by and far have no desire to study history. Even if you have no desire to debate the past, just the stories and interconnecting events that have shaped the modern world make it interesting and entertaining.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

I agree. There should be one truth in regard to history. When I refer to revisionist history, I am referring to teachers or professors who use history to slant it according to their own political leanings.

That doesn't answer the question, it just restates the assertion that lead to the request for clarification. How exactly is this common trend manifesting itself in university level classes?

Most history professors I know are in it for the excitement of finding out stuff that gets us closer to the truth, rather than as part of some socio-political propoganda scheme.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Most history professors I know are in it for the excitement of finding out stuff that gets us closer to the truth, rather than as part of some socio-political propoganda scheme.

I had a history prof that was a firm died in the wool socialist. I could describe his office and relate some of his views, but I honestly believe that people would think I simply made it all up. It is that outlandish. Anyways I sat in on one of his freshman level survey courses and was amazed to see how he taught the class.

For those who don't know, a survey history course is literally a timeline course. You basically learn a time line with major events and people, but not much detail or explanation. His course basically went "this happened, then this and this and it was all because of the rich holding the proletariat in virtual slavery."

Honestly I worried until I looked around and nearly 300 freshman were sleeping through his "class."

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jakee 1,596]

So that's one, and he was evidently a crap Professor regardless of his views. Not yet evidence of a sweeping problem

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,120]

>The revisionist movement isn't as bothersome as the trend over the
>last 100 years or so to teach myth and complete untruths about historical
>persons.

Both are a problem; the denial of evolution comes to mind, as does the suppression of Japanese internment during World War II. The revisionist tendency can be described as the desire to gloss over (or actually alter) the uglier parts of history to benefit one's political position. When I was in school, the standard "brave settlers opposing the savage, bloodthirsty Indians" story still held sway.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Both are a problem; the denial of evolution comes to mind, as does the suppression of Japanese internment during World War II. The revisionist tendency can be described as the desire to gloss over (or actually alter) the uglier parts of history to benefit one's political position. When I was in school, the standard "brave settlers opposing the savage, bloodthirsty Indians" story still held sway.

The Civil War, Lincoln and George Washington (as well as the rest of the founding fathers) come to mind quickly. All of those have been changed in myth and teaching from grade school on up for the last 100 years.

WWII has experienced quite a bit of that as well.

Really, though, literally every society does that to their history, which is too bad.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Really, though, literally every society does that to their history, which is too bad.

I'm not sure which is the "bad" part?
The creation of one-dimensional archetypes from fallible humans? Or knocking them off those pedestals?

(And tieing back to the original theme of the post -- that willingness to re-examine our past may be a strength: Peters' would suggest that Americans don't cling rigidly to the archetypes of the past, thereby (1) not perpetuating historical animosities & (2) fostering a future directionality.)

Can you provide some more specifics because I'm not sure to what you are referring w/r/t George Washington, Civil War, Abraham Lincoln (unless you mean the CA Tripp biography I cited?)

------

Tangentially related: I'm curious how many have heard of and how many have read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States? Not if you *agree* with it.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[AggieDave 6]

I was referencing the infallible personas of the founding fathers in that regard. The short version is that they were rich white men who didn't want to pay their taxes. They owned slaves. Many were alcoholics. Some were horribly crooked business men. Basically we're led to believe that they were saints if you believe public schools. Lincoln had a lot of back door crooked dealings with the northern industrial complex and possibly prevented the war from ending when it should have (around the 2 year mark) to allow the Union and its businesses to continue to prosper.

Stuff like that. Or how WWII was something that by and large the American public wanted nothing to do with. That the war was largely considered a folly in the years leading up to it.

The "dark" side of history. That's my super-simplified answer. The full answers aren't that shallow, but hey, its DZ.com and that doesn't matter in the least.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

I had a history prof that was a firm died in the wool socialist.

So then chances are he was at least knowledgeable about the industrial revolution onwards...