|
|
 |
| I. Why Study History? |
|
- History is not a blueprint but does provide
understanding.
- History is not a blueprint for the future but
it is a means of understanding the past and present. Through the
study of history we can develop a feel for the way in which society
will develop in the future. History helps one to understand the
immense complexity of our world and therefore enables one to cope
with the problems and possibilities of the present and future.
- History provides us with a sense of identity.
- People need to develop a sense of their collective
past. Events in the past have made us what we are today. In one
sense history is the only thing that is real. The way in which
people identify and interact with one another is by and large
a consequence of history, which shapes and conditions individuals
and societies whether they fully understand it or not.
- History is a bridge to other disciplines.
- In order to understand the other humanities
and the sciences one needs an historical overview. Writers, artists,
scientists, politicians and everyday people all are conditioned
by the historical milieu in which they lived. Historical knowledge
is a prerequisite for fully understanding any other type of knowledge
and for understanding why events happened as they did.
- History is magister vitae, "teacher
of life."
- History prepares us to live more humanely in
the present and to meet the challenges of the future because it
provides us with understanding of the human condition. History
is a means of disseminating and comprehending the wisdom and folly
of our forbears.
- History is fun.
- History fulfills our desire to know and understand
ourselves and our ancestors. History allows one to vicariously
experience countless situations and conditions, which stimulates
the imagination and creativity.
|
| II. Is History true? |
|
- There is both objective and subjective
understanding in history.
- Most people can agree on the framework of history,
that is the names, dates, places, people and events that have
determined the past. Few people, for instance, would challenge
the veracity of the old school rhyme "Columbus sailed the ocean
blue in fourteen hundred and ninety-two." The problem is not with
"Columbus" or "1492" but with "sailed" (not with the fact that
Columbus did sail but why he sailed). Historical disagreement
usually revolves around causation or motivation. Some see Columbus
as a courageous harbinger of a new world others see him as an
evil, genocidial imperialist.
- Historical interpretation is dependent upon
one's own background and perspective.
- How a person understands the past is partially
determined by one's background, upbringing, biases, and prejudices.
But this doesn't mean that history is unknowable. Historical understanding
is analagous to the debates that sports enthusiasts often have
over what team was the all-time best or who was the greatest player
ever? The basic "facts," i.e. the points scored, batting averages,
yards gained, wins and losses etc. are known, but individuals
often disagree over what those "facts" mean. Still a basic consensus
is often reached (Babe Ruth and Henry Aaron are the two greatest
home run hitters ever) and the same is possible in history.
|
|
|
