History

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

Seems there's to be a "history summit" in Canberra on Thursday, according to
report in "The Weekend Australian" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au)
entitled: "History put on a pedestal".
What is history? According to my Oxford dictionary, it is a "methodical
record of public events".
So, it is a study of the PAST, and there can be only ONE true account of
the past, one set of FACTs which match what actually occurred. Ah, but
that's the catch, as there can be many partial or biased records of past
events. But, even so, there is only one set of events which actually
occurred.
The teaching of history? What should it consist of?
Students might be taught the facts, insofar as these can be established, but
does this mean they must learn by rote, eg. names and length-of-reign of
British monarchs, to regurgitate at exam time? Not necessarily. But they
should be taught facts, not opinion, as a prime essential.
Australian history includes the colonisation and exploration of this
country, as well as the origin and customs of the Aborigines.
Then there is World history, and Pre-history (ie. before human recorded
history), ie. the history as revealed by rock strata, fossils, cave
paintings, etc.
There are other aspects to History, as a whole - The History of Science,
and of Religion, and of Economic-Political Thought; the Middle Ages, the
Industrial Revolution. The History of Warfare. Etc.
History is important, as only by its study can we properly understand
Current Affairs, much less see where we are tending - in Futurology.
History may be bunk to a Henry Ford, and may seem useless to his modern
equivalent in the Business World, where every kind of study must have a
Profit potential. But it is a vital need all the same, as not all of life
can be measured by money.
This is not to say history should result in a jingoistic nationalism, or
enthusing about a colonial past. Neither should it produce "black armband"
apologetics.
If history is fact, then that's what it is, and nothing can alter the
past - what was done, was done, and seemed the right thing to do back then.
History is not the only subject on any curriculum, but it has its place,
at whatever educational level.

Archived from group: aus>education

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

"Don H" wrote in message$rP1.5258@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Seems there's to be a "history summit" in Canberra on Thursday, according
to
> report in "The Weekend Australian" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au)
> entitled: "History put on a pedestal".
> What is history? According to my Oxford dictionary, it is a "methodical
> record of public events".
> So, it is a study of the PAST, and there can be only ONE true account of
> the past, one set of FACTs which match what actually occurred. Ah, but
> that's the catch, as there can be many partial or biased records of past
> events. But, even so, there is only one set of events which actually
> occurred.
> The teaching of history? What should it consist of?
> Students might be taught the facts, insofar as these can be established,
but
> does this mean they must learn by rote, eg. names and length-of-reign of
> British monarchs, to regurgitate at exam time? Not necessarily. But they
> should be taught facts, not opinion, as a prime essential.
> Australian history includes the colonisation and exploration of this
> country, as well as the origin and customs of the Aborigines.
> Then there is World history, and Pre-history (ie. before human recorded
> history), ie. the history as revealed by rock strata, fossils, cave
> paintings, etc.
> There are other aspects to History, as a whole - The History of Science,
> and of Religion, and of Economic-Political Thought; the Middle Ages, the
> Industrial Revolution. The History of Warfare. Etc.
> History is important, as only by its study can we properly understand
> Current Affairs, much less see where we are tending - in Futurology.
> History may be bunk to a Henry Ford, and may seem useless to his modern
> equivalent in the Business World, where every kind of study must have a
> Profit potential. But it is a vital need all the same, as not all of life
> can be measured by money.
> This is not to say history should result in a jingoistic nationalism, or
> enthusing about a colonial past. Neither should it produce "black
armband"
> apologetics.
> If history is fact, then that's what it is, and nothing can alter the
> past - what was done, was done, and seemed the right thing to do back
then.
> History is not the only subject on any curriculum, but it has its place,
> at whatever educational level.
>
# There is the one-eyed view of history. This it that as promulgated by
every religion. The Roman Catholic Church has its own version of history,
with martyrs, etc, as do the Protestants. Put them together, and what they
have in common might be true. But then both believe in the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ - which the Jews do not. So, add in the Jewish
version of history; in which persecution and the Holocaust doubtless figure
largely. Then there's the Islamic viewpoint, again a selective view, a
partial history.
The one-eyed view doesn't only apply to religion; the nation state is
typical, and the drums of war sound on the basis of our virtue and the
enemy's vices. Which is what led H.G.Wells and other to attempt a History
of the World.
The basic problem with history is - that while only one set of actual
events occurred, most attempts to determine them rely on documentation,
which is flawed, or likely to be.
Thus the canvassing of as many views as possible, and their common
factors, is probably the best we can do - matched with whatever empirical
evidence can be found.