Generic History Questions

why is history worth studying?

why is history worth studying?

(understanding) First reason is that it is simply so important in understanding not just the world around us, but also ourselves: I really like the work of Tom Holland in this respect because he so massively emphasises how the history of Christianity really does influence the way in which we think, how we react to things. That morality of seeing the weak and poor as really noble, is so massively embedded in the modern era, and it is so important to understand where it comes from, so that you can understand why other people, with different pasts, might not react in the same way as you to certain thins.

(politics) Second reason is that not studying history puts us at risk: The internet poses a real risk to history today. People can be led down wormholes, which can even lead to things like holocaust denial. And these can all have really serious political effects. Even just the tone with which history is presented can have impacts on politics - like the presentation of immigration, e.g. Les Banlieues in France.

Would history be worth studying if it didn't repeat itself?

Because history really is not about knowing when it's going to repeat itself. In fact the history of using history to predict the future is an incredibly poor one (thinking about ww1 led to ww2, thinking about ww2 led to Suez crisis)

The real reason to study history is twofold: (q on why is history worth studying?)

Is history a science?

Well this is actually the thing - history is both a science and an art, and that's what I love.

On the one hand, it's a science in the sense that there are rules which cannot be broken. Like in science, where in order to have a fair test, you also need to have done the test at least three times and taken an average (maybe even evaluate them for outliers), in history you have to do the same. You have to look through all the sources of many varieties, and interpret what it means for your thesis. Will you have to reject or accept your thesis?

But you also have the fact that in a sense, every historical 'fact' is an anomaly, because every single one is flawed, so unlike in science you can never reach objective fact. But you still need to illustrate what likely happened - What is history if it can't actually convey what happened in the past, to the present day audience? Nothing. So it is literature in itself. But bound by the many rules of science.

So it's evidently both

Should we only learn modern history?

Absolutely not. Because how do you define modern history? and how do understand modern history without the history before it? and the history before that?. There are so many important themes in history that run through much greater periods of time than just the past couple of hundred years - of which I think the most important is religion, but really it includes gender, economics, etc

Should all GCSE students be made to study history?

Well I should start by saying that I don't think we should have GCSE's at all. introduce IB, increase emphasis on practical studies, make universities free which is now feasible because people feel inclined to go.

But yes I do. Because its not just about the skills you learn doing it. But its so pertinent to current times - learning how to approach sources and really think about them is critical to understanding fake news nowadays.

Is geography important to history?

Well, interestingly, I think its the lack of geography that is important to history. I think the two clearest examples are Poland and Ukraine.

But then there are the other, non-physical aspects of geography that have a huge impact of history. Why the West Rules for now i think calls them the four horsemen of the apocalypse

Should politicians have studied history?

Yes. I mean it is absolutely critical that politicians have an understanding of history. Not least because they can learn from the actions of past politicians and see the mistakes they have made. We can now outline how people rise to autocratic rule out of democracies, and theoretically we can spot when it's happening in the same way again But also

What is the role of myth in history?

tempt people into the past

Should historians seek to achieve objectivity, and can they ever succeed?

Yes they should seek to achieve objectivity, no they can never succeed.

My reason for this stems from the fact that I really consider history to be very distinct from the past. History is something that we have to try our hardest to make reflect the past. And we have enough sources to get very close, but how can we ever prove objectivity? It's just not possible (in cause and consequence at least). Events may be slightly different, for example I won't try and argue that WW1 didn't start on 28 July 1914, but also it doesn't exactly evade this trend. I mean there is a non-zero chance that someone recorded that to be WW1's start date and that everyone since has complied. But also, unfeasibly slim. So yes, objectivity can't be reached, but the very aim of history is to get as close as you can, to get as best a possible view of the past

do you think counter-factual history can be useful?

I agree that asking how events could have unfolded differently helps us identify crucial turning points in history, when you actually apply this it very quickly becomes clear how virtually every event can be ascribed historical signifiance. So it is definitely historical fiction.

Pope Gregory IX said cats were instruments of Satan. There were cat purges, such as Kattenstoet in Ypres. And so the plague was harder to control. And so Pope Innocent VIII got the plague. His Jewish doctor Giacomo told him to get a blood transplant where he drank the blood of three young boys, but they all had the plague too. So in Europe was sparked a wave of anti-semiticism that lasted all the way to Hitler's rise.