…
If we continue to make the same mistakes over and over again?
Discuss:cool:
That way we can make sure we replicate them and then maybe add a new twist along the way.
It keeps mistakes from being boring!
EDIT
Besides, history does not have a Shift+D function…
So that we know when the fools in power are repeating the lessons they are supposed to have learnt.
Because the ones that make mistakes don’t know history?
Or because they just don’t care.
i guess some people take history as an excuse rather than something to learn from.
for example, (you know what? this will start a flame war… never mind) 
We make the same mistakes because
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
-Albert Einstein
People generally don’t study history until they get into upper division college or graduate school, if they major in History. Up until then they study their national mythos in order to get some civic pride and a feeling that their country’s history was all leading up to it’s present status as a good place to live, just the way it is.
History just isn’t what it used to be, and never was. Actually, in the US, they used to call it “Civics,” which, imho, is a much more honest title.
Hmm, I pretty much had no choice about studying history - we had to. Some things I remember:
The history of medicine (very interesting, involved the renaissance etc.
The “current” (ie back in '95) Arab-Israeli conflict
English royal history
The Romans
WWI and WWII
I didn’t get to learn too much about non-western stuff (apart from “this is why ‘they’ never stop fighting”) which is no surprise really. No idea what today’s GCSE curriculum is like, but I reckon it won’t be too far removed.
Oh - the discussion!
I think it’s so that people can attempt to learn from the mistakes of the past. I mean, I think it’s probably working - in general living conditions are better for the majority of people in the world than they were 100 years ago.
You might as well ask “what’s the point of teaching anyone anything” if you’re so cynical that you think schools are spoon-feeding children civic pride, nationalism and propaganda.
If you’re talking about American History - well you might have a point. As every non-American knows, the US doesn’t really have a history to call it’s own yet. But I imagine you guys could learn a lot by studying the history of other countries… 
I never studied history in school, but it’s one of my favorite subjects because “history is about people.”
Unfortunately, history clearly shows us the human animal.
Most people have to learn things the hard way, by screwing up. You can try to educate them or give them advice, but it rarely sticks until it is lived through. Or its a matter of ego, “this may not have worked before, but I can do it better now.”
As the Europeans could learn a lot by studying the history of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, etc. The Americans may be a bit more jingoistic in their presentation of their national history, but they didn’t invent Chauvanism, the French get the credit for that.
Still, just by talking about “American” History, vs. the history of “other countries” you’re looking at history through a nationalistic lens. Which nation doesn’t really matter, they all want to look good, and leave out or gloss over the parts of their national past which doesn’t fit the narrative of a glorious march through time that inevitably leads to who we are right now, the most wonderful place and most wonderful people evah!
If we study history to learn from mistakes, should it really matter who made the mistakes? Yet, how many will argue against a policy because it was tried a century ago by people living half way round the world? You’d be laughed out of the debate: “They aren’t like us. Conditions are different here. Things have changed in the past hundred years. You can’t even be sure that’s what really happened.”
Turn the history into literature and people have a better chance of learning the lessons. If you had no choice about studying ‘history,’ you were studying what the adults in your society wanted you to believe.
whilst my reply was a bit joky/flip (I should have included some tags, doh!) I appear to have touched a nerve. In defence of the UK (oh, OK then, just England) what I was attempting to say was:
We actually have a pretty decent education system here. We have to learn things like history (regardless of whether it’s propaganda ::rolleyes:
from a fairly young age. It gives one a good grounding as to “your place in the world”.
Which nation doesn’t really matter, they all want to look good, and leave out or gloss over the parts of their national past which doesn’t fit the narrative of a glorious march through time that inevitably leads to who we are right now, the most wonderful place and most wonderful people evah!
regarding that point: I think you’ll find the English some of the least nationalistic people. Most people who live here (not me, I love it!) constantly moan about how rubbish England is. People who wave the St Georges cross here are seen as an embarressment. In fact the national sports team (Team GB, retch) and the football team are about the only sources of national pride we have…
I forgot to mention that one of the other things we covered in GCSE history was the british empire. Now there’s a lesson we can learn from!!
I don’t study history - I read about it and watch it on history channel. I don’t know why, but I like stuff like that.
Hmm… This is interesting. The ego and history…
Let’s take the topic in this direction and see where it leads.
Zomg Historyz Wit Da Tkl Buote A 100 Color No
History is great sometimes. I only like it if it is in (0_o) the form of a novel like The Pianist
We study history because too few people are born with good hearts and minds.
We study history because too few people are born with good hearts and minds.
I never bought the idea that ‘man is good and society corrupts him’ either. We’re all born sinners.
My peeve with history is that it’s largely written by the side that won and then distorted over time. Modern history isn’t much better as every side teaches its own version. For instance, there’s people denying that the Holocaust happened, or the terror of the inquisitions.
[Cue in a devil’s advocate. Yawn.]
If history lessons are ‘not to forgotten’, this applies to whom? The ruling class almost never feels like it has anything to learn, and they indoctrinate the rest to forget their power to teach. The powerful nations will subtly threaten and extort the poor ones…
See the pattern? Unless you can fix man’s “survival of the fittest” mentality, and I’m not sure I want you to, you can’t fix future history, regardless of how well you know the past. Of course, you don’t know what particular bit of knowledge may prove instrumental in saving your own hide.
there’s a measured post!
Not sure I agree with this bit though:
I never bought the idea that ‘man is good and society corrupts him’ either. We’re all born sinners
I tend to subscribe to the view that we’re born more or less the same: a blank slate (give or take a few IQ points), if you will. Most behaviour is the result of either things we’ve learned from our nearest and dearest, or the product of experience. And of course the concept of sin is entirely ludicrous depending on your religious views.
However I’m inclined to agree with your existential viewpoint - very Frank Herbert, and of course very appealing, despite what it inevitably leads to…
I think there’s actually a bit of a problem with that viewpoint though. So far “the selfish gene” has stood us in good stead - for example, when we had to win the most fertile mate, when competing for food etc - when we consider short term goals relevant to our immediate future.
But when you combine that with our relatively recent technological advances, it just doesn’t wash. Our current short term, evolutionary/deterministic goals (make money) and ways of measuring success (large house, 2.4 kids, 3 cars) are now arguably contributing to long-term dangers for our species:the destruction of our habitat; extinction of various important parts of the planet’s ecosystem and reliance on harmful energy sources, to name but a few.
In short, our survival instincts have failed to keep pace with our technological acheivements.
If we need to learn anything from history, it’s that the short term view we can see throughout recorded history (ie people, en mass, killing each other for no logical reason) needs to be superseded by at the very least a medium-term mode of thinking whereby we consider not just our children’s future, but also the future of our unborn great-great-great grandchildren too.
for example, when we had to win the most fertile mate
? You really don´t have to follow your genetic call that closely
I tend to subscribe to the view that we’re born more or less the same. Most behaviour is the result of either things we’ve learned from our nearest and dearest, or the product of experience.
Our views may be less dissimilar than it’s apparent.
I do believe my position would be best described by José Ortega & Gasset: “I am both myself and my circumstance”. Human behavior is both learned and inherited, or so believe certain schools of thought, including medical ones. As to which specific attributes come which way, well – there you have a debate for the ages. As stated earlier, I believe there a seed of corruption, --or, at the very least, a predisposition to corruption-- that is built into the very fabric of our bodies and minds. Babies that cry not just to express their needs but their whims, and that proverbial cruelty observed in kids – those may just happen to be hints of what lies below our apparently civilized exteriors.
And of course the concept of sin is entirely ludicrous depending on your religious views.
I believe we can coin a practical definition from its fruits: ‘that which harms others or yourself, physicall and mentally (and spiritually depending on your beliefs)’, often the result of doing things in the wrong time. I’ve always been curious as to the origin of the society-wide corruption that Russeau mentioned would come from, if not from man himself.