
‘History’ is taking a beating now.
I have heard history described as “a collection of” facts. The blow back from such a definition is that people think its an easy course to dispose of, since technology such as Google can return information back to anyone who asks a question. So if it is “a collection of” facts, spending time teaching it is a waste. That it’s worth spending that time talking about programming, or some other technical skill.
A lot of people argue that for that reason, teaching history is a waste of time. If that is how it’s being taught, then they are right. Spending time repeating facts is a huge waste of time. The problem is that “a collection of facts” is a horrific definition of history. That is like calling math “a collection of numbers.” The definition misses the context and power of learning.
Then what is it?
History is a case study of our existence.
To look at history is to look at the human mind on a meta level. It is to understand what goes on in our heads. It teaches us lessons. It gives us discussions. History provides a backdrop for incredible storytelling and debate. Great history discussion humanizes us, because it allows our brains to go somewhere, free, to think as someone else did.
You can pick any time in history, and start a debate, and for the most part, if you take a look at the great historians, most of the great story telling is already done. For example, lets take ancient roman history. If a teacher picks up a book like Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero by James Romm, there are a ton of discussions over concepts like power, corruption, intrigue, philosophy, business, and even storytelling. Those ideas directed by the book,and would equip anyone for high level political discourse.
And that’s history. Ultimately, history humanizes and contextualizes everything.
That sounds great but whats the problem?
Most things being taught in history class become standardized, so the argument above, that states “history is a collection of facts” is more correct. The case study model is rarely implemented, leaving questions like “when the Declaration of Independence was signed” the bedrock of exams. That is boring because history is the absolute worst class to “standardize” and “teach the test.” It turns something dynamic into something simple, and boring.
In that case, the class is useless. But in any well-rounded thinkers head, history is a required class, because it allows the thinker to move around in ambiguous circumstances, debate, and “see” in a way that other classes don’t allow.