Should Christianity be taught in school as a part of American History?

[The Deadite 26,814]

Religion doesn't have place on school, go to your respective church.

[Tampa 277]

Religion doesn't have place on school, go to your respective church.

Read the title. You can't argue with the fact that religion plays a large part in American history.

[The Deadite 26,814]

They are already teaching plenty of things that have no practical use outside school, let's not add religion to the mix.

[Hayduke 327]

Religion doesn't have place on school, go to your respective church.

I'm glad I spent time and thought giving a reasoned argument as to why a secular school teaching about religious beliefs is beneficial only to have my point torn apart by the immense logic of a one line sentence with no explanation to back it up.

[The Deadite 26,814]

 

Religion doesn't have place on school, go to your respective church.

I'm glad I spent time and thought giving a reasoned argument as to why a secular school teaching about religious beliefs is beneficial only to have my point torn apart by the immense logic of a one line sentence with no explanation to back it up.That's what you get for not closing the door here.

[sivispacem 19,044]

Yeah, can we cut the flippant spammy bull? This isn't General Chat.

[mr quick 10,463]

Religion doesn't have place on school, go to your respective church.

 

the issue here is on historical context, not the ideology itself

[El Dildo 14,395]

what difference does it really make?

 

I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why it would have to be a taught in public school.

Christianity in general is already taught as part of our history. it's impossible not to hear about it. it's intertwined with everything. it's art and politics and music and entertainment.

 

we literally don't need to take it any further than that. should Christianity be taught in history? Christianity IS f/cking history.

 

what is history? it's a bunch of crazy bible-thumping-domineering Anglo White dudes taking over parts of the world and subjugating the natives. that's why we're stuck in this mess now. they spread their stupid holy books to every BLOODY corner of the globe, forcing it onto cultures whether they wanted it or not. this "debate" hasn't really made any sense to me since page 1... should Christianity be taught in history? it's already being taught. it has been for hundreds of years.

 

this thread isn't going anywhere. it's an auxiliary religious debate, of which we have plenty enough in other topics.

we might as well be asking ourselves "is the sky blue?" because the sky is already blue, it always has been blue, and it always will be. knowledge of Christianity is virtually inescapable... unfortunately. it's not going anywhere. what is there to discuss?

Edited February 26, 2016 by El Diablo

[Abel. 5,853]

 

 

what is history? it's a bunch of crazy bible-thumping-domineering Anglo White dudes taking over parts of the world and subjugating the natives. that's why we're stuck in this mess now.

 

This is one perspective on modern world history, but it's certainly not all of history. Obviously the ramifications of colonialism should be taught in schools, but it's dangerous to be as one-sided as this. What about the Ottoman empire, or the Arab conquest of the entire near East? Colonialism is behind a great deal of historical ills, but it's certainly not the only major factor behind the problems of the modern world.

 

I'd also argue that Christianity was used as an excuse during many instances of imperialism, in the same way that "spreading civilisation" was. It was less about Christianity itself and more about using it to assuage guilt and create a commonality between colonists and natives. You also have centuries of history where Christianity was still in the process of being spread to the West before it was used as a vessel of Western ideology. Ancient Christian communities in the Middle East also have nothing to do with colonialism. Well, the fact that they still exist as unique communities is an example of communities resisting colonialism, in this case the Islamic conquests.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Failure

[El Dildo 14,395]

What about the Ottoman empire, or the Arab conquest of the entire near East? Colonialism is behind a great deal of historical ills, but it's certainly not the only major factor behind the problems of the modern world.

oh, gosh. oh, gee. you're right...

it wasn't just White Bible Thumpers subjugating the natives.

 

there were also Brown Quran- and Brown Vedas-thumpers.

the point is that most of history is just bigoted men slaughtering and conquering each other over religious disagreements.

 

we don't need to teach Christianity like we don't need to teach any religion.

we're all going to learn about it, unfortunately, whether we like it or not. religion already pervades history. they're inseparable. you can't teach history without cursory knowledge of religion.

 

so like I said all the way back in post number 1... this topic is dumb.

there's nothing to debate.

[Abel. 5,853]

the point is that most of history is just bigoted men slaughtering and conquering each other over religious disagreements.

 

This is an oversimplification. Often conquest was done to shift the balance of regional power in one's favour or to simply gain material or territory for citizens. Religion was often used to justify it but it wasn't always the motivating factor.

 

In the case of the Arab conquests the notion of "spreading Islam" was always at the forefront, but it was really expansionism (look at the Berber Muslims in Iberia). The Arab conquerors' skin colour has nothing to do with it and it's plain wrong to place the spread of Hinduism and Islam in the same box--they are very different faiths and have very different histories. Hinduism in particular emphasises tolerance of other faiths.

 

The broad strokes of what you're saying might have some merit, but you're still generalising massively. If your view of history is dominated almost entirely by colonialism then yours is a very narrow view. Obviously it needs to be talked about, but not exclusively. Slavery was abhorrent and the 1939 White Paper effectively removed a safe haven for millions of terrorised Jews, and these things should be remembered, but not without looking at history as a whole. It's just frustrating to hear university students endlessly cry foul about the evil of the British empire whilst ignoring other historical injustices whose impacts are still very much felt. This is what you get when history is taught in a one-sided way. Colonialism's impacts are still felt, yes, and as citizens of countries that practiced it we should be cognizant of it and these impacts, but we can't let it dominate the education system.

 

 

 

Back on topic, I do see your point that religion should have no place in schools. We live in a secular society so religion should be a personal thing (outside of overtly religious dress which is often required). Ideally parents would be able to tell their children about the diverse makeup of the world and tell them that they will encounter people with different backgrounds and how to deal with them. The sad fact is that this isn't the case. The reason religion needs to be talked about (albeit briefly) in schools is because there's a vast amount of ignorance out there which needs to be countered. It's the same reason we need sex education in schools. Ideally we wouldn't need it, and in the past we didn't need it, but we simply can't trust parents these days to inform their children about these things properly.

 

 

Nowadays we could probably integrate religious studies into the civics/PSE lesson which kids have once a week. You could do the main religions in two semesters and then look at the more obscure communities before breaking up for the summer. You don't even need to call it religious studies. It could reasonably be called "community education" or something. When I was in primary we had a Hindu girl in the class and her mother came in one day to talk to us about Hindu customs. That I still remember it is testament to how informative the talk was.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Failure

[DEALUX 2,307]

Religion doesn't have place on school, go to your respective church.

Teaching it as a history class (while mentioning the other dead gods in the same breath) to people would be better than indoctrinating them in church. I mean it doesn't have to be a big part of the history class but I think it deserves a mention since it played a significant role in our development as a species.

 

 

what difference does it really make?

 

I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why it would have to be a taught in public school.

Christianity in general is already taught as part of our history. it's impossible not to hear about it. it's intertwined with everything. it's art and politics and music and entertainment.

 

we literally don't need to take it any further than that. should Christianity be taught in history? Christianity IS f/cking history.

 

what is history? it's a bunch of crazy bible-thumping-domineering Anglo White dudes taking over parts of the world and subjugating the natives. that's why we're stuck in this mess now. they spread their stupid holy books to every BLOODY corner of the globe, forcing it onto cultures whether they wanted it or not. this "debate" hasn't really made any sense to me since page 1... should Christianity be taught in history? it's already being taught. it has been for hundreds of years.

 

this thread isn't going anywhere. it's an auxiliary religious debate, of which we have plenty enough in other topics.

we might as well be asking ourselves "is the sky blue?" because the sky is already blue, it always has been blue, and it always will be. knowledge of Christianity is virtually inescapable... unfortunately. it's not going anywhere. what is there to discuss?

There's one potential benefit. It might convince young religious people that their beliefs are bullsh*t or at the very least they might analyze them more as a result. If you mention Christianity among other dead religions and gods Christians might start wondering what the difference between them is.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Kristian.

[El Dildo 14,395]

The broad strokes of what you're saying might have some merit, but you're still generalising massively. If your view of history is dominated almost entirely by colonialism then yours is a very narrow view. Obviously it needs to be talked about, but not exclusively. Slavery was abhorrent and the 1939 White Paper effectively removed a safe haven for millions of terrorised Jews, and these things should be remembered, but not without looking at history as a whole. It's just frustrating to hear university students endlessly cry foul about the evil of the British empire whilst ignoring other historical injustices whose impacts are still very much felt. This is what you get when history is taught in a one-sided way. Colonialism's impacts are still felt, yes, and as citizens of countries that practiced it we should be cognizant of it and these impacts, but we can't let it dominate the education system.

I'm only generalizing about the crusades...

 

the point is that Christianity and religions are already being taught in school as part of history.

what are we debating?

 

you can't even teach a legitimate course in art history or political science without rehashing religion. when it comes to US history we don't need to worry about the failure to talk about religion. the only thing we really need to fear is the white-washing of American slavery or this 'creationist' bullsh/t being mentioned in biology class as if it's on-par with evolution theory. if anything there's still too much religion in school.

[Dingdongs 2,658]

 

The broad strokes of what you're saying might have some merit, but you're still generalising massively. If your view of history is dominated almost entirely by colonialism then yours is a very narrow view. Obviously it needs to be talked about, but not exclusively. Slavery was abhorrent and the 1939 White Paper effectively removed a safe haven for millions of terrorised Jews, and these things should be remembered, but not without looking at history as a whole. It's just frustrating to hear university students endlessly cry foul about the evil of the British empire whilst ignoring other historical injustices whose impacts are still very much felt. This is what you get when history is taught in a one-sided way. Colonialism's impacts are still felt, yes, and as citizens of countries that practiced it we should be cognizant of it and these impacts, but we can't let it dominate the education system.

I'm only generalizing about the crusades...

 

the point is that Christianity and religions are already being taught in school as part of history.

what are we debating?

 

you can't even teach a legitimate course in art history or political science without rehashing religion. when it comes to US history we don't need to worry about the failure to talk about religion. the only thing we really need to fear is the white-washing of American slavery or this 'creationist' bullsh/t being mentioned in biology class as if it's on-par with evolution theory. if anything there's still too much religion in school.

 

we already agreed a few pages ago that it's important to teach the basics of all important world religions as they relate to history and current affairs. So you need to educate students about religion. There's a difference between religious studies and theology.

[Abel. 5,853]

 

The broad strokes of what you're saying might have some merit, but you're still generalising massively. If your view of history is dominated almost entirely by colonialism then yours is a very narrow view. Obviously it needs to be talked about, but not exclusively. Slavery was abhorrent and the 1939 White Paper effectively removed a safe haven for millions of terrorised Jews, and these things should be remembered, but not without looking at history as a whole. It's just frustrating to hear university students endlessly cry foul about the evil of the British empire whilst ignoring other historical injustices whose impacts are still very much felt. This is what you get when history is taught in a one-sided way. Colonialism's impacts are still felt, yes, and as citizens of countries that practiced it we should be cognizant of it and these impacts, but we can't let it dominate the education system.

I'm only generalizing about the crusades...

 

the point is that Christianity and religions are already being taught in school as part of history.

what are we debating?

 

you can't even teach a legitimate course in art history or political science without rehashing religion. when it comes to US history we don't need to worry about the failure to talk about religion. the only thing we really need to fear is the white-washing of American slavery or this 'creationist' bullsh/t being mentioned in biology class as if it's on-par with evolution theory. if anything there's still too much religion in school.

 

 

 

 

Back on topic, I do see your point that religion should have no place in schools. We live in a secular society so religion should be a personal thing (outside of overtly religious dress which is often required). Ideally parents would be able to tell their children about the diverse makeup of the world and tell them that they will encounter people with different backgrounds and how to deal with them. The sad fact is that this isn't the case. The reason religion needs to be talked about (albeit briefly) in schools is because there's a vast amount of ignorance out there which needs to be countered. It's the same reason we need sex education in schools. Ideally we wouldn't need it, and in the past we didn't need it, but we simply can't trust parents these days to inform their children about these things properly.

Nowadays we could probably integrate religious studies into the civics/PSE lesson which kids have once a week. You could do the main religions in two terms and then look at the more obscure communities before breaking up for the summer. You don't even need to call it religious studies. It could reasonably be called "community education" or something. When I was in primary we had a Hindu girl in the class and her mother came in one day to talk to us about Hindu customs. That I still remember it is testament to how informative the talk was.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Failure

[PeasantGaming > U 262]

Religion and beliefs do not need to be taught in school.

 

It should be up to the parents to teach their children such things like (where did we come from? ect) or decide to send them to a private religious school to teach them such things.

 

Schools should only teach life skills and things you'll need to know for everyday interactions. Not the indoctrinating agenda driven bs they do now.

Edited October 14, 2016 by PeasantGaming > U

[xxxtentacion 1,732]

Religion is taught as a part of history already in schools, and there's no problems with it. As long as the teachers aren't forcing it onto the children then it's fine.

[trip 12,810]

I believe that one can not truly understand American history if you don't understand the role that Christianity played whether you are religious or not. I am personally an Atheist but I don't deny the importance that the religion held in the bringing up of America.

Where I went to university it is taught. There is a 2 semester course called "intillectual heritage".

http://www.cla.temple.edu/ih/

 

Not only did we read the King James bible but we also read the Quran.

 

Since schooling before university learning is (for the most part) state supported you won't see Christianity and other religions taught in school despite the historic relevance because of the (important) separation of church and state.

[DarkSavageDeathlyCloud 11,041]

As a part of general history lessons ?

 

Sure...and trow in other religions to, since(sadly) they are still kinda relevant with all those religious people out there.

 

As a seperate subject...no, you are making it to relevant, though i am against discrimination of any religion itself i think the world would be better of without it and we especialy do not need it to be teached from a religious point of view.

 

If you want to teach kids moral give them moral lessons relevant in todays world, don't start quoting some overrated stories from some overrated book.

[Chiarii 441]

If American history is taught I would say yes. However, I think a better question is 'should American history be taught at all?' For that I would say no. History, of any kind, lacks stimulation and does not advance one's intellectual abilities. The only requirement for learning history is the ability to read which is a skill that is learned at around 4 or 5 years of age. No static subjects have a place in grade school in my opinion.

 

History should be an elective course or reserved for collegiate environments where it would fit in with the rest of the worthless courses.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Chiari

[El Dildo 14,395]

History, of any kind, lacks stimulation and does not advance one's intellectual abilities.

...perhaps you could elaborate on this point?

[Fonz 3,135]

If American history is taught I would say yes. However, I think a better question is 'should American history be taught at all?' For that I would say no. History, of any kind, lacks stimulation and does not advance one's intellectual abilities. The only requirement for learning history is the ability to read which is a skill that is learned at around 4 or 5 years of age. No static subjects have a place in grade school in my opinion.

 

History should be an elective course or reserved for collegiate environments where it would fit in with the rest of the worthless courses.

No, there's much more to learning history than reading and there's much more to understanding history than memorization. And no, history is not static at all and that statement would get you laughed out of any group for historical research. If you read a history of a specific subject written in the 18th century vs. one written in the 21st century, the difference would be obvious, and that is still quite a small gap in historical terms. The amount of historical knowledge produced since the 1960s has been stupendous, especially when it comes to non-Western history. We're talking about millions of people who have dedicated their lives to contributing to a body of knowledge and making it as complete as possible, so you coming along and sh*tting on their work as "worthless" is pretty laughable, especially since it's so obvious that you have no idea what actually goes into historical research--as in, no competent historian thinks their work is the definitive™ word on anything and that's the point, because there's always going to be more detailed research further down the road. Eric Hobsbawm's history of the nineteenth century is a landmark in historical literature, but nobody is going to shy away from correcting parts of it or adding to its incomplete bits since that's what historians are supposed to do, not play pissing matches about who can memorize the most things, as you seem to think. Why do you think there are millions of history books instead of a handful of volumes? Boredom?

 

Besides, yours is a terrible idea. Cutting off/discouraging a crucial source of knowledge about why the human community and the global social order are the way they are by convincing people that those things don't matter would turn kids into complete anti-intellectuals. If you don't look into how certain institutions came about, you'll most likely have a poor understanding of them and end up taking them as a "natural" facts of life rather than something created by humans with specific purposes. What history teachers should do is encourage students to read more outside of class and do their own research into things (teach the students to fish, basically). It's no coincidence that the stupidest political views all feed on obscurantism or crappy anti-history (see: Rhodesian fanboys, Confederate apologists, pro-apartheid nutjobs, Neo-Nazis). Autonomy in education is a very valuable thing, but actively discouraging the study of specific fields just because you don't care to look into what they are is really just idiotic. By the way, saying history as a field is static is a clear sign of a terrible sense of history.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Black_MiD

[Dottie 9,263]

Taught? Sure

Imposed on students? No

 

There's a difference between knowing about religion and believing in it, and since Christianity does play a large role in American history (and even today), people should at least have some knowledge about the religion (at least the basics). If they want to take that a step further, go to church or learn more online. Imposing religion on the students, especially if they don't want to or are of a different religion is not the way to go.

 

At least being knowledgeable of different religions (not necessarily believing in them) makes one more appreciative of other people's cultures and values that may be different from their's, and likely decreasing the chance that theyll be an ignorant boob

[Chiarii 441]

...perhaps you could elaborate on this point?

 

I did... in the very next sentence. Do I really need to spell it out for you? There is no actual critical thinking, calculation, manual finesse, or innovation involved.

 

 

No, there's much more to learning history than reading and there's much more to understanding history than memorization. And no, history is not static at all and that statement would get you laughed out of any group for historical research. If you read a history of a specific subject written in the 18th century vs. one written in the 21st century, the difference would be obvious, and that is still quite a small gap in historical terms. The amount of historical knowledge produced since the 1960s has been stupendous, especially when it comes to non-Western history. We're talking about millions of people who have dedicated their lives to contributing to a body of knowledge and making it as complete as possible, so you coming along and sh*tting on their work as "worthless" is pretty laughable, especially since it's so obvious that you have no idea what actually goes into historical research--as in, no competent historian thinks their work is the definitive™ word on anything and that's the point, because there's always going to be more detailed research further down the road. Eric Hobsbawm's history of the nineteenth century is a landmark in historical literature, but nobody is going to shy away from correcting parts of it or adding to its incomplete bits since that's what historians are supposed to do, not play pissing matches about who can memorize the most things, as you seem to think. Why do you think there are millions of history books instead of a handful of volumes? Boredom?

 

Besides, yours is a terrible idea. Cutting off/discouraging a crucial source of knowledge about why the human community and the global social order are the way they are by convincing people that those things don't matter would turn kids into complete anti-intellectuals. If you don't look into how certain institutions came about, you'll most likely have a poor understanding of them and end up taking them as a "natural" facts of life rather than something created by humans with specific purposes. What history teachers should do is encourage students to read more outside of class and do their own research into things (teach the students to fish, basically). It's no coincidence that the stupidest political views all feed on obscurantism or crappy anti-history (see: Rhodesian fanboys, Confederate apologists, pro-apartheid nutjobs, Neo-Nazis). Autonomy in education is a very valuable thing, but actively discouraging the study of specific fields just because you don't care to look into what they are is really just idiotic. By the way, saying history as a field is static is a clear sign of a terrible sense of history.

 

 

Just to get a couple of things out of the way first.

 

1) It wouldn't be a post from Black_MiD without a pointless reference to white supremacy. Honestly, it's pathetic.

2) The first thing you said was how much more to history there is than just reading then essentially said "there's speculation and interpretation". How impressive.

 

So, I said history is a static subject and it is. Does learning more about events of the past change what actually happened? It's static. Also history is indeed worthless. I guess if I ever need to know about Hitler's favorite concentration camps I can come to you, but short of that unlikely scenario your knowledge is useless. My point was studying history should be a hobby. It's also ironic that someone who has a worldview based on the first half of Animal Farm would criticize the ideologies of others but not necessarily surprising. If you want though you can go ahead and humor me; cite a Ph.D level history article and I'll cite one of any STEM field. Of course that would really just underscore the simplicity of the study you stand by. People who dedicate their lives to learning about how the world was do so because they're incapable of learning about how the world is.

[Eutyphro 2,799]

Jesus, you are such an ignorant hack. Your post is only ad hominems and pure tripe. What the f*ck would you prove by posting a STEM paper, and comparing it to a paper on a history subject? I get it that you don't think learning from history is important, or you wouldn't be such a reactionary uninformed idiot. I really doubt you have more than a community college degree anyway. And that's not to insult anyone else with community college, but you are clearly no academic.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem 19,044]

The only requirement for learning history is the ability to read

All this demonstrates is your complete lack of understanding of what "history" actually is in an academic context. It's almost as if you've never heard of Bloom's Taxonomy. What I find particularly weird is that you seem to think STEM subjects and historical analysis are somehow mutually exclusive; the circumstances in which both may be relevant in the same discussion are vanishingly rare.

 

I feel like I'm responding to some kind of elaborate troll by explaining the purpose and value of historical study, but it's far more complex than simple reading comprehension. The historical narrative tells us that Stalin failed to address German military incursions into Soviet territory in the first two years of conflict with Germany despite numerical superiority and the additional strategic benefit of fighting from an established defensive position. But that particular narrative tells us very little about the reasons for failure- the damage done to Soviet strategic doctrine by Stalin's purges; the rejection of combined arms warfare and regression to WWII era tactics and a rigid political structure which actively discouraged innovation in battle.

 

Anyone whose ever done any kind of intelligence analysis has been extrapolating likely outcomes from an analysis of history, combined with other factors such as adversarial understanding. That applies to all three tiers- strategic, operational and tactical; private and public; plus most other areas that rely on the same basic analysis techniques. Information security, business development, management consultancy...

 

I know you've got a pathological need to try and elevate yourself above the rest of us "plebs", but it's just becoming farcical now. Seriously, have a wank and get over yourself.

[Fonz 3,135]

So, I said history is a static subject and it is. Does learning more about events of the past change what actually happened? It's static.

 

Jesus Christ, you can't even keep a minimum of coherence for three sentences. First you were saying history as a field was static (which it's factually not, as I argued), now you're saying the past is static, rather than the body of knowledge that exists about it, which leads me to conclude once again that you have no f*cking idea what history is.

 

Also history is indeed worthless. I guess if I ever need to know about Hitler's favorite concentration camps I can come to you, but short of that unlikely scenario your knowledge is useless. My point was studying history should be a hobby. It's also ironic that someone who has a worldview based on the first half of Animal Farm would criticize the ideologies of others but not necessarily surprising

 

Well, my mistake: I should have also thrown in your idiotic "anarcho"-capitalist views in there. See, if you weren't such a historically illiterate poser suffering from such an acute case of Dunning-Kruger, you'd know, for example, that capitalism has never existed without a state, that the liberal nation-state was indeed the political counterpart of capitalism and that property rights (and consequently capitalism) could never exist without a state. It's no surprise that you despise history, since the whole "understanding political and cultural institutions" part might actually force you to start using your brain for once.

 

If you want though you can go ahead and humor me; cite a Ph.D level history article and I'll cite one of any STEM field. Of course that would really just underscore the simplicity of the study you stand by

 

You see, this is just pathetic now. The fact that you think scientific methodology is some sort of locker room cock size contest just makes it so obvious that you understand neither STEM fields nor social sciences or how the paradigms of either came about. Not to mention your ignorance of things like the history of science or the interplay between advanced history and STEM contributions would have actual STEM academics rolling on the floor laughing.

 

People who dedicate their lives to learning about how the world was do so because they're incapable of learning about how the world is.

Yeah, except a major point of history is to shed light on the nature of the present social order by analyzing its course of development. Because as anyone with any actual credibility (yes, including actual STEM scholars) will tell you, it's pretty much impossible to understand the way the world is by studying it as an isolated episode rather than what it actually is, a sum of all past experience, development and action. This type of sh*t should be immediately apparent to anyone, but that fedora is probably impairing your intellect a little bit.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Black_MiD

[RedDagger 24,814]

Does learning more about events of the past change what actually happened? It's static.

How does this not apply to literally everything except ever-changing systems like economics and sociology? Learning more about Physics doesn't change the laws of physics, Maths is bullsh*t because it's purely logical, Computer Science is for hacks who won't accept that binary operations won't change no matter how many papers you make on them or something silly, hell if I know.

 

I 'unno, maybe making up baseless criteria for the perceived "usefulness" of a discipline without even explaining why something being "static" (some weird term that applies to plenty of STEM subjects) matters wasn't a good thing to begin with. But that's in the realms of philosophy, and since that's wishy-washy stuff with no basis in reality it's basically just static knowledge floating in the void that we're waiting to find out, which basically means it's also pointless.

[El Dildo 14,395]

humor me

sure.

you seem to think that "studying history" means nothing more than physically looking through old books. aside from the fact that this is just categorically incorrect, it speaks to a serious disconnect you have with reality.

 

studying history is not an isolated hobby.

the ongoing recording of history and references to events past is an integral part of society and commerce and culture. history permeates every facet of everything we do; every single day. it's the legacy of our civilization; ideas and wisdom building on ideas that came before, the advancement of technology and science and medicine and art and language. it's all the result of trials and errors, of minds coming together, pouring over work and research, looking back to determine new ways of going forward based on what has and has not already been attempted.

 

history is everything.

how do you think education works? the handing down of traditions and practices, the evolution of concepts, the careful analysis that allows for the correction of mistakes. you use history constantly every day in your ongoing understanding of the world around you.

 

like, are we really having this discussion?

I can't believe this has to be articulated to you... the importance of history. how dense can you possibly be? it's like explaining to a young child.

[Chiarii 441]

Jesus, you are such an ignorant hack. Your post is only ad hominems and pure tripe. What the f*ck would you prove by posting a STEM paper, and comparing it to a paper on a history subject? I get it that you don't think learning from history is important, or you wouldn't be such a reactionary uninformed idiot.

 

Golden... I went ahead and underlined+bolded what I liked about your post. I think it adequately portrays the type of person you are. What's so interesting about you is that you don't realize that as soon as I leave everyone else will go back to ripping on you, because pettiness is in the nature of you and your friends here. BTW, it is well documented that prevaricators often doubt the veracity of others.

 

Thanks for your contribution.

All this demonstrates is your complete lack of understanding of what "history" actually is in an academic context. It's almost as if you've never heard of Bloom's Taxonomy. What I find particularly weird is that you seem to think STEM subjects and historical analysis are somehow mutually exclusive; the circumstances in which both may be relevant in the same discussion are vanishingly rare.

I feel like I'm responding to some kind of elaborate troll by explaining the purpose and value of historical study, but it's far more complex than simple reading comprehension. The historical narrative tells us that Stalin failed to address German military incursions into Soviet territory in the first two years of conflict with Germany despite numerical superiority and the additional strategic benefit of fighting from an established defensive position. But that particular narrative tells us very little about the reasons for failure- the damage done to Soviet strategic doctrine by Stalin's purges; the rejection of combined arms warfare and regression to WWII era tactics and a rigid political structure which actively discouraged innovation in battle.

 

Anyone whose ever done any kind of intelligence analysis has been extrapolating likely outcomes from an analysis of history, combined with other factors such as adversarial understanding. That applies to all three tiers- strategic, operational and tactical; private and public; plus most other areas that rely on the same basic analysis techniques. Information security, business development, management consultancy...

 

I know you've got a pathological need to try and elevate yourself above the rest of us "plebs", but it's just becoming farcical now. Seriously, have a wank and get over yourself.

 

 

Should I give you a nod and a wink for your bt reference? The point of comparing STEM to history is to show that history is a simple subject. As with all simple subjects it attracts simple people. I figured you would oppose my view seeing as your undergrad major is political "science".

 

My view on why history should be removed from the grade school curriculum comes down to this: the adept analyze the present to shape the future while the inept analyze the past to understand the present. No matter how much you want to run from the fact that academia does exist on a hierarchy it won't change that inescapable fact. In ms and biochem, information that was 6 months old or less was considered ideal; information that was one year old or more was generally considered outdated. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no one studying electrical engineering is learning about a guy who died a couple of centuries ago that managed to capture electricity with a kite and a key.

 

Story short? A history degree, along with many others, is bought not earned.

I'm wondering if you'll defend other bottom of the barrel programs like music appreciation, African American studies, liberal arts, english lit and psychology. Let me know. Back2sermo4me.

 

you use history constantly every day in your ongoing understanding of the world around you.

 

Good point. I'm suing bcm for not covering ancient shamanistic rituals and medieval blood-letting... because you know.. history is important.

 

 

Jesus Christ, you can't even keep a minimum of coherence for three sentences. First you were saying history as a field was static (which it's factually not, as I argued), now you're saying the past is static, rather than the body of knowledge that exists about it, which leads me to conclude once again that you have no f*cking idea what history is.

 

 

Well, my mistake: I should have also thrown in your idiotic "anarcho"-capitalist views in there. See, if you weren't such a historically illiterate poser suffering from such an acute case of Dunning-Kruger, you'd know, for example, that capitalism has never existed without a state, that the liberal nation-state was indeed the political counterpart of capitalism and that property rights (and consequently capitalism) could never exist without a state. It's no surprise that you despise history, since the whole "understanding political and cultural institutions" part might actually force you to start using your brain for once.

 

You see, this is just pathetic now. The fact that you think scientific methodology is some sort of locker room cock size contest just makes it so obvious that you understand neither STEM fields nor social sciences or how the paradigms of either came about. Not to mention your ignorance of things like the history of science or the interplay between advanced history and STEM contributions would have actual STEM academics rolling on the floor laughing.

 

Yeah, except a major point of history is to shed light on the nature of the present social order by analyzing its course of development. Because as anyone with any actual credibility (yes, including actual STEM scholars) will tell you, it's pretty much impossible to understand the way the world is by studying it as an isolated episode rather than what it actually is, a sum of all past experience, development and action. This type of sh*t should be immediately apparent to anyone, but that fedora is probably impairing your intellect a little bit.

 

 

I didn't read a word of this. Not even one.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Chiari