Replies to people who say history isn't important

I imagine everyone here agrees that history is interesting and that archaeology and historical preservation are important. However, I often talk to people who are utterly baffled by my interest and insist that digging things up and examining how people lived in the past is silly and a waste of time (not hyperbole). They see no reason to save old buildings or to impede progress for the purposes of preserving an ancient site.

"Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it" is merely a philosophical cliche to them, and those who think about it don't see how historical preservation plays into that. They don't see how the study of history is useful or productive.

Not everyone who believes this way is an idiot who can be dismissed and avoided. They can be intelligent, caring people who truly believe that resources should be spent on taking care of people in the here-and-now, not "wasted" on the past.

How do we counter the belief that historical preservation stands in the way of progress or that interest in history is an intellectual game for people who aren't worried about "the real world"?

It's an interesting question. I don't really think it's possible to defend most such study on practical grounds. While studying history generally is valuable, that doesn't really work for most of what historians and archaeologists do.

No, I don't think you can explain it to people who lack a general appreciation for culture and learning. There is little that is useful there. Nothing useful comes of understanding the 11th century French peasantry, a poem by Blake or a Symphony by Bach. In aggregate, however, people who don't value such things have small souls. Put enough small-souled people in charge and I think some bad things do take place. But the argument is a long-distance one.

My answer is always, "Funny, I feel the same way about professional sports." It may not be helpful, but it makes me feel better.

In the sciences they analyse data from the past to build models with which to predict future trends. Doesn't history do the same for human affairs? Polybius thought that was the point. Examining the cattle trade in medieval europe or the spread of forms of lyric poetry around the Aegean don't seem any less useful than tracking genetic drift in species of fly or finding a way to transmit data more quickly.

And if the objection is that studying history doesn't make anything explode or go faster, you could say the same about parts of the purer sciences like topology.

If history is unimportant, then why is there such struggling over what aspects of history are taught to schoolchildren, with what emphases and glosses, and what textbooks must and must not contain? History is sort of a 'basic science' of social life, lacking obvious direct practical application but underlying many of the interpretations people make about political, economic, and community news & events, and the decisions they make based upon those interpretations. Unfortunately the vast majority of people (or at least Americans) think of history as 'the stuff told to us in those classes,' which—because the classroom only gets the 'history' that has passed through various competing filters—is partial and biased but presented as complete and unbiased. I think that many students sense this intuitively, which is why they view secondary-school history with disdain; but they are rarely given either the information or the tools they need to find it on their own. Plus, such filtered history is, frankly, boring, which surely contributes to adults' sense of history as a pointless endeavor.

It's interesting that history-class is expected to be 'just the facts' while in biology-class a substantial portion of the electorate wants schools to 'teach the controversy' surrounding evolution.

A knowledge of history certainly allows us to understand the present and there's a whole network of links. Understanding our monarchy (in UK) takes us back to 1688 and the "Glorious Revolution". That links to the role of Roman Catholicism and the Reformation. Think also of maps of Europe now, pre-World War 2, pre-World War 1, or in the days of the Holy Roman Empire. As previous posters have said there will always be people (perhaps most) who aren't interested in anything beyond the telly, the pub. But going back to the OP I'm a less enthusiastic about "historical preservation". In tnis country far too many buildings of little historical or architectural interest are labelled "listed buildings" with all sorts of petty planning restrictions which makes a good living for people sitting in council offices but little other benefit. I also don't like it when some preserved sites offer no a very restricted access to the general public. Only card-carrying academics and the like get to see them.

Certainly a historical context sheds a lot of light on how societal, environmental and international affairs issues arrived at their current state. Knowing the background of any situation is always integral to addressing it.

Also, seeing how similar situations were addressed in the past and their lessons learned can inform current decision-making. One example: reading Paris 1919, I discovered that statesmen in the wake of WW1 referred to the Peace of Westphalia as their nearest model.

Edited to add another example: see how the recent global recession was addressed by government spending and maintaining open markets internationally, lessons learned from the Depression era.

I'm sure politics and economics are not the only fields which benefit from examining history. Consider most other sciences. And the arts as well, which steer away from cliche or break with tradition, else turn to historical sources for inspiration.

Granted, none of these people are historians. But they are people who lean on the work and efforts of historians, and so the study of history becomes a supportive practice for the workings and further development of modern society.

One of the problems with all this is that "history" often ends up having two meanings. In one, you get into discussions about knowing about the past and preserving old stuff and sites. In the other, you talk about the study of history, as in whether to fund it in schools.

Historical preservation is the hardest to figure out. Every piece of ground on Earth is potentially a historical site - it existed in the distant past. But not all of it can be preserved. Processes need to be put in place to determine what should and should not be saved. Some places have this but many do not. If there are 50 sites similar in size, scope and site in existence, should one more be saved by halting a construction project to expand a city's sewer system to alleviate flooding which affects hundreds or thousands of people? To decide this a board or commission needs to be established with clear rules and guidelines. And you need to be able to explain things to the folks whose basements keep filling up with water every time there's a 3-inch rain.

I have an easier time defending the study of history than the preservation of sites. I think having sites to visit is important - it helps to give a sense of perspective, develop your sense of place in the world and an appreciation for where you came from. Developing critical thinking skills is far more important. People are flooded with information these days and need to understand how to separate the dreck from the credible. The study of history, where examination of evidence for validity is so essential, can really help with this.

Now history is not the only field of study where critical thinking skills are taught, but it is a field where critical thinking skills are taught more than most. And once someone is taught these skills, the appreciation for heritage seems to follow naturally.

>8 cemanuel: "Now history is not the only field of study where critical thinking skills are taught, but it is a field where critical thinking skills are taught more than most."

I am curious about how much critical thinking you imagine goes on in history education, and in what venues. Because in my experience, primary and secondary history education doesn't, as a rule, encourage critical thinking in the least.*

I would also argue that historic preservation is not, in fact, history. For one thing they are called by different names. (There are many other things to be said about that but I don't really care to at the moment.)

* Perhaps I should have said that, in my experience, primary and secondary education doesn't encourage critical thinking in the least.

I agree that historical preservation is not, in itself, history, but in my opinion it is very important, indeed vital, to the study of history. As someone who lives where there are a lot of historical sites I think they both bring history alive to the average person who visits and also allow historians to learn important, and sometimes not so important, facts.

Primary and secondary education doesn't in general promote thinking at all - it promotes memorization. I was thinking more of higher ed when I wrote that, where students are asked to examine and evaluate evidence, not just learn "facts." I could go into a rant about our (US) school ed system but I'll spare all of you that.

And there is a big difference between the archivist and the historian though both are important.

EDIT: This is not universal - I know of some teachers who do ask for more from HS students. But they're the exception and often reserved for AP programs.

As an ex-teacher (but not of history) my understanding of (UK school) education in history is that modern syllabuses do try to get pupils to interpret a document and think about sources and wider issues. But my own feeling is to agree with those who say: (1) that many pupils, especially at GCSE level, do not have the maturity to understand the issues, and (2) that many such pupils do not have enough knowledge to make judgements. You have to have a factual background before you can begin to interpret. But learning facts is boring and not exciting seems to be the theory. And in my view it's not just history teaching that is tarnished by this view. But then perhaps my other name should be Gradgrind. Obviously I can't comment for university education.

I've been watching Time Team out of the UK and been amazed at the apparent interest people in England have in their own local history. I've always been fascinated by the number of old houses people continue to use--and by old, I mean Georgian and Medieval, as opposed to old=30+ years old.

Maybe it's because there is so much more history in England as opposed to America--and yes, I know there have been people in the US for just as long as in England. But it's not as obvious. Here, 18th Century is ancient. In England, 18th Century is "Well, yes, it's nice, but it is fairly new, isn't it?"

#13
We have our fair share of philistines here in the UK but I think you're right that there is still a strong interest in our history here, especially local history. It is hard not to take an interest when you are surrounded by ancient buildings, castles, earthworks etc. I think our schools (particularly primary schools) should make more of local history as I think it could help to engage children with their past at an earlier age.
And yes it is always funny in American horror films when houses from the 1950's are considered old and spooky, I live in a house over a hundred years old but it is not considered 'old' at all, just an ordinary Victorian terrace house, not a ghost in sight :)

I think the role of memorization is much lessened these days, with results both good and bad. But it hasn't always been replaced by critical thinking, but by airy generalizations, sloppy thinking and—for history—heaps of identity politics.

But, all airy generalizations are based upon a nugget of truth.

Right. But you can't give people the nugget. I mean, you could get the world's expert on Lincoln to come up with a one paragraph description of Lincoln's importance and for all except the expert it would just sit there, sounding easy. You can't describe the quenching of thirst, you need to make them drink the stuff.

I was being facetious.

Homer: Bart! Take a letter! "Dear Mr. Burns... {dictating with heavy sarcasm} I'm so glad you enjoyed my son's blood. And your card was just great. (In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.)"

Sorry. I knew you were. I was expanding on it. :)

I have taught a few college-level history courses, and I always tell my students that history is a very important thing to study because of the writing and critical thinking skills they will learn. Sure, it's great to know what happened in the past. We can argue forever over whether knowing the past encourages or prevents us from repeating it, and we can argue over whether knowledge of past events is useful in making decisions. But all of that aside, the study of history teaches us some very important skills that are useful in all aspects of life.

History is based on evidence, so studying history gives you experience in evaluating evidence and deciding whether the evidence backs up or refutes your ideas.

Historians need to be able to write clearly, and to back up their statements with evidence: in my experience, History majors are much better writers than English majors.

Most importantly, to really understand why people from the past acted the way they did, you have to understand their point of view and be able to put yourself in their shoes. From our point of view, it makes no sense that the majority of Germans would join the Nazi party. But if you understand the political and social circumstances in Germany in the 1930s, it is completely rational and understandable why people would become Nazis. This is a kind of thinking that doesn't happen in most other disciplines, yet it is extremely important and beneficial in all fields.

So I always told my students that I didn't care if they could memorize dates or list all the kings of England: I was trying to teach them a set of skills that will be useful in any field.

I think the same argument can be made about any field of the humanities: it might not have the same kind of quantitatively practical application as, say, computer science or biochemistry, but it teaches you ways of thinking that are necessary in all fields.

Right, fine, the real questions if people start asking questions about importance are: important to whom?, in what respect? etc. Imprortance doesn't exist withouth "beneficiaries".

History may not be "important", but it does explain a lot. Ignore it at you peril. You may never know what hit you.

... I often talk to people who are utterly baffled by my interest and insist that digging things up and examining how people lived in the past is silly and a waste of time (not hyperbole). They see no reason to save old buildings or to impede progress for the purposes of preserving an ancient site.... How do we counter the belief that historical preservation stands in the way of progress or that interest in history is an intellectual game for people who aren't worried about "the real world"?

When my kids ask some variant of this ("Why do I have to learn this?), I usually tell them some paraphrase of Trotsky's

"You may not be interested in war (/history/politics/etc.), but war (/history/politics/etc.) is interested in you."

(My children hate when I tell them this.....)

Is your house Soviet Russia?

We are an autonomous collective, the Workers' Soviet of AYKB.

reply to #9: primary and secondary educators are actively discouraged from encouraging critical or creative thinking by nonsense like the "No Child Left Behind" requirement that only the test matters, and the test can only be mastered by memorizing the core data that will be asked for on a multiple choice exam. Some teachers manage to ALSO encourage critical thinking, but many don't or can't.

It's not all the educators' or the educational system's fault; many kids (and adults) want (to put it crudely) to be told what's what rather than figuring it out for themselves.

And then there are some who develop naturally into critical thinkers, regardless of their educational environment.

Historical preservation is important. If the philistines can't appreciate the beauty of old buildings, and their historical importance, then try this one: it draws heaps of tourists. Who spend a lot of money, which stimulates the economy.

Who would visit Rome if the Colosseum, the Sistine Chapel and all the ancient and medieval buildings were demolished and replaced by glass-and-concrete skyscrapers? Not many, I'm guessing.

Personally, I think that old buildings, whether they are of historical importance or not, are more interesting, and have more character, than most modern buildings. Old is beautiful, and beauty should be treasured for its own sake.

Interesting comments madpoet. Do you watch How I Met Your Mother? Last season the running storyline was about the conflict between saving an old, run down building vs. replacing it with a shiny new glass-and-concrete skyscraper. Being a comedy the resolution was, of course, humorous and completely unrealistic. However, I thought that the back-and-forth debate over the course of the season was serious and tried to show both sides fairly.

>28 LucasTrask: I haven't seen that show yet... I'll check it out.

I guess it comes down to personal taste, sometimes. But I wish they'd leave older buildings alone: I shudder when I see some of the modern additions tacked onto classy older buildings, in total disregard to the style of the original building. The addition to the ROM in Toronto is a perfect example. It would have been better if they had just dynamited the older building, and built something completely new. That would have been less of a travesty.

" referred to the Peace of Westphalia as their closest model"

An incident in Kaiser Wilhelmʻs family life is reported by Miranda Carter in her book on the 3 cousins, George V, NIchloas II (Allies) and Wilhelm II (Central Powers) who were chiefs of state during W W I. (though only the cousin who was German nationally as well as ethnically was really running his country --some would probably dispute me on that, too,
Of Wilhelm, she says that
he banished his sister Sophia because she changed her religion from Lutheran to Greek Orthodox ,not, theologically, a tremendous change; and very understandable since she had become part of the Greek Royal Family (even though that family was without Greek ancestry and was, like their British cousins, more German than anything else.) Carterʻs reporting of the incident made me think of how History came into play here:
A major principle of Westphalia (1648) , as Wilhelm must have known, was "Cuius Regio, eius Religio" which established the idea that whole "regions" (Latin: regiones) should have the same religion as their monarchs. Yet he could not apply that
to his sisterʻs case.
So, Wilhlem, in that instance, learned nothing from history, not even from a history the effects of which were still very visible in his own day. His mentor Bismarck was at the opposite extreme, and TOO aware of "history" where the conflicts of Religion were concerned. As a militant anti-Catholic, he
was s till fighting, in a watered-down way, the old 16th and 17th century fights. (The Kaiser fired Bismarck -- probably the smartest thing he ever did -- but thatʻs another question.)

Actually, "Cuius Regio, eius Religio" came with the peace of Augsburg. The peace of Westphalia actually provided for more tolerance than that.

A good discussion. To go back to the original question, an answer would be an expansion and explanation of the over-used phrase: "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." In other words, how can we know where we are or where we want to go, if we don't know where we've been. To be an intelligent society, we must learn from our mistakes.

I see the source of most of the stupid, shallow political opinions in the US as a result of not knowing and understanding history, recent and ancient.

Not only about knowing the past, I'd argue that people who are not interested in history are usually not interested in other contemporary cultures and ways of living either.

And what to say to people who are that close-minded? No idea honestly.

Having taught history at the primary and secondary levels, I saw (see) my role as to inspire a curiosity in history. As such making pyramids , mummies and Roman legion uniforms at one level and having students in my class donning Ist World War uniforms and equipment as nessessary as knowing who Rameses II or Kaiser Wilhelm was. One of my tricks is to come in with a raw cow heart when I am speaking about the earliest kings in Mesopotamia having their hearts and fertilizing the fields for the coming year. Amzingly no parent complained.
(edited for typos)

TO Andejons (31):

Thanks for the note on 'Cuius regio eius religion" --traceable to Augsburg,

I don't know why I traced it only to Westphalia (1648). Probably got it from some capsule summary. I first had occasion to look into it when I was teaching Western Civilization
in Tonga, back in the 1980s. Of course there was no such thing as turning to online sources, and we were limited to a limited supply of books. A lot of books have found their way to Tonga,and a lot more have not. So, our sources were sometimes meager on a topic like this. On many things I could turn only to the Encyclopedia Brittanica. 11th Edition, and a 1930s edition of Colliers Encyclopedia. (Not that I'm blaming them in this case.)

If we didnt know about history how would we be able to analyse all those conspiracy theories ;)
I'm always amazed at people that talk about the current news stories and say things like "It's nothing to do with us" because they dont know the history.

I would like to add to the excellent points already mentioned point 8 and 9 of A Sense of History: Some Components by Gerald W. Schlabach (http://bit.ly/lCuIy1 ) I hope I don't break any rules by just copying and pasting (parts of) the points:

"8. To attempt to live without a memory is to attempt to lose one's humanity.

... Without a memory, would you recognize your family? recognize your house? ... Be the person you are?

Now, how is all of this true for entire families, neighborhoods, societies, nations, civilizations?

The answer is the reason we study history.

9. Our memories fail us, however, and so we must continually work to recover and test our collective memory.

Now that you know how important history is, you may also start to understand why families, neighborhoods, societies, nations and civilizations tend to twist, distort, or conveniently forget parts of their histories! A lot may be at stake. Violence, oppression, injustice, racism, sexism and other unsavory patterns of human behavior may have allowed us to enjoy the lives we now live. The unvarnished truth may painfully force us to choose between becoming different people or repressing our humanity.

But do we really want to live out lies? If not, we have no choice but to test, argue and challenge one another's memories, in the hope of remembering and living more truthfully."

What to say to people who say "there's no value in history? " Ask them about their family stories and background. Of course, only do this when you have plenty of time to listen. :-/

I think the colloquial use of "history"* to mean "anything that is both past and of no current importance" has a lot to do with the problem posed by the title of this thread.
The word "philosophy" has been debased in the same way. IF we say, e.g. that "this coachʻs PHILOSOPHY is to go for the yardage on 4th and short", weʻre not talking about anything that a philosopher would call philosophy, or even what a militarist would call "strategy". Weʻre talking about
an occasional decision, at most a tactic.
Occasional decisions, and tactics, no matter how consistently the same, do not a philosophy make.

*I donʻt know how old this usage is, but I think I first heard it in the 1980s --
and from another American, whose academic "dialect" was somewhat different from my own.

Americans don't value history as much as other nations, I think. Partly, that is because of their much shorter recorded history (compared to most European or Asian countries). Also, 'progress' and the new are valued more than tradition in American society. But in many 'Old World' societies, it's the reverse: tradition and history are valued more than novelty and progress.

History, though, is often just a record of grievances, in the public imagination. It is often used as an excuse in present wars. The Serbs and Croats, for instance, in the wars of the 1990s, often justified their attacks on each other, and on Muslims, as revenge for decades or centuries-old events. In Israel/Palestine archaeology has become very politicized, as it is used to 'prove' the historical claims of Jews and Arabs. It often feels like some places have too much history.

History is the study of the deep causes and effects of change in societies and economies. Excellence in leadership, political, military, and commercial, cannot be achieved without familiarity with history.

But "History ... is, indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind" as Gibbon put it in chapter 3 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire expanding on Voltaire.

>43 EricJT: As long as we're going with Gibbon and Voltaire, we should add Henry Ford:
"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today." (1916)

BTW I don't know much about Gibbon. Did he actually think that history is not important? It would strike me as strange, but there are stranger things.

>43 EricJT: Technically he's correct though I've seen it put as, "History is the recounting of past events." But good history, or at least the kind of history I want to read, includes elements of various ologies - sociology, psychology, anthropology - to be able to address causation, why things happened the way they did. I think it's generally accepted that today this is a legitimate part of historical study. The problem (for me anyway) is when someone like Jared Diamond takes this too far and veils sociology and anthropology as history.

The one area that still seems to be a taboo is what if's. Historians seem to get very perturbed when conversations go in that direction. Personally I think it's fun.

to Anthony Willard,
I believe that Gibbon did regard history as being very important indeed! I think that he is regretting that the other disciplines (most of whom had not started their investigations yet) had not been able to provide him with the materials to record other actions than the aforesaid "crimes, follies and misfortunes." (damn! now I'll have to look up the quote, and try and put into Gibbon's context for the remark. That means visiting both the quotation book, and then either the autobiography or the "Decline and Fall" it self. I have things to do to-day, and Gibbon is usually good for at least an hour before I can get away!)

I'm also a fan of the what-if, a marvelous genre if done right. I don't care if Lee had won at Gettysburg, and usually start with Hooker winning at Chancellorsville, as he should have!