photo: school in Kabul, Afghanistan. World Education blog
thoughts on the production, and study, of history
Why learn history? There are several excellent reasons. The typical refrain from students, when asked that question: "so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past."
Unfortunately, just knowing history does not insulate us from past "mistakes." People have been cataloging history for millennia, and that has been no guarantee of progress. Consider two things:
Just as we fight over contemporary political matters, so too we will always fight over history and debate questions like: who should be included in the story? Whose story matters most? What does the past reveal about human behavior? What events are essential for students to know--and what aspects of those events? These questions are continually asked--and the answers we provide probably tells us as much about ourselves, as about the past. So, how we present the past (the practice of history) is actually a subtle explanation of the present.
There is a single truth about what did, and did not happen--those are facts. It's not always easy to know the facts, but they exist and historians, scientists, journalists and others use tools and methods to obtain facts. However: how people feel about those events, which stories you choose to tell and which facts you employ or exclude to produce those stories, is subject to people’s decisions. That part is debatable. What is less debatable is how we discover the truth. When that process is compromised, our commitment to truth is weakened, and the historical record becomes less reliable and more easily falsified. When truth and fact are less attainable, those in power can better shape what we think, what we know and what we follow and believe. Thus, the study of history, in part, is a means to protect truth and our freedom.
Let me explain: We can only arrive at Truth through a process of reasoning: we ask questions then we seek answers by examining sources that have been debated by experts, themselves people who have studied and exchanged ideas for many years. Experts, despite their deficiencies, are those who depend on many more sources than just themselves or a small group of people who simply agree with them. Experts are open to criticism, and must responsibly provide more evidence in the face of criticism to support their case--or concede that they were wrong or uncertain. When we are denied the opportunity to reason, or persuaded not to use that special human capacity, we cede our freedom to those who depend on us not knowing for their own power. It's why the Nazis and Stalin were so concerned with distorting the past (the subject of George Orwell's book, "1984"). It's why people who commit genocide wish to hide their crimes and prevent those in the future from knowing the truth of their past. It's why the Civil War is so hotly contested in the United States (psst: it's actually a debate over race and rights today!).
So what’s the relationship between truth and historical knowledge?
Without truth, we have no way to view the past accurately; we don't have examples of what is fair and just; Without reason, we have no way to discover truth. Put simply, and to paraphrase George Orwell: those who control our past--how we understand our history--control us, now and in the future. To be fair, there are many views of what happened in the past. We should always be free to seek that knowledge (the process of reason, real journalism, and scholarship). Consider: if your people’s ancestors had been enslaved or subjugated, and you didn’t know much about that experience, you might conclude that the legacy of discrimination that you experience today must be your own fault or your own weakness. If we didn't know that slaves resisted their masters; that Jews resisted Nazis; that workers protested against unfair conditions; or that young people led the climate justice movement, then we might not realize that we have the power to make change today or that our community has just as much right to power and opportunity as any other group, and that we should fight for that, just as people before us did. Knowing the past empowers us to fight to be included in the present. Without examples of how power accumulates or how people resist oppression, we lose our will to seek freedom. Consider how often speeches about freedom refer to those in the past. When leaders become too powerful, they immediately aim to limit our ability to know and learn, because they know that reason and education could undo them. Those with excessive power aim to control the media, what is taught in history class, what is shown in museums, and what monuments are erected. When they control history, they shape the contours of their own power.
Let's examine how history is produced, and what that reveals about truth, reason and the present. When we study history, we practice freedom.
Roger Grande
Unfortunately, just knowing history does not insulate us from past "mistakes." People have been cataloging history for millennia, and that has been no guarantee of progress. Consider two things:
- Values and knowledge do not always align in the same way. In the words of the historian Norman Davies, "intelligence...is no guarantee of integrity" (The Heart of Europe, p. 351). So, plenty of smart people commit atrocious acts—and they often believe their cause is just.
- People in power—and those fighting for power—regularly use stories of the past to enlist others to share their values, and to fight to gain, or maintain, power. In other words: Representations of the past—whether accurate or distorted—are a powerful means to shape how we think about the present.
Just as we fight over contemporary political matters, so too we will always fight over history and debate questions like: who should be included in the story? Whose story matters most? What does the past reveal about human behavior? What events are essential for students to know--and what aspects of those events? These questions are continually asked--and the answers we provide probably tells us as much about ourselves, as about the past. So, how we present the past (the practice of history) is actually a subtle explanation of the present.
There is a single truth about what did, and did not happen--those are facts. It's not always easy to know the facts, but they exist and historians, scientists, journalists and others use tools and methods to obtain facts. However: how people feel about those events, which stories you choose to tell and which facts you employ or exclude to produce those stories, is subject to people’s decisions. That part is debatable. What is less debatable is how we discover the truth. When that process is compromised, our commitment to truth is weakened, and the historical record becomes less reliable and more easily falsified. When truth and fact are less attainable, those in power can better shape what we think, what we know and what we follow and believe. Thus, the study of history, in part, is a means to protect truth and our freedom.
Let me explain: We can only arrive at Truth through a process of reasoning: we ask questions then we seek answers by examining sources that have been debated by experts, themselves people who have studied and exchanged ideas for many years. Experts, despite their deficiencies, are those who depend on many more sources than just themselves or a small group of people who simply agree with them. Experts are open to criticism, and must responsibly provide more evidence in the face of criticism to support their case--or concede that they were wrong or uncertain. When we are denied the opportunity to reason, or persuaded not to use that special human capacity, we cede our freedom to those who depend on us not knowing for their own power. It's why the Nazis and Stalin were so concerned with distorting the past (the subject of George Orwell's book, "1984"). It's why people who commit genocide wish to hide their crimes and prevent those in the future from knowing the truth of their past. It's why the Civil War is so hotly contested in the United States (psst: it's actually a debate over race and rights today!).
So what’s the relationship between truth and historical knowledge?
Without truth, we have no way to view the past accurately; we don't have examples of what is fair and just; Without reason, we have no way to discover truth. Put simply, and to paraphrase George Orwell: those who control our past--how we understand our history--control us, now and in the future. To be fair, there are many views of what happened in the past. We should always be free to seek that knowledge (the process of reason, real journalism, and scholarship). Consider: if your people’s ancestors had been enslaved or subjugated, and you didn’t know much about that experience, you might conclude that the legacy of discrimination that you experience today must be your own fault or your own weakness. If we didn't know that slaves resisted their masters; that Jews resisted Nazis; that workers protested against unfair conditions; or that young people led the climate justice movement, then we might not realize that we have the power to make change today or that our community has just as much right to power and opportunity as any other group, and that we should fight for that, just as people before us did. Knowing the past empowers us to fight to be included in the present. Without examples of how power accumulates or how people resist oppression, we lose our will to seek freedom. Consider how often speeches about freedom refer to those in the past. When leaders become too powerful, they immediately aim to limit our ability to know and learn, because they know that reason and education could undo them. Those with excessive power aim to control the media, what is taught in history class, what is shown in museums, and what monuments are erected. When they control history, they shape the contours of their own power.
Let's examine how history is produced, and what that reveals about truth, reason and the present. When we study history, we practice freedom.
Roger Grande