The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > History

History Historical Discussions - For discussion about the great (and not-so-great) happenings of history


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 13th, 2010, 08:27 AM   #1
Analyst
 
prasanth5's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 73

Children should be taught history well

I think children at our homes should be taught history well. This makes them rooted not only in their nation's past but also in the glory of the whole world in general. History is a subject that should never be dumped.
prasanth5 is offline  
Old May 13th, 2010, 09:14 AM   #2
Intern
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 15

I agree a hundred per cent. History is an amazing subject, and it could stop bad things happening once again because the children could then learn about the awful stuff what has happened and you would know how to stop the problem and not to do it. Also because I really like the subject.
lorcan is offline  
Old May 15th, 2010, 06:39 AM   #3
Analyst
 
prasanth5's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 73

World history is amazing to read. How nations fought for their independence? How they were held captive by different other nations? It is awesome to find that the nations went through all these periods without much of a mourning.
prasanth5 is offline  
Old May 18th, 2010, 10:39 AM   #4
Analyst
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 57

I think history should be simplified for the children to build up their interest in learning more about history.
irahat is offline  
Old May 20th, 2010, 10:06 AM   #5
Analyst
 
prasanth5's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 73

Illustrated books on history have come out more in the market. Parents would do better by showing the pictures of the great kings and monuments to the children and explaining them in brief.
prasanth5 is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2010, 05:14 AM   #6
Analyst
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 56

History has been one of my favorite subjects ever. I have always found it very interesting to learn about different cultures from different times and think it must be given more priority.
alexmike is offline  
Old May 24th, 2010, 10:15 AM   #7
Analyst
 
prasanth5's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 73

In several countries the preference for admission to history courses have begun to lose charm and this should be checked in time.
prasanth5 is offline  
Old June 28th, 2010, 12:51 PM   #8
mvr
Intern
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 13

If history was simplified and made easy to understand for children, I would definitely agree. Cartoons based on historical stories are a good example.

I never got into history because it was so boring when it was taught to me so it completely turned me off of it.
mvr is offline  
Old June 29th, 2010, 07:20 PM   #9
Representative
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 138

I do not believe that History in the United States is taught well at all, at least in my experience. I don't have to look any further than Jaywalking, a show on TV where Jay Leno asks people questions that they should easily know. Some guy didn't even know what the Holocaust was. It hasn't even been more than a century since that happened.

The education system in America is in need of reform and parents need to stop making schools lower the educational standards because their kids don't want to go home and do homework.
jdsingle is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2010, 09:54 PM   #10
Intern
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 17

History is a pretty funny subject. It's interpretation lies in the eye of the reader. I often feel that it's better for a nation to start from scratch rather than study history in a distorted way.

Sometimes I feel that certain events in history are given a decent burial and never revived in public discourse. Of course, we need to keep official records of history as a matter of academic, political and social interest, but in general I think unless one can guarantee a totally factual and unbiased rendering of history we should leave it alone.

Too many historians are passing off their personal opinion as facts. This is diluting the real value of history and would lead to dangerous distortions which might be accepted as fact.
thebossman is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2010, 10:27 PM   #11
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebossman View Post
History is a pretty funny subject. It's interpretation lies in the eye of the reader. I often feel that it's better for a nation to start from scratch rather than study history in a distorted way.

Sometimes I feel that certain events in history are given a decent burial and never revived in public discourse. Of course, we need to keep official records of history as a matter of academic, political and social interest, but in general I think unless one can guarantee a totally factual and unbiased rendering of history we should leave it alone.

Too many historians are passing off their personal opinion as facts. This is diluting the real value of history and would lead to dangerous distortions which might be accepted as fact.
Reality is subjective. What is true to 1 may be a lie to another (religion is a great example).
David is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 12:05 AM   #12
Intern
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Reality is subjective. What is true to 1 may be a lie to another (religion is a great example).
I will not accept that as a rational and reasonable person. Facts are facts and facts can be either true or false - no shades of grey. And history should be factual and not mingled with opinion or commentary. For instance, Holocaust denial is totally absurd. Reading the facts of history as recorded by prominent and well-trusted sources, no rational human being can doubt that it really did take place.

It is opinion and commentary that render facts grey and allow people to use relative moralism arguments.
thebossman is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 06:13 AM   #13
Representative
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 157

History can certainly be biased or wrong. New data comes to light and changes things. Authors can put their opinions in to a book and intentionally or inadvertently make them look factual.
notimpressed is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 08:21 AM   #14
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: US
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebossman View Post
I will not accept that as a rational and reasonable person. Facts are facts and facts can be either true or false - no shades of grey. And history should be factual and not mingled with opinion or commentary. For instance, Holocaust denial is totally absurd. Reading the facts of history as recorded by prominent and well-trusted sources, no rational human being can doubt that it really did take place.

It is opinion and commentary that render facts grey and allow people to use relative moralism arguments.
The thing is, no matter how rational or how reasonable a person is, they still have their own opinions and as such those who write the history books do so with their own opinions in their heads. Even though it may not be obvious, a lot of the time opinions end up going down as facts whether it is on purpose or even subconsciously. The New Deal and whether or not it made the Depression better or worse is a great example. Another one is how who we consider terrorists may be considered freedom fighters by others.
myp is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 09:03 AM   #15
Intern
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
The thing is, no matter how rational or how reasonable a person is, they still have their own opinions and as such those who write the history books do so with their own opinions in their heads. Even though it may not be obvious, a lot of the time opinions end up going down as facts whether it is on purpose or even subconsciously. The New Deal and whether or not it made the Depression better or worse is a great example. Another one is how who we consider terrorists may be considered freedom fighters by others.
If opinions go down as facts, it shows only intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty on the part of the historian. Surely a trained academic knows what is his own opinion and what is a fact he has gleaned from either personally or through a specific source. If another source claims an event as fact, all he has to do is record the source and attribute it. Some historians even go so far as verifying with other sources meticulously. Surely it is all part of the academic rigour and process to clearly list out footnotes/endnote references and bibliography.

Surely laypeople can be excused for such mistakes. Not historians and academic scholars.

Thus I was talking more about deliberately hiding facts or de-emphasizing them to an extent that they appear insignificant. Misleading the public with their authority on a topic.

So long as opinions are clearly marked as such and done in a scholarly fashion, I have no problem with them. Fact is, some historians use their authority to deliberately mislead and sometimes even lie about facts.

Last edited by thebossman; July 4th, 2010 at 09:10 AM.
thebossman is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 08:59 PM   #16
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebossman View Post
If opinions go down as facts, it shows only intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty on the part of the historian. Surely a trained academic knows what is his own opinion and what is a fact he has gleaned from either personally or through a specific source. If another source claims an event as fact, all he has to do is record the source and attribute it. Some historians even go so far as verifying with other sources meticulously. Surely it is all part of the academic rigour and process to clearly list out footnotes/endnote references and bibliography.

Surely laypeople can be excused for such mistakes. Not historians and academic scholars.

Thus I was talking more about deliberately hiding facts or de-emphasizing them to an extent that they appear insignificant. Misleading the public with their authority on a topic.

So long as opinions are clearly marked as such and done in a scholarly fashion, I have no problem with them. Fact is, some historians use their authority to deliberately mislead and sometimes even lie about facts.

It is utterly impossible to for a person to have no bias, experience leads to beliefs and a belief is bias. To do as you say would require to not even bother recording history.
David is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 09:57 PM   #17
Intern
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
It is utterly impossible to for a person to have no bias, experience leads to beliefs and a belief is bias. To do as you say would require to not even bother recording history.
If you read what I stated carefully, you will note that I said it's not wrong to have bias, but it should not affect the recording of facts accurately and with the due academic rigour to verify them.

It's not impossible. A lot of prominent and renowned historians do follow the academic rigour in verifying and recording accurate facts. It's a few politically minded historians who tend to distort it and hide behind your argument that one cannot be totally unbiased. I refuse to accept your argument because I have read history books in which facts alone are recorded. School history books should place only verified facts and allow students to form their own opinions.

Historians should have enough self-discipline to clearly distinguish facts from their own opinions and the honesty to acknowledge opinion as opinion. There is a place for fact, and there is a place for opinion.

Give me a single example of why you think fact and opinion cannot be distinguished.

Last edited by thebossman; July 4th, 2010 at 10:01 PM.
thebossman is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 10:45 PM   #18
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebossman View Post
If you read what I stated carefully, you will note that I said it's not wrong to have bias, but it should not affect the recording of facts accurately and with the due academic rigour to verify them.

It's not impossible. A lot of prominent and renowned historians do follow the academic rigour in verifying and recording accurate facts. It's a few politically minded historians who tend to distort it and hide behind your argument that one cannot be totally unbiased. I refuse to accept your argument because I have read history books in which facts alone are recorded. School history books should place only verified facts and allow students to form their own opinions.

Historians should have enough self-discipline to clearly distinguish facts from their own opinions and the honesty to acknowledge opinion as opinion. There is a place for fact, and there is a place for opinion.

Give me a single example of why you think fact and opinion cannot be distinguished.
WAs Gandhi a man of peace or a supporter of genocide? Was the CSA about free confederation or slavery? Was Rome the standard barer of civilization or a murderous stain on Human history?

I hope you see what I'm getting at. People can find 'verified facts' to conclusively prove both positions in every example. Which facts and thus which historical view you accept depends on your... Bias.
David is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 11:00 PM   #19
Intern
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
WAs Gandhi a man of peace or a supporter of genocide? Was the CSA about free confederation or slavery? Was Rome the standard barer of civilization or a murderous stain on Human history?

I hope you see what I'm getting at. People can find 'verified facts' to conclusively prove both positions in every example. Which facts and thus which historical view you accept depends on your... Bias.
Exactly. Facts can either be true or false. There can be umpteen number of opinions BASED on them.

You're trying to answer questions which I think should not be answered by historians as "facts" if they want to record history faithfully, accurately and without bias. Trying to figure out the mindset of individuals or groups in history should not be a factual question. It is an opinion which should clearly be separated from the actual facts by the historian involved. And that is where academic rigour and discipline comes in. If you have clear proof either way, record it. If not, express a view based on your honest analysis.

Tell the facts straight without trying to even answer those questions or if you do, record it clearly as opinion.

Last edited by thebossman; July 4th, 2010 at 11:05 PM.
thebossman is offline  
Old July 4th, 2010, 11:43 PM   #20
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebossman View Post
Exactly. Facts can either be true or false. There can be umpteen number of opinions BASED on them.

You're trying to answer questions which I think should not be answered by historians as "facts" if they want to record history faithfully, accurately and without bias. Trying to figure out the mindset of individuals or groups in history should not be a factual question. It is an opinion which should clearly be separated from the actual facts by the historian involved. And that is where academic rigour and discipline comes in. If you have clear proof either way, record it. If not, express a view based on your honest analysis.

Tell the facts straight without trying to even answer those questions or if you do, record it clearly as opinion.
So Gandhi was a man of peace that wished for the deaths of over 20 million people. That is what you get by stating 'facts' but offering no context, explanation or opinion. It's a simple statement of simple fact that lets a person know about something but teaches them nothing. Great for Trivial Pursuit, not so great for laying the foundations of a civilization, improving on the works of others or avoiding repeating mistakes.
David is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > History

Tags
children , history , taught



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do you think religion should be taught at schools? aqua Religion 164 December 30th, 2012 09:26 AM
Los Angeles teacher charged with molesting 23 children Comet Current Events 5 February 4th, 2012 01:00 AM
Your children connermt Religion 5 January 8th, 2012 07:24 AM
Haitian Children Stolen - Yankee Go Home chuck schmidt Current Events 25 February 6th, 2010 05:42 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.