- This topic has 5 voices and 22 replies.
-
Posts
-
I have a question for people here. When you study or teach history, do you think it's best to use an approach where you basically take everything you thought you knew about a particular time/event/issue and set it aside and learn things from the ground up? I'm not referring to setting aside knowledge of other areas of history, but rather preconceived notions that may influence one's study.For example, one could take the knowledge of the events in Israel today, which would likely influence one's study of the history of Israel. Wouldn't it be better to set all these issues aside if one were studying the creation of the Israeli state after WWII? Or wouldn't it be better to study the causes of the Civil War based on an analysis of the events from the adoption of the U.S. Constitution up through secession, rather than to bring preconceptions into the mix? What do you think is the best approach?
What do you think is the best approach?
To keep an open mind. And to realize that some things you learn may rub you the wrong way. IMHO, and as a beginner student, there's no way you can learn new things if you go in with preconceived notions and ideas.
To be brutally honest….? You show what others have said about the topic and then you pick a position and defend it yourself. It is very important that you prove you are aware of what other historians say both primary and secondary sources, then you teach from what you think is the best approach. But whatever you teach, make sure you can back up your claims with credible sources.
Yeah, you may be right about the teaching part. That sounds right. I guess my question should have focused more just on the approach to studying. It seems that preconceived notions enter into our thoughts when exploring certain fields, and I'm sure that history is one of these. I could see how it's important to keep an open mind (as Ski said) or else we will enter into revisionist history – assigning motives or whatnot into the pigeonholes that correspond to our own prejudices.
Yes I think it can be learned objectively. Actually it's probably the best way to do so given our current socio-political atmosphere.
Are you talking about learning the religion itself as a possible form of belief, or learning about the history of Islam?
Earlier you said “set aside knowledge”. I don't think, even for someone who has limited knowledge of the era, they would think that Hitler wasn't evil, so if you go to study Nazi history that's different than studying Islamic history (or religion). If someone has the preconcieved idea that all Islam and Muslims are evil, then how can he learn it without showing bias?Just let the facts speak for themselves instead of making the facts justify what you previously thought about a topic.I see a danger of picking and choosing to justify what you think instead of what actually is.And what about those who think Israel can do no wrong?
Here's what I'm trying to say. What if all your history education comes from only Leftist professors or vice versa? It should be presented from both “sides”, that way the student can decide for himself and be able to make his own conclusions.
Earlier you said “set aside knowledge”. I don't think, even for someone who has limited knowledge of the era, they would think that Hitler wasn't evil, so if you go to study Nazi history that's different than studying Islamic history (or religion).
This is what I was originally talking about. If someone enters the study of WWII with preconceived notions that Hitler was a monster then these ideas could influence the study of this subject. What I argue is that these preconceived notions should be set aside. With that said, I think it's entirely possible that a person could later come to an independent conclusion which is similar to his preconceived notions, but this is a good way of verifying pop knowledge. Perhaps the example of Hitler is not the best one. Think about another issue – the Confederate flag. You hear nowadays how it's a symbol of a racist past, or something like that, and it has become a kind of stigma to show it in public (at least in the North). If I carry this with me as I study the history of the South from the Civil War through today, I might identify the Confederate flag with racism. A better way to approach history, though, is to set these thoughts aside and to determine what the flag actually came to represent both during the War and in the years since. In this way I won't be judging the past based on pop knowledge of today but will rather be following the facts to the conclusions they lead me to.
I have a question for people here. When you study or teach history, do you think it's best to use an approach where you basically take everything you thought you knew about a particular time/event/issue and set it aside and learn things from the ground up? I'm not referring to setting aside knowledge of other areas of history, but rather preconceived notions that may influence one's study.For example, one could take the knowledge of the events in Israel today, which would likely influence one's study of the history of Israel. Wouldn't it be better to set all these issues aside if one were studying the creation of the Israeli state after WWII? Or wouldn't it be better to study the causes of the Civil War based on an analysis of the events from the adoption of the U.S. Constitution up through secession, rather than to bring preconceptions into the mix? What do you think is the best approach?
Rather than get into the various examples that the rest of the folks have offered and even your pro-offered CW model let me generalize.This is what I teach my students: geography (our surroundings and what Mother Nature gives us to work with) influences (notice I said influences not determines…) culture; culture (the way of life of a group or individual) again influences their history (how we or any society is through time)… it's already in the book. We cannot change or revise what has gone one before us… only observe the results and hopefully learn from them.Having a preconceived idea is okay if it is a hypothesis, subject to test and revision… leftist or rightist professors that do not discuss and debate conclusions in light of anything but their own dogma are worthless to education. Any idea we have must stand up to debate.At this point let me introduce something that hasn't (at least at the time of this post) gotten me fired, yet… I tell my classes when we study leadership that Hitler is, arguably, one of the greatest leaders in the history of human kind. When the gasps stop I explain that in terms of “getting his people to do what he wanted them to do”… unquestioningly… he succeeded. Now as to the morality of his methods, that's another story: megalomaniac-sociopath of the highest order but a damned successful leader, eh?The principle is to use the scientific method… Question; Hypothesis; Data; Test; Conclusion. If we are honest we can get there.WallyPS As far as the Middle East: the clue is this; “Bob's your uncle!”
PS As far as the Middle East: the clue is this; “Bob's your uncle!”
This 'clue' is going to drive me crazy all weekend.
…. … but a ****ed [edited for word useage?] successful leader, eh?
Sorry that this post req'd an edit; I slipped and have no problem the fix but please indicate that it was edited by someone other than me. Thanks in advance. :-[WallyPS Another clue… “Keep your eye on the ball.”W
