5 ms·

I read this post and the post that it was critiquing and both came to the same conclusion: Knowing the who/what/when/where throughout history is only useful whe

I read this post and the post that it was critiquing and both came to the same conclusion: Knowing the who/what/when/where throughout history is only useful when understanding the Why as well.

dwwoelfel 17y ago
The two authors have completely different views about the purpose and nature of history. Justin Cunningham, the author who doesn't think that memorizing historical facts is important, has the view that history is just a collection of disconnected, but interesting stories. He refuses to memorize anything that doesn't pique his interest. Scott Powell, the author who does think it is necessary to memorize history, has a much different perspective. He thinks that the purpose of history is to "use the past as a resource for living in the present." In order to do that, he thinks that it is necessary to memorize all relevant historical facts -- even the ones that don't have fun interesting stories. Memorizing what happened and in what order is the only way one can fully integrate the historical context into ones understanding. Here is a link to Scott Powell's article for comparison: http://www.historyatourhouse.com/?p=154 http://www.historyatourhouse.com/?p=154
- jcnnghm 17y ago
  It's not that I refuse to memorize things, it's that things don't just happen. Everything happens for a reason. The reason behind things is usually very interesting, whereas what actually happens isn't necessarily interesting. Although I will say that memorization without understanding is useless.
- barrkel 17y ago
  Scott's argument is weak, though. He tries to pivot around 1620 as a "fact" about the date of Plymouth landing, but all his reasons for why the date is interesting are more interesting than the date itself. The fact that the Pilgrims were fleeing persecution, that the Jamestown colony was underway etc. and had views on the Pilgrims are relevant and interesting facts around the story about how the Pligrims were ironically not tolerant themselves. But the date of 1620 is not an important part of that story - in fact it's irrelevant. In my own opinion, the dichotomy is not so clear-cut. Historical stories are interesting if they are relevant in some way, because we relate to the cultures, ideas or personalities involved. I don't see that there's a big difference between Justin's interesting stories, and Scott's stories as resources; interesting stories are resources for the present. If nothing else, you can entertain with them!
- njharman 17y ago
  huh? To be able to use history as a resource for living in the present you need to know and understand the what, why, and consequences of actions/choices. Knowing that starting a land war with Russia in fall/winter time is fraught with peril is a lesson. One I can apply to my decision making. Knowing that France/Napoleon in whenever? and Germany/Hitler in 1943? both got there asses handed to them by Russia is trivia and not a useful resource for living in the present. What happened and what order != memorizing names,dates, and facts.
lqdshadow 17y ago
I am confused by this assertion. I always thought the Who/What/When/Where were more useful, in general, than the Why. Why is tagged with bias; you are receiving somebody's perspective and interpretation of an event, especially as you look further from the source. Who/What/When/Where gives you the facts.

I read this post and the post that it was critiquing and both came to the same conclusion: Knowing the who/what/when/where throughout history is only useful when understanding the Why as well.

dwwoelfel 17y ago

The two authors have completely different views about the purpose and nature of history. Justin Cunningham, the author who doesn't think that memorizing historical facts is important, has the view that history is just a collection of disconnected, but interesting stories. He refuses to memorize anything that doesn't pique his interest. Scott Powell, the author who does think it is necessary to memorize history, has a much different perspective. He thinks that the purpose of history is to "use the past as a resource for living in the present." In order to do that, he thinks that it is necessary to memorize all relevant historical facts -- even the ones that don't have fun interesting stories. Memorizing what happened and in what order is the only way one can fully integrate the historical context into ones understanding. Here is a link to Scott Powell's article for comparison: http://www.historyatourhouse.com/?p=154 http://www.historyatourhouse.com/?p=154

jcnnghm 17y ago
It's not that I refuse to memorize things, it's that things don't just happen. Everything happens for a reason. The reason behind things is usually very interesting, whereas what actually happens isn't necessarily interesting. Although I will say that memorization without understanding is useless.
barrkel 17y ago
Scott's argument is weak, though. He tries to pivot around 1620 as a "fact" about the date of Plymouth landing, but all his reasons for why the date is interesting are more interesting than the date itself. The fact that the Pilgrims were fleeing persecution, that the Jamestown colony was underway etc. and had views on the Pilgrims are relevant and interesting facts around the story about how the Pligrims were ironically not tolerant themselves. But the date of 1620 is not an important part of that story - in fact it's irrelevant. In my own opinion, the dichotomy is not so clear-cut. Historical stories are interesting if they are relevant in some way, because we relate to the cultures, ideas or personalities involved. I don't see that there's a big difference between Justin's interesting stories, and Scott's stories as resources; interesting stories are resources for the present. If nothing else, you can entertain with them!
njharman 17y ago
huh? To be able to use history as a resource for living in the present you need to know and understand the what, why, and consequences of actions/choices. Knowing that starting a land war with Russia in fall/winter time is fraught with peril is a lesson. One I can apply to my decision making. Knowing that France/Napoleon in whenever? and Germany/Hitler in 1943? both got there asses handed to them by Russia is trivia and not a useful resource for living in the present. What happened and what order != memorizing names,dates, and facts.

lqdshadow 17y ago

I am confused by this assertion. I always thought the Who/What/When/Where were more useful, in general, than the Why. Why is tagged with bias; you are receiving somebody's perspective and interpretation of an event, especially as you look further from the source. Who/What/When/Where gives you the facts.