For almost all history students, or any student forced to sit through an hour of something akin to history, there is one commonly asked question: what's the point? Why do we have to learn these particular parts of history when they happened long before my grandfather was a twinkle in his father's eye? What made this event, or person, or date so important that an entire class has to learn about it for 2 days? Beyond the first answer of "trying not to repeat history", this can be tough to understand. But that's why the student is there: to determine an event's historical purpose. If an event doesn't seem to matter to one student, but matters to the rest, it's probably important enough to teach about; vice versa for the other way around. The whole reason we learn about one specific in a war long ago won was because a group of students sat down 80 years ago and debated on whether it should be mentioned in a paper about the process of industrialization in Europe (as an example). If the paper was heralded as a masterpiece, that little bit of information could've wound its way into the workings of public schools so that no one would have to rewrite the same things every school year. For all intents and purposes, you can narrow these debates down into three steps: Causes, Results, and Long-term Effect. It's almost elementary!
Usually, the cause of a historical event can be the make or break of its inclusion in the public mindset. When Columbus decided to see if there was a straight passage east from Europe to India, the only way he got funded was because the Spanish won a war in Granada. It only took Virginia seceding from the Union that caused Colonel Robert Lee to follow his home state and become a General. If World War I hadn't happened, would Hitler have risen to power in Germany? Whether the cause is small, like a guy deciding to go eat a sandwich (Gavrilo Princip, the man who murdered Franz Ferdinand) or large, like the Spanish war with Granada, they all pushed history into the direction of other events. If the cause is pinpointed to be the start of years and years of changes, its purpose seems very large, and should be included in history lessons. But if it isn't more than a tidbit of info you can share at a bar, it's best to leave it where it lies, in the back of the history books.
The results of events can also decide on its purpose. Going back to the Hitler example, if it hadn't have been for Germany losing WWI, many historians agree that Hitler wouldn't have been so popular (but all agree the Nazi party would've still risen to power without him).If you want to say that he personally killed 11 million people in the Holocaust, the outcome of WWI seems like a good thing to teach students about so they don't also someday screw over a weakened country with outrageous demands (looking at you, Wilson). As a student, you have to look at what these events ended up doing to everyone once the dust had settled-which segways nicely into the next point.
Long-term effect is THE most important factor in determining historical purpose. If a large event happened, like a war, but then nothing happened afterwards (almost impossible in real life), then what's the use of teaching it? Yeah, people died, but for what? Nothing? If you can't string an event at least 20 years past its conclusion in what it went on to cause, then I don't suggest teaching/learning about it. It just feels like a waste of time; I'm not one for leaving out parts of history, but if it's just going to make your students bored, then leave it alone. History that is still being felt today, on the other hand, can definitely help people define why it mattered, and why they should learn about it.
Causes, Results, and Effect. These three things are the basics of finding out why you learned the names of the Founding Fathers in 7th grade. If you want to be a historian someday, you'll have to be good at determining purpose. But for now, I hope it can help you pay attention in class!
-Pharaoh Noh-Tyep
No comments:
Post a Comment