This version of history has been approved by the party

[Dragline]

People that are more honest than average are perhaps more likely to be depressives & commit suicide.


I like jennypenny's notion of cross-disciplinary understanding of history/politics/science/literature. I think math in particular would be way better appreciated when taught from a historical perspective, from the ground up, go through the development of number theory, etc. Literature wise, it is definitely true that reading older literature is rather painful, it is practically a different language. Perhaps graduated exposure to increasingly older literature every year is the way to go.

JamesR, you might find this work interesting as to the chapters on interpreting history:

http://www.amazon.com/Ubiquity-Catastro ... s=ubiquity

The premise in certain chapters is that so-called historical events are usually only the straw on the camels back or the grain of sand that causes the avalanche (e.g., assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand to trigger WWI). I would call it a "fractal" view of history and I think it has a lot of merit, especially when combined with cyclical notions of a Kondratiev or a Strauss & Howe.

My view is that Washingtons, Jacksons, Lincolns, Hitlers, Stalins, Gandhis and MLKs exist in virtually every era, but don't necessarily have their impacts unless the times are right for it.

And Mandelbrot is the most important thinker of the 20th Century, hands down.

[jennypenny]

And Mandelbrot is the most important thinker of the 20th Century, hands down.

I thought that was Tyler Durden?

That would make a great thread. I'd be as interested in why people picked someone as much as whom they picked.

[Chad]

Problem is that each era is different. There would be no way to get used to it.

Isn't that part of the fun? Honestly, Beowulf is one of my favorite works of all time.

(Is it just that I'm the nerdiest one is a group full of nerds? That's depressing.)

Not for me it isn't and from the people I know, it's not high on their list either. Reading a "classic" was my most hated assignment in all of education, but I loved history. On average, I read at least a book a week through junior high and high school and I couldn't finish Return of the Native, Jane Eyre, Shakespeare, anything by Hemingway (He writes like a 3rd grader! Pure agony.), Illiad/Odyssey, etc. I either bought the Cliff Notes or just read the first and last chapters, and maybe the first and last pages of 2-3 chapters in the middle of the book. That was enough to do well in the classes.

I did read Grapes of Wrath and Tale of Two Cities, which were not overly painful. Though, given the time required, I got more out of the history text books than these novels.

Recently I tried to read some "classics", as this is supposedly what intelligent people do. I'm a big SF fan, so I started with Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five. Thankfully, it was short, and that one isn't even that old. I didn't continue my reading of "classics."

I also despise poetry. Maybe these dislikes are connected.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I can't resist storming in here like a fire bombing over Dresden to exclaim--you DIDN'T like Slaughterhouse Five?

I loved that book enough to pay homage to it in my latest. It's been a while, but I don't think it was that outdated in its language, either. It also gave me more insight into what it's like to live through a war and its effects on people than any textbook I ever read, personally.

Maybe I'm biased, though. A lot of what I've read the last few years, as well as some of my favorite books of all time, have been "classics" (at least if Slaughterhouse Five counts as such). Sometimes they're troublesome, but I usually gain something out of it. Off-hand, I read The Brothers Karamazov and East of Eden most recently; both were challenging and lengthy reads, but I wouldn't think of asking for that time back. Both offer valuable historical and cultural insight.

Classic literature clearly has a place in English and literature classes. I'm not sure anyone's disputing that(?). As far as in history classes, I think it could be useful in limited doses; after all, studying artifacts and records of the era is how real historians work. Also, it could add fun and texture to what is otherwise a very dry subject. I wouldn't suggest that readings of Arthurian texts or The Canterbury Tales should replace a textbook on Medieval History. I do think it would make an excellent supplement.

Importantly, the point would not be the literature itself, but its historical context. Not "reading" it, but "studying" it like a historian. What the story represented to people at that time, who wrote it and why, how accurately it reflects the lifestyles of the period, etc. From this perspective, the differences in language become part of the study rather than an obstacle to understanding.

People learn in different ways. For me, factoids and dates go in one ear and out the other. Narratives and characters--that I remember.


RE: Authors and Mental Illness;

It's a common (and somewhat empirically supported) meme in psychology that creative giftedness and intelligence are correlated to depression and other mental illnesses. I tend to believe it. These are people who think deeply enough to see how much things suck AND care deeply enough to take it personally; which to me sounds like potentially very valuable viewpoints.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/why-smarter ... ill-270039

To paraphrase something I read somewhere, a good writer gives a snapshot into his own mind, while a great writer can give snapshots into a thousand minds. Take that as you will. I am just another insane writer, myself, so what do I know?

[Chad]

Yeah, I was surprised I didn't like Slaughterhouse Five too. Being SF and associated with WW2, it seemed right up my alley. The wording wasn't an issue. Though, the book was confusing, which could of just been my mindset at time.

Part of my argument is against the "classics" in general, as I'm not sure most "classics" are really all that good. This is why I use the quotes every time I write "classic."

The other, and bigger, parts of my argument against using them in history class are:

- Time restraints: I would think that Dragline's idea of essentially teaching how history is recorded would be a better use of time than reading any piece of historical fiction.
- Reading discouragement/boredom
- Other better sources if you actually want to go this deep (legal documents, newspapers, letters, government proclamations, etc.)

[7Wannabe5]

jennypenny said: But books like Sister Carrie and The Age of Innocence teach you more about urban American life at the turn of the 20th century than just learning about the political history, and give some context for events like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, and even the sinking of the General Slocum. Often, literature indirectly provides the history of everyone outside of politics.

Strongly agree. Also, IMO, that history sometimes tends to lend the impression that people used to be different than they are now and it is almost the point of literature to teach that we are all always mostly the same.

Jacob said: My next question to which I never received an answer was what kind of insights we were getting based on the fact that more than half of these authors either committed suicide or had some kind of mental issue (based on their biographies). In other words, to what degree were these writings really a realistic depiction of what people of a given age thought about?

Well, for example, I think Feynman did a pretty good job of explaining physics even though he was obviously two animals short of a full pack of crackers. I was good friends with the son of another famous scientist and apparently she wandered around the house nude and allowed the nanny to potty train her children in the same kettle she used for soup. Genius in all fields is pretty highly correlated with insanity or eccentricity.

[Kriegsspiel]

Chad and jenny, have you read Alas, Babylon? It sounds like both of you might like it.

[jennypenny]

I love Alas, Babylon. I treated myself to the Audible version when it was the deal of the day. Will Patton narrates, and it's very good.

[GandK]

Alas, Babylon is one of my all-time favorite novels. Would especially recommend it to anyone with prepper tendencies.

Tying this back to the OT, I wish more of recorded history had that novel's level of detail about what happens after a chaotic event, especially to people on the receiving end of hostilities. The novel I'm currently writing is loosely based on a particular Native American culture, and I continue to be surprised and saddened by the "history" texts I've read on the subject. What they recorded, what they glossed over, what no one bothered to record...

[Alcibar]

@Chad thanks for introducing me to hard core history podcast. I tried Wrath of Khan and am enjoying it immensely.

[Chad]

Chad and jenny, have you read Alas, Babylon? It sounds like both of you might like it.

I may have to read that.

@Chad thanks for introducing me to hard core history podcast. I tried Wrath of Khan and am enjoying it immensely.

No problem. I'm kind of on a personal crusade with that podcast, because it's so well done and has a ridiculous amount of detail. Of course, the downside is that it takes him 3-4 months just to do one podcast, because of the work involved.

[Riggerjack]

Jennypenny, I couldn't disagree more about historical literature giving insight into life in the past. I enjoy some historical literature, but fiction is fiction. Uncle Tom's Cabin is a 160 year old soap opera. Does watching General Hospital give you a good picture of life in the 80's? Neither does reading Dickens give a accurate picture of Victorian England.
There is enough fiction taught as history, we hardly need to add more.
Personally, I like old history books, and for US history, foreign histories of the US. The Revolutionary war looks completely different when it's the American succession. Funny, the second American revolutionary war looks different, too.

[Dragline]

There's a lot of truth to the idea that the best histories are done by "outsiders" to a culture or at least for a different purpose.

One of my favorites is Charles Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" (1841), which is usually referenced for its descriptions of 18th century financial panics, but is even better on such subjects as witch hunts and dueling. What I liked about it is the rejection of the idea that people are acting in some rational aspect moving towards some inevitable goal, which is a common theme in histories, but are actually just working to improve their reputational lot in the context of their times. Whether they were "great" or not is determined in hindsight well after they were dead by what ideas eventually prevailed, and over which they have little or no control.

[jacob]

@Dragline - Not just the best histories. Also the best newspapers for current events. For Americans, that would be FT instead of WSJ (and vice versa) or BBC instead of NYT. If you read other languages than English so much the better.

Actually, I much favor old newspapers as a way of understanding history because you get the realtime interpretation of events with the benefit of hindsight. Doing so requires a framework of "facts" which still have to be learned in the first place.

[Chad]

@Dragline - Not just the best histories. Also the best newspapers for current events. For Americans, that would be FT instead of WSJ (and vice versa) or BBC instead of NYT. If you read other languages than English so much the better.

Actually, I much favor old newspapers as a way of understanding history because you get the realtime interpretation of events with the benefit of hindsight. Doing so requires a framework of "facts" which still have to be learned in the first place.

I wouldn't say foreign sources are necessarily better. They have issues too, but it's vital to get that different perspective. Though, I will say that FT is better than the WSJ.

[jacob]

Better in the sense that they remove the subjective bias. The subjective bias can blind.

[Alcibar]

Wall Street Journal feels like it has been dumbed down, but it is an indispensable read for investors. All the 0.1% read it and all ERE people should study it to understand the business climate at least at a superficial level. Ft is ok but only as a outsider view. Much of it is not particularly relevant to US investor. I also hold my nose and read most of the NYT. Alas most of the internet news is nothing much more than page view whoring. You get what you pay for I guess.

[Devil's Advocate]

There is no unbiased, “correct”, factual history. None. At least not yet, and not contained within one single narrative. All historical narratives are some person’s (more commonly, some group’s) interpretation of a selection of facts (and sometimes half-facts) ; and that interpretation is ALWAYS biased, and sometimes intentionally so.

The best we can do is to actively teach children the essentially iffy nature of any history that they are taught. Indeed, it is best that they be taught the iffy nature of EVERYTHING they’re taught. Also the doubtful nature of many of the things that they end up learning outside of study as well. In general, I think it best that children be taught to be *critical* about stuff they are told and taught : that they be taught that others, including teachers and books and adults, are not always fonts of wisdom and knowledge, and are often wrong, deliberately or otherwise, without necessarily even knowing that they’re wrong. This I think is far better than have them grow up with other people’s garbage swilling inside their impressionable heads, and waiting for them—that is, for *some* of them, perhaps just a few of them—to discover that unsettling fact, that much of what they’ve been told and taught is drivel, by themselves and after many wasted years.)

And then, after teaching them the essentially subjective nature of all narratives (including, incidentally, the narratives that our own mind brings forth, that *their* own mind may bring forth), expose children to alternate viewpoints/narratives covering the same historical time-and-place, including narratives that aren’t strictly formal or academic and thus don’t follow any of the existing party lines, so that (a) the lesson of the subjective nature of historical narratives is reinforced, and (b) that particular portion of “history” is more correctly/fully taught. And more, they realize that they can build up their own personal narratives, and further realize that those personal narratives too will have its own inevitable biases.

And if all that is too much to unload on young children’s heads, or at least on overworked teachers’ shoulders, then the only thing one can do is to choose which particular historical narrative to teach. To make sure that the particular narrative that children are exposed to is the one that one agrees with or at least is happiest with. Which is exactly what people in charge of these things have always done, everywhere, and continue to do.

Think this, and give a resigned shrug. And then try to spend time teaching your own kids yourself what and how they really ought to be taught, what and how you yourself wish you had been taught when young.

[Dragline]

I thought this offered an interesting perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLE-5ElGlPM

Most importantly, even if you don't agree with the answer, it asks the right question -- why are we teaching this?