BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

History today

  
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:11 / 03.02.04
Just a free-for-all discussion thread, really. I was wondering whether people are interested in history and, if not, why not; and if they are interested in history, which bits and why...

It's not always easy to answer this kind of topic, I know (especially now that I have tried and failed several times to formulate my own thoughts) but it would be spiffing if any of you felt like answering with opinions, thoughts, brainsplurges, etc.

I am asking partly because there seems to be a strange combination of terrific interest in some aspects of history (mostly aristocratic scandal, military history, that sort of thing) and a basic lack of general knowledge about the subject thanks, I suspect, to the way in which it is taught in schools. I wondered what the opinion of Barbloids might be on this and any other related matters.

I will return with an in-depth account of my personal love of dead Dutch people and the herring industry...
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
13:23 / 03.02.04
I'll have to keep this quite short. I am interested in history too much of it to list. I'm currently about 3/4s of the way through my part time MA in history. I've just finished studying the 18thC which was fascinating and I'm moving onto the crusades at the moment.
 
 
grant
13:30 / 03.02.04
History as taught in schools is as dull as dishwater. Dates, always dates and names without character.

But there've been some great documentaries and documentary programs that put the "story" back in. I'm an old James Burke fan.

I've gone through a big Chinese history thing recently. If you've got information about the Han Dynasty (which is one of the most important periods, and thus too big for me to get snarky about) or any Dutch/European involvement in the beginning of the Qing Dynasty (1600s), could you head over to the Pantywad wiki and scribble notes on those Chinese History pages?
 
 
sleazenation
13:55 / 03.02.04
I'm on a 19th century kick right now, but that's mainly for work purposes.
 
 
Tezcatlipoca
15:11 / 03.02.04
I spent several years researching the First World War, which culminated in a fairly lengthy novel set during the period, although the research really began through personal interest, rather than through any academic or literary requirement.
In recent years I've added Japanese Feudal and English Middle Ages historical studies to that research, and I'd say I have a reasonably good general knowledge of European - and especially English - history anyway.

Grant is quite correct about History taught in schools. Ours was particularly tiresome, given that we had an Irish teacher who insisted on waffling on about the Irish Problem from the Irish-sympathetic perspective pretty much constantly, regardless of whether this was relevant to the lesson subject or not.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:41 / 03.02.04
I'm generally interested in 20th century history, though only in the sense that if there's a program or book that catches my eye I'll take it in, but I'm not going out of my way to investigate. I mean, I finished GCSE History and had very little idea of the shape of 20th century history, what happened after WW2, the 50s to 70s Cold War, Israel and it's relations with surrounding countries, etc. But i did know a lot about social reform in the 19th century. Even now I feel like I'm playing catch-up.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
16:31 / 03.02.04
I used to hate, hate hate hate, hate history, for the reasons grant mentions. The History Channel rocks, however, 'cause they tend to actually leave in the sex and violence and politics which schools dare not touch.

I'm particularly interested in Middle East history of the early 20th century; I remember reading something that sounded like it was right out of the mouth of Rumsfeld, except it was actually from the UK circa 1910 or so.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:27 / 03.02.04
My knowledge of History is pretty poor, if I were to be honest and I can't remember the last time I picked up a book about it. That said, I do find it interesting, because I find current affairs and politics interesting. And some knowledge of history is essential in understanding where we are now.

Obviously, that skews the way I think about history, but thats not soo bad. Approaching a subject from a particular angle is the only way to start, if you ask me.
 
 
passer
18:33 / 03.02.04
I'm all about early imperial Rome and the late Republic. My very specific obsession is more a result of my personality and linguistic interests (Latin and political intrique with a twist of extralegal wrangling are my idea of fun). I'm generally interested in history and read texts from all periods and regions for fun, but only Rome will do for obsessive research for me.

I think "[h]istory as taught in schools” is way too broad of a brush. History is dry dates in some schools, most certainly not all. Of course, I could just be being self defensively delusional since I'd like to believe that my classes are interesting.
 
 
rizla mission
20:24 / 03.02.04
I like the odd bit of history. I got a degree in it last summer.

Predictably though, I'm now mostly interested in stuff that's a million miles away from the areas covered in the course of my studies;

I'm pretty fascinated by anything to do with pre-Christian culture in Western Europe, and the way that some independent pagan states survived well into the middle ages..

Egyptian, Roman and other branches of proper old fashioned Ancient History are also always cool.. all those weird, obscure biblical era civilizations that nobody seems to know all that much about..

And more or less all facets of American history..

And - this one actually is inspired by my studies - the development of the conflicting ideas and writings that formed both Enlightenment and Romantic thought in the 18th-19th centuries.. and that sort of thing.
 
 
alas
01:14 / 04.02.04
There's a tendendentious but interesting book about the way US history is taught in US school text books by James Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Teacher Got Wrong. It's definitely worth reading. I love history, too, but got the mistaken impression in high school that it was basically about memorizing dates and being deeply engrossed by battles and war strategies, bring your own toy soldiers.
 
 
Unencumbered
06:26 / 04.02.04
I find most history pretty interesting in general but I'm particularly fascinated by the Crusades. There are so many weird and wonderful characters involved, and the impact of those events so long ago is still being felt today.
 
 
illmatic
09:20 / 04.02.04
I am interested in history, but there's so MUCH of it... mostly as a spin off from magick-occultly type studies I've dabbled a little bit in Indian history from a religous/cultural studies standpoint, and recently I've been reading a little bit of Chinese history, not in a formal way, just as a spinoff from my I Ching reading....though I do feel that kind of "hmmm, probably can't be bothered" feeling when faced with the enormity of the subject whereas a few years ago, I would have tried to read all the big texts etc. - age, I think. Same occulty type studies got me to read Francis Yates who is completely amazing. I've also read the first two volumes of Martin Gilbert's "History of Twentieth Century" (a chapter per year)and came away appalled by by own ignorance. Focuses on miltary and political history though , so it's a bit of a depressing tide of bloodshed and death.
 
 
nedrichards is confused
09:47 / 04.02.04
Heh, snap. Also finished my degree last summer. I do maintain my undying affection for all things Victorian undimmed through a course of "The British Economy On The Great Depression: 1870 - 1900" but really most other subjects have lost their sparkle for me. Apart from the Anglo Saxons, they kick ass. Alfred the great is just the best historical hero, not least becuase he loosely translated a load of books from latin himself so you can actually read the things and see what he thought. For a period as starved of historical sources as anything pre 1066 in England it's like a rich and powerful goldmine. Other subjects people should know more about include: the Angevin empire and the role of queens in pre Medieval Europe (one fo ym professors edited a quality book on this and I have most of it in ASCII if anyone fancies a copy), the Thirty Years War is another great subject that most British people have no idea about at all.

Re: History teaching. I did Hitler and the Nazis 3 times in 4 years, this isn't good for a fragile mind. The problem is that people like their 'Nazis, A Warning From The Pyraminds?' rather more than they do their Korean war so I have much sympathy with History teachers.
 
 
bjacques
10:02 / 04.02.04
History? As an American, I care nothing for history! No regrets; it's the future for me, because that's where we'll spend the rest of our lives!

OK, now that the meds have worn off...I follow history like other people follow sports. I'm a sucker for a good story and I've got a morbid sense of humor, so lately I've been digging up (haha) local history. Someday I'd like to translate "Foei Amsterdam!" which is a history of the plagues, riots and other unpleasantness written in the 1960s to counter the "weed, wooden shoes and windmills" image fed to tourists.

I'm a fan of well-researched historical novels like Neal Stephenson's "Quicksilver," Luther Blissett's "Q" and Thos. Pynchon's Mason & Dixon," when they have something to say about the present.

I also like to follow debates about history. (Are historians still lining up along the "great persons" vs. "social forces" divide? It's always seemed that niche theory would work better.) I did a little research for a friend on the origin of "immanentizing the Eschaton," now best known via the Illuminatus trilogy and found it came from a 1950s book, A New Study of History, by Eric Voegelin. "I'ing the E" only meant trying to create the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, a presumed goal of humanity, and judged in the book to be either futile or just plain wrong (I haven't found the book). I was pleased to learn about the Wicked City of Ubar, in the Empty Quarter of the Hejaz Peninsula, a city so bad Allah sank it into the earth (actually it was big trading city and it fell into a limestone sinkhole. Oops).

So I'm really in it for the stories and the detective work. And the fast cars and the girls.
 
 
_pin
10:25 / 04.02.04
C19 onwards; while other periods will throw up things that are a bit interesting, everything just seems a bit... not related to me, or the world I live in, which is really all I care about.

Given that I got an A* GCSE and an A grade A Level, I think my lack of a general hitorical knowledge is probablly both glaring and worrying, but then I don't care how many Daily Mail-reading, Swindon-residing fuckwits want to twitter on about how meaningless degrees are and how history doesn't even teach you the order of all the Kings of England anymore, but as far as I'm concerned, actually maintaining a functioning record of that in yr brain isn't a mark of anything except possibly disturbing, anti-social tendencies. I'd like to see them comment on the role of women in early C19 political reform movements...

Going the other way, however, everyone should stop trying to beat the teaching material into a form that sounds relevant; surely degree students should be able to find somehting in a topic that interests them (last year's Chartist unit became about Feminism, and this years "Union to Emancipation" about Ireland is probablly going to end up about religiosity and national identity), rather then putting up an OHP of a Peter Hitchens piece about how Muslims soldiers in the British army should renounce their religion and serve the Crown and going Look! It's just like persecuting English Catholics! (because obviously there's no racial element to hating Muslims... ), or in my lectures on media in Politics, it being constantly assumed that what I want to write about is teenager's level of political engagement, because I'm incapable of understanding a subject unless it is made very clear that it directly relates to my life.

Both these things are very patronising.
 
 
rizla mission
11:31 / 04.02.04
Re: History teaching. I did Hitler and the Nazis 3 times in 4 years, this isn't good for a fragile mind.

Oh yeah, definitely.. same here. I know way, way more about Nazis than I EVER wanted to.. which on the one hand, can make me seem a little scary if the topic ever comes up, but on the other hand means I can question some of the dodgy ideas people have picked up from the 'All Hitler All The Time!' channel.

I find our societie's obsession with WWII just excruciating.. the endless books and bad TV docu's about just the stupidest crap.. the way people are growing up on Normandy Landings video games and history books promoted like action movies.. STALIN! CHURCHILL! WHO WILL TRIUMPH? It's just, gahh, I dunno.. so much nostalgia for about the worst thing that's happened in the history of mankind, and so much mythology has grown up around it.. maybe it's just because it's so easily mutable into a straight good vs. evil thing, with all the ideologically dodgy bits cut out, I dunno..

Given that I got an A* GCSE and an A grade A Level, I think my lack of a general hitorical knowledge is probablly both glaring and worrying, but then I don't care how many Daily Mail-reading, Swindon-residing fuckwits want to twitter on about how meaningless degrees are and how history doesn't even teach you the order of all the Kings of England anymore, but as far as I'm concerned, actually maintaining a functioning record of that in yr brain isn't a mark of anything except possibly disturbing, anti-social tendencies.

I'm not so sure actually.. I mean, point taken about the "learning all the kings in order!" kind of stuff, but I think current university teaching could do well to reconsider the merits of the old fashioned approach. I was talking to a good friend of mine shortly after we'd both finished (different) history degrees, and we both realised that whilst we know all sorts of bollocks about post-modern histiography and the underlying economic reasoning behind political change in 19th century Russian Jewish society and so on, we're both still shockingly ignorant when it comes to actually seeing the big picture of What happened When and Why, at least outside of the little areas of what we happened to cover in our studies. My dad, who's a pretty old school amateur history buff, keeps asking me all these fairly basic and important questions about the Napoleonic wars and the development of the British Empire and this kind of stuff, and I've just got no idea what he's talking about - nobody's ever taught me those bits.

School teachers seem to assume that you'll need to learn all the clever stuff and in depth analysis in order to go on to university level, and then university teachers seem to assume that they can immediately go into the details cos you will have picked up the big picture in school and will be familiar with the basic outline of history.. so essentially we miss out on the basics.
 
 
Saveloy
11:57 / 04.02.04
I think history is a very good thing, and there should be lots of it. Not too much, mind - we should probably think about not making any more history after the year 3056 or thereabouts.

I'm definitely getting more interested in history the older I get. Ideally I'd like to know everything that ever happened, so that I can make sense of the world and explain everything ('he did this to her because she did that to their goats, which was actually her idea, because...' etc). Sadly, I've got no memory at all, and forget the specifics of any subject 2 minutes after it's gone into my brain.

I'm a big fan of all the very big stuff - how cultures and civilizations develop and die - and all the little stuff, such as the fact that Henry VIII employed a courtier to wipe his arse for him. Anything that seems to confirm or upset my own ideas or prejudices is always interesting, possibly because on the one hand I like the idea of making use of history (in a 'learn the lessons of the past' stylee) and on the other I suspect that any given situation will be too complicated for anything useful to be drawn from any previous situation, however similar.

I like examples of people coming up with the same ideas or doing the same things despite being entirely unconnected physically and culturally (even if it's something as simple as building walls out of bricks, or forming a religion). For instance, the fact (and I'm probably wrong, of course) that the first thing every barbarian did, after conquering a civilised but vulnerable state in an incredibly blood-thirsty manner, would be to build a lovely palace full of poncey artworks and nice things. Obviously, examples of unique, never-again-repeated ideas and customs are interesting too.

Hmmm, I think I've just said "aren't interesting things interesting?"
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:45 / 04.02.04
Smashing responses chaps, thank you very much. I feel bad that I can't respond properly yet, but hope to do so at some point tomorrow... I am particularly interested in the stuff about history teaching at school and university level and have some half-warmed thoughts about this... also pleased by the variety of interests people have noted, which rather thumbs the nose at purveyors of popular history programmes, who think that all anyone is interested in is scandal and war (not that I'm not interested in those things... but there is more to life). Echo Rizla's thoughts about WWII. And briefly on the great men business - I think historiography moved on from that quite a long time ago, and has now taken on a much less polarised view of the possibilities of history, and now includes a greater variety of methods of thinking about ways of dealing with evidence as well as with artifacts of the past themselves. Having said that, I am hopeless at theory and my grasp on historiography is shaky to say the least (this marks me out as a product of old-school British academic history teaching, really). Haven't even read Foucault...
 
 
_pin
08:27 / 05.02.04
I think I'm gonna stay off historiography until I'm taught it (which is next week, incidently). However, there's a surprisingly large appetite for learning about the Nazis in schools. Well, in my school, anyway; when my GCSE teacher refused to teach it and we got North America instead*, there was outcry by people who wouldn't be doing it at A Level. Everyone should probablly be taught it once, simply becasue of the magnitude, and it's probablly just lazy planning that means people who keep doing history keep doing the same thing.

So, geneology; a petty, small-minded and ignorant view of history taken by people desperate to prove their claims to Spanish thrones and the complete lack of nasty black people blood at any point in their past, or an admirable trend in people's own awareness of self and wish to create their own community? And when will thye admit that everyone's related to eveyrone else?

*Civil War = "the most important event in the history of America, in which the North freed the slaves" in very big writting and a map of America with a straight line running through the middle and "North" and "South" written in the appropriate places" while we got a two page diagram of how the Indians use buffalo tounges as combs. THIS IS A SERIOUS FUCK-UP OF PRIORITIES.
 
 
_pin
12:26 / 19.02.04
OK, so i realise that both A I killed the thread once already and B no one's said they can even remember what post-modern historiography is, BUT

I just got told in a seminar that Post-modernist historiography is the ultimate teleological theory, because it's about history ending with the creation of a world-over liberal democractic system. I'm not about to get in to a debate about the actual merits of the theory, though I will if you want to, but I'm pretty sure (OK, I know, because I used it as part of my argument that actually Marxism is Liberalism, at least on the international relations theory (and, arguably, policy level, given neo-liberalism)) that this was I-advised-Clinton Fukuyama's idea, and cock all to do with Post-modernism, which was about how there is no truth in history, no?

Am I right about that, and also was this prescriptive or descriptive? Does/did Post-modernism say that all history should be subjective and about justifying whatever you want to justify, or simply that it cannot be any other way? And what it the standard procedure for capitalisation of theory names?
 
  
Add Your Reply