site banner
parrhesia  1yr ago (parrhesia.substack.com)   3278 thread views

History Classes Are Mostly Useless

parrhesia.substack.com

SS: Americans are rather ignorant about history. Moral reasoning by historical analogy is bad. Historical examples can be misleading for making predictions. These facts suggest that the utility of history courses is overestimated. In fact, they are mostly useless.

-4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am always bemused by people insisting that history classes only ever teach a Schoolhouse Rock version of American history. I mean, maybe in first grade. Or maybe that's what everyone else's classes were like.

Mine were reasonably thorough (given the limited amount of time a junior high or high school class usually has to cover all of World or American history). Sure, there was a pro-America bias, but we weren't taught that the American Revolution and the Civil War and World War II was all Heroes vs. Villains. This view of some past era where American students were only ever taught a mythic version of American history reminds me of Gen-Zers nowadays who claim that past generations were "never taught" about America's history of racism and slavery. Well, excuse me, yes, we covered that too. You are not the first generation to discover the horrible truth that history is messy and gray and full of horrors.

Moral reasoning by historical analogy is bad.

Perhaps, but modeling the way the world works and likely consequences of political actions based on historical evidence (even at a very basic level of "Has this ever been tried before, and what happened?") is very useful.

In fact, they are mostly useless.

Not if they are well taught. (If they're poorly taught, well, a poorly taught math or reading or science class is also mostly useless.)

Lack of historical perspective is in fact something I see very often here on TheMotte, even from very articulate effort-posters. I think we should have more historical education.

History, even poor history, classes will help at least somewhat against the whole revisionist idea of the past (unless, as seems increasingly the case, the institutions are captured and the ideologues get to set the curriculum where they push their views). Why is "Bridgerton" a fantasy version of Regency England and not realism? Even if there were black and other non-white people living in the UK at the time? Why doesn't it make sense to have Diverse and Inclusive communities in TV shows and movies that are set in the past, or a version of the past, even if those are fantasy? Why isn't it enough to say "This is fantasy, you can accept dragons and magic but not a black elf"? Why is this a fucking dumb thing to say? "It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkien’s work would reflect what the world actually looks like,” says Lindsey Weber, executive producer of the series."

If all you are getting is the rainbow diversity version of what the past supposedly looked like, then when you eventually come up some instance of how it really was, of course you are going to cry racism and all the other -isms and -phobes. But you are still wrong.

I don't think I insisted that history classes are "only ever" taught one way. Furthermore, I don't exactly know what you mean by Schoolhouse Rock version.

"This view of some past era where American students were only ever taught a mythic version of American history"

I did not say American students were "only ever" taught a mythical version. I said:

Furthermore, not only is the sample of historical examples not necessarily random, but it is also often curated to tell a specific narrative that is flattering to one’s nation or appeals to the ideology of the curriculum makers. Given a vast expanse of history, with millions of historical events, it becomes possible to create a curriculum that tells almost any narrative you want. In America, one of the most dominant historical narratives is that history is a struggle between the oppressor classes—men, whites, heterosexuals, the rich—and the oppressed class—ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ+, and the poor. Another possible curated narrative might highlight all the good actions of the American government or the oppressor class without describing any atrocities and failures.

Which, I think is a more measured statement that most would agree with.

Perhaps, but modeling the way the world works and likely consequences of political actions based on historical evidence (even at a very basic level of "Has this ever been tried before, and what happened?") is very useful.

I argued in the article that Phil Tetlock found that superficial historical analogies didn't aid in reasoning about predicting the future. I argue that taking a more data-driven approach to history is better.

Not if they are well taught. (If they're poorly taught, well, a poorly taught math or reading or science class is also mostly useless.)

I agree that history courses would be much better if they were well taught and used a more data-driven approach. I critique the current system as it is. You would still have the problem of information retention that I discussed.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats