[Potironette]

I have a test in 9 hours and 54 minutes on US History, and since I know pretty much nothing I'm cramming--albeit very unwillingly.
Convince me that investing my time in studying the history of one nation is a good idea?


EDIT: I can understand world history being interesting...because, well, I can just find it somewhat interesting. But trying to see US history as interesting is difficult.

[Suzerain of Sheol]

Well, you're living through the dissolution of American history at the moment, so maybe for proper context? :P

[Quiet Man Cometh]

Well given the context here, I'd say that interest is irrelevant and study for the sake of passing a course so you don't have to repeat said uninteresting material.

Personally, I found anything outside of the Warfare and crime to be deadly boring, though American History had it's amusements when compared to Canadian.

[Lawtan]

I can honestly say that US History (the class) is much less interesting than US History (the overall thing)...but it depends on what part of it for me.

How people lived - their thoughts, tools, beliefs - is interesting. As is trying to understand how the progression of events. And if you care about groups of people other than your own, it is important to know what their ancestors and culture have went through.

Understanding Native American history is necessary both for rebuilding cultures erased and fractured by America, and understanding the crimes America has and continues to perpetuate. In and around Virginia during the early to mid 1900's, there were laws based on the beliefs of ones like Walter Plecker to essentially declare that Amerindians were "mongrelized", had no culture, and black (subject to Jim Crow)...excepting the wealthy Rolfe family. Many tribal lands are only preserved by state recognition of treaties. The annual hunting & gifting of a turkey to leaders from tribes being one of them.

Most Republicans don't seem to understand that there was a political realignment during the Nixon to Reagan years, which resulted in the start of polarized partisanship of the parties. Or that much of the South is raised in a "Culture of Honor"...that has been ideal for growing radicalism, Jim Crow, violence, and easy manipulation. Or that much of the South in the mid-1900's lived the same as they did in the late 1800's, and can look like a feudal society. (If you want to break the Republican voting block in the South...buy rural land and move to the South in groups)

If you're just starting US History, then are you up to the Revolutionary War? If so, you come up to the end of the Age of Piracy as is romanticized - from Privateer William Kidd meeting his family in New York City to Jean Lafitte American ships against Britain.

American colonial history sort of explains why American Christianity is so different from the rest of the world (and much more hypocritical). I mean, the pilgrims were such that they would fine or jail folk for celebrating holidays like Christmas. (And the American Santa Claus sort of came from writers like L. Frank Baum's "Life and Adventures of Santa Claus.")

It also is in some theories (Fischer's theory) to explain the cultures in America - each coming from a different early large immigration groups - Puritans, Cavaliers, Quakers, and Scots-Irish. (Alternatively, the Dutch, Germans, Pensioners, Calvinists/Puritans, and businessmen)

Then there are the writers of the time, and how the philosophy of ones like Thomas Paine shaped the minds of our founding fathers...

Sorry if I rambled.

[Potironette]

Originally Posted by Suzerain of Sheol

Well, you're living through the dissolution of American history at the moment, so maybe for proper context? :P

LOL. Maybe, but the 1800s don't seem to relate to the present/I don't know enough of the present to relate it, based on what I'm learning.

Originally Posted by Quiet Man Cometh

Well given the context here, I'd say that interest is irrelevant and study for the sake of passing a course so you don't have to repeat said uninteresting material.

Personally, I found anything outside of the Warfare and crime to be deadly boring, though American History had it's amusements when compared to Canadian.

Heh, I was contemplating to myself why I cared to use my time on passing the course for a bit.

Originally Posted by Lawtan

How people lived - their thoughts, tools, beliefs - is interesting. As is trying to understand how the progression of events. And if you care about groups of people other than your own, it is important to know what their ancestors and culture have went through.

Ohh, that's a nice way to look at it. It's a lot more amusing thinking of the people running around doing the things they did than thinking of how, oh, some people did that and I need to remember it.

I'm testing on from the Civil War to just before the 20th century in 3 hours and 30 minutes. We're learning about labor unions, railroads, "robber barons" and big business, emancipation, and farmers' problems.

Rambles are fun to read ^.^

[Coda]

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

It's not enough to know how things are right now.

Part of the gestalt of modern knowledge includes the process of how we got here. There are vital lessons to be learned by looking at the problems that occurred in the past, seeing how they were addressed at the time, and then seeing what happened as a result.

History teaches us the "why" in ways that knowledge of the current state of things can't.

Historical trivia is worthless in isolation, to be sure. Knowing that the American Civil War started in 1861 is something you can spit out on a test easily enough through memorization, but on its own that doesn't really tell you much. But when you look at what was happening in the 1850s, you can start to piece together a bigger picture that tells you a lot more about why things are the way they are today, in a way that "the Civil War was fought over slavery" doesn't. (Not least because it wasn't; the emphasis on slavery was in fact a political maneuver to deny foreign aid to the South.)

The biggest problem with high school US history classes is that they're by and large not being taught that way. My AP US History class in high school was exemplary -- we weren't just drilled on trivia to be regurgitated on the test (if it were up to Mrs. Davis, we wouldn't have been at all, but the AP exam is standardized); we were taught to synthesize information across sources and combine it with our knowledge of current events to come to a new understanding of both the past and the present.

History might not always be interesting, but you never know when what you learn along the way is going to give you an important insight.

[Potironette]

Originally Posted by Coda

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

I used to hate that quote because it felt like all the world was repeating history anyway, or learning history to repeat it more successfully (people care about Native Americans to an extent, but mostly they're still pretty much ignored..?). Or just cruising along history to continue it (propaganda cropped up in the past in the elections between Adams and Johnson, along with badmouthing each other. Isn't that what we do today? I'm admitted not up with the times though). And I'm not sure how that applies to me since I dunno how I relate to history--what is there to repeat? Yesterday I saw it so many times I began to wonder if I was interpreting that quote differently than how people were saying it (every time I have a history test I can't help but type into google why I'm studying history =_=).

But when you look at what was happening in the 1850s, you can start to piece together a bigger picture that tells you a lot more about why things are the way they are today, in a way that "the Civil War was fought over slavery" doesn't. (Not least because it wasn't; the emphasis on slavery was in fact a political maneuver to deny foreign aid to the South.)

Ohh, that's a good way to look at dates. I generally detest studying about dates because they feel like no more than numbers.

The biggest problem with high school US history classes is that they're by and large not being taught that way.

Well, to be perfectly honest, my US history teacher is pretty good about saying that chronology is what matters, and fact is what backs up big trends...but the tests get to me because of questions like: "By February 1861, what groups of states had seceded from the union?" (A question from a previous test because I forgot the date one from the test I just took, which asked about a labor union that was important in some span of dates).
Although, the knowledge of current events is something that I also have a problem being interested in. Logically, it makes sense to know what's going on, because well, it's the world I'm living in. But..there's so much and yet so little? What do people read anyway?
Clearly, I didn't need to synthesize information to connect it to the present, though it was interesting when I learned that labor unions existed today..because I didn't know they existed at all, and I guess history did teach me about that, but studying for a test is still a different matter.


..I guess mostly it's just testing that makes me want to slam my head into a wall. And throughout class I'm pretty haunted by the knowledge that another multiple choice exam is headed my way. Regurgitating information for other subjects is actually kind of fine for me, because it doesn't feel like regurgitating information--since it all makes sense. On the other hand, history seems to have a different kind of sense that I'm not quite getting.

[Coda]

Originally Posted by Lawtan

Most Republicans don't seem to understand that there was a political realignment during the Nixon to Reagan years, which resulted in the start of polarized partisanship of the parties.

This well illustrates my point: studying history explains quite well what happened.

That realignment wasn't the start of polarized partisanship. George Washington himself warned that a two-party system would result in polarization. The realignment you cite was neither the first such realignment to happen in American history, nor was it even the last one -- we're watching another realignment NOW, in fact.

The very nature of having two political parties means that you're going to have waves of this.

When two parties are mostly in agreement, it's hard for voters to decide who to vote for. In order to get elected, politicians have to rally for an issue to try to get people who care about that issue to vote for them. This pushes the parties towards polarization in order to distinguish themselves.

When two parties are polarized and of roughly equal power, then politicians who want to get elected reach out to moderates to try to curry favor with a broader group of voters, which decreases polarization through compromise.

When two parties are polarized and there is a power imbalance, the stronger party will double down on their platform to hold on to their own voters and encourage them to be active, knowing that the weaker party is going to focus their platform to try to get voters that are less dedicated to the stronger party's cause to care more about the weaker party's cause. This causes more polarization in an attempt to tip the balance of power.

Turns out? That usually works. In American history, the underdog wins. The longer the stronger party is in power, more and more people will become dissatisfied. The issues that have been neglected in favor of the stronger party's agenda will become more important, while the issues that the stronger party has been successful in implementing will become less relevant because they were successful (at least from the perspective of the voters that support it).

And that leads back to depolarization: When the balance of power DOES tip, the dynamic changes. What I said before holds true: The stronger party sharpens their focus to keep their voters, and the weaker party changes their focus to win them back. But if the swing is dramatic enough, the weaker party's policy has to become one of compromise -- they can't abandon their core voters that believe in their current platform, but they can't keep running with the same ideas either, so if politicians on that side want to get their jobs back, they have to reach across the aisle to find a balance that satisfies more people.

Of course, doing that means there will be some faction of core voters that no longer feel that their leadership is following the right agenda, and they turn into swing voters, willing to switch parties if the other party promises to work with them on things they care about, causing a shift in the party's consensus as they move over.

[Coda]

Originally Posted by Potironette

..I guess mostly it's just testing that makes me want to slam my head into a wall. And throughout class I'm pretty haunted by the knowledge that another multiple choice exam is headed my way. Regurgitating information for other subjects is actually kind of fine for me, because it doesn't feel like regurgitating information--since it all makes sense. On the other hand, history seems to have a different kind of sense that I'm not quite getting.

Yyyyyyup.

In math classes, you're not merely memorizing facts. Yes, that's part of it, but the very nature of studying math is about developing specific skills, and the facts are merely in support of that. You don't have to memorize that 2 + 2 = 4 when you know how addition works. If you fail to memorize the commutative property of addition, you can still figure out on your own that 4 + 2 = 2 + 4.

Science and language classes still manage to latch onto this. There's a lot more vocabulary to memorize, a lot more stuff that seems arbitrary on the surface, but there's still a structure there, and as you build up the skills to work with the information, you can still get meaningful results even if you don't know the word for it.

History isn't a set of skills that build up from another set of skills, with facts that support those skills. History is facts first, and the abstract skills necessary to work with those facts are by and large unrelated to them.

[Potironette]

Study about the past to analyze the present?

That bit about George Washington was interesting.

If I think about it--actually even when I don't think about it--I avoid political current events because I don't understand it the slightest. I have practically no clue who Nixon or Reagan is. I have no clue what the difference between Democrats and Republicans are (well, not no clue exactly, but very little). I don't know what makes the two parties so important.

It's kind of cool how the part about politicians campaigning(?) differently sounds like psychology.
Facts first then analysis? I guess I could imagine history like a wealth of information that people try to get meaning/trends out of. Sort of like analyzing a book?
I would hate to get tested on the plot of a book, but I guess the point of being in history class then, is to educate myself about things then use those things as arguments? My history teacher said right before the exam that people who stated things without facts are "quacks" so I guess it's related. Actually, that sounds like being a politician--but appealing to logic rather than people, or something.

Hmm, history makes ideas credible, is what I'm starting to observe XD.

It's hard that there's so much to just accept all at once though ("and then, a depression happened during these years that caused this." --> Wait what there was a depression?; "the farmers met in Omaha and formed the Populist party" --> Wait what, they formed a party o_o?).

[Quiet Man Cometh]

I find it's the broader context of history that will catch my interest. For instance, knowing the history of X and Y is not as interesting as realizing that parts of X and Y where happening at the same time.

One eye-opener for me came up in on of my English courses where we were talking about European literature and the casual mention of Britain having problems with an "upstart colony." Yes, to us the American Revolution was a big thing, but to the larger world, it was a spat that was Britain's concern and it was the French Revolution that was a far bigger deal.

It's also eye-opening (and annoying) how complicated and convoluted things can get when you start looking at things closely. Native American land claims, for example. Sounds simple on the surface but it's a doozy when you start digging. That is a subject in which history and modern day clash big time. In which context do you analyze it? How much of history do you return to?

[Coda]

You're in high school. You can get away with that. I know I avoided politics at that age, too. It took political issues that actually had a relevant impact on my personal life to change that. I still TRY to avoid politics, and the culture of fear that's reigning right now pisses me right off (seriously, namecalling and personal attacks are worse than useless, and refusing to engage with the country's leadership doesn't send a message, it just lets them do what they want to do anyway; stop fearmongering and running away, and try to work WITH people and guide them to the right solution), but I've made a point of making myself aware.

"History makes ideas credible" is a really good way of putting it. Very insightful!

[Potironette]

With politics I think part of it is definitely that I don't feel affected by it. I'm kind of apathetic and feel bad about that when I should be having an opinion, but it doesn't hit me to try to change it.

...maybe the same with history, since I don't feel like I interact with it much (math is everywhere, science is everywhere, language is at least present, English is sort of everywhere, where history is I probably just don't interact with it much?). Aaand since I don't interact with it much there's little chance for me to see people using history.

And then there's history for the sake of interest. I do find these facts about history here interesting, like how the French Revolution was important to Britain, but I also don't have to drive to delve into these facts myself..?

In any case though, I'll try to remember the next time I'm in class that I should be actively thinking--and then history will be more interesting, and maybe I only need to take notes on important facts with maybe a note on a big trend, not everything I'm reading or the teacher's saying. And multiple choice tests are unfortunate but they only happen once in a while.

[Coda]

Don't feel bad about not having an opinion. You should be proud of that. Taking an opinion just to have an opinion is prejudice. You should stay open-minded, and only take an opinion when you actually understand what that opinion means and what it implies. Base your opinions on facts, not what people think you should believe.

[Potironette]

I never thought of it that way before! It's hard to distinguish between open-mindedness, apathy, and having odd ideas (opinions?) though xD.

[Coda]

Open-mindedness and apathy aren't mutually exclusive.

Being apathetic towards an issue means that you don't have strong feelings either way. This could be because it doesn't matter to you, or it could be because you don't know enough about it to make a judgment call. In either case, it's actually a virtue to not profess support for one side or the other.

Being open-minded about an issue means that you aren't going to reject information just because it disagrees with your preconceived ideas. Radicalism comes from a fanatical belief that refuses to accept dissent -- "clearly," any evidence that disagrees with that belief must somehow be false, with any number of possible rationalizations for why it doesn't count.

Being open-minded isn't incompatible with HAVING a firm opinion, either. Being open-minded is admitting that it's possible that you're wrong and being willing to update your beliefs if the facts disagree with you. That doesn't mean you don't believe that you're right. It means that you believe that the evidence you've seen so far supports your current opinion (because if it didn't, you wouldn't have that opinion).

Naturally, that's harder than it sounds. It can be hard to take a rational position concerning a deeply-held belief. It can be hard to acknowledge the possibility that you're wrong, to acknowledge that some evidence isn't consistent with what you think.

There's nothing wrong with having odd opinions, as long as you can back them up.