RAH - The importance of history for personal and group identity

The problem with human history is that it is disconnected, in the minds of most academics, from human evolution, with the consequence that even professional historians have only a superficial, and not particularly useful, understanding of their subject.

How can we understand the development of society and its history, without an understanding of human nature and behaviour? And how can we understand these without understanding something of the conditions and circumstances under which human nature and behaviour evolved, over millions of years, and to which it is thus adapted? Conditions and circumstances very different indeed to those of the artificial, "socio-economic environment" we live in today, and where we continue, greatly facilitated by the development of free-market capitalism, our Darwinian, dump-animal struggle for survival and advantage.

We don't teach this profoundly important aspect of history to our children, because we haven't yet recognized it ourselves.

2nd Post

[fedup]: "Why do we bother?"

Why indeed? Why do we bother about anything?

This is a profoundly important question that it is well worth pondering upon, before shooting off in this direction or that. It applies to everything, of course, but especially to history.

There is an infinite amount of history out there (or should it be, back there?), so one has to be extremely selective. But who does the selecting, and where to start?

Perhaps by asking if we need or want to know any history at all, and if so, what? and why?

The state's main interest in teaching history in the schools it funds, is to inculcate in its citizens a sense of "national identity". Our children are taught the "national story", which, of course, has to be placed in the wider context of a European and global story. The material is all selected for purpose, of course, but largely subconsciously.

Having a shared story (history) used to be immensely important as a source of social cohesion and common purpose, which has been, and continues to be, misused by society's ruling elites (now the nation state): "For God, Harry and St George . . . !" And off we go to slaughter the French, or whoever the "enemy", according to our leaders, happens to be.

Our main common purpose now is "economic growth" (rather than wars), thus creating (as wars once did) an ever-expanding degree of wealth and POWER for the ruling elite to dispose over - now, "democratically" legitimized and shared out a little more fairly than in the past.

But even if our leaders cannot "freely" dispose over all the power available to them anymore, it is still immensely satisfying (for their dumb-animal nature) and rewarding (socially and financially) for them to administer it "on behalf" of the people they claim to represent. And "British" HISTORY tells us what a fine and essential job they are doing within the power structures of our GREAT nation state - which, of course, we must never even question the necessity or legitimacy of.

In a true, grass-roots, democracy, however, individuals would decide for themselves, what their story (history) is, and with whom they share enough of it to form a "society" . . . . . . . . Just a thought.

[TheNuclearOption], I agree with you entirely about the history of science and philosophy being far more important than the machinations of monarchs.

The "machinations of monarchs" should be used to illustrate the extent to which they and the societies they ruled over were dominated by man's animal nature and behaviour, which would teach us a great deal about modern society and its leaders . . . . . But I sense a certain reluctance to enter upon this terrain.

3rd Post

I am very doubtful of the value of historical dramatizations (which have been much praised on this thread), especially when they go back more than a couple of hundred years, to times so utterly different from our own. They may provide good entertainment, but must surely present a very false and misleading impression of the way things and people were in the past.

I would like to see some historical dramatizations produced, with no thought to viewer numbers, under the strict control of really competent historians, who could appear in the production - in suitable fashion - to explain to the audience some of the detail, our source of our knowledge, and the degree of conjecture involved.

From school, I think, children should come away with a draft overview of western civilization, beginning with the Greeks, but not neglecting the middle-eastern sources (Mesopotamian, Egyptian) on which it drew. You can spend the rest of your life filling in some of the details you find particularly interesting or relevant.

However, people from non-European backgrounds (heritage, ancestry) may well want to take a very different perspective - i.e. their OWN. This will tend to undermine the MYTH of a shared national identify, certainly one based on history - and so it should.

To: Guardian CiF Re: The importance of history for personal and group identity Date: Friday 20 July 07

In response to Open Thread, "Consigned to history", on the decline of history in British schools Link to article and thread at The Guardian. The problem with human history is that it is disconnected, in the minds of most academics, from human evolution, with the consequence that even professional historians have only a superficial, and not particularly useful, understanding of their subject. How can we understand the development of society and its history, without an understanding of human nature and behaviour? And how can we understand these without understanding something of the conditions and circumstances under which human nature and behaviour evolved, over millions of years, and to which it is thus adapted? Conditions and circumstances very different indeed to those of the artificial, "socio-economic environment" we live in today, and where we continue, greatly facilitated by the development of free-market capitalism, our Darwinian, dump-animal struggle for survival and advantage. We don't teach this profoundly important aspect of history to our children, because we haven't yet recognized it ourselves. 2nd Post [fedup]: "Why do we bother?" Why indeed? Why do we bother about anything? This is a profoundly important question that it is well worth pondering upon, before shooting off in this direction or that. It applies to everything, of course, but especially to history. There is an infinite amount of history out there (or should it be, back there?), so one has to be extremely selective. But who does the selecting, and where to start? Perhaps by asking if we need or want to know any history at all, and if so, what? and why? The state's main interest in teaching history in the schools it funds, is to inculcate in its citizens a sense of "national identity". Our children are taught the "national story", which, of course, has to be placed in the wider context of a European and global story. The material is all selected for purpose, of course, but largely subconsciously. Having a shared story (history) used to be immensely important as a source of social cohesion and common purpose, which has been, and continues to be, misused by society's ruling elites (now the nation state): "For God, Harry and St George . . . !" And off we go to slaughter the French, or whoever the "enemy", according to our leaders, happens to be. Our main common purpose now is "economic growth" (rather than wars), thus creating (as wars once did) an ever-expanding degree of wealth and POWER for the ruling elite to dispose over - now, "democratically" legitimized and shared out a little more fairly than in the past. But even if our leaders cannot "freely" dispose over all the power available to them anymore, it is still immensely satisfying (for their dumb-animal nature) and rewarding (socially and financially) for them to administer it "on behalf" of the people they claim to represent. And "British" HISTORY tells us what a fine and essential job they are doing within the power structures of our GREAT nation state - which, of course, we must never even question the necessity or legitimacy of. In a true, grass-roots, democracy, however, individuals would decide for themselves, what their story (history) is, and with whom they share enough of it to form a "society" . . . . . . . . Just a thought. [TheNuclearOption], I agree with you entirely about the history of science and philosophy being far more important than the machinations of monarchs. The "machinations of monarchs" should be used to illustrate the extent to which they and the societies they ruled over were dominated by man's animal nature and behaviour, which would teach us a great deal about modern society and its leaders . . . . . But I sense a certain reluctance to enter upon this terrain. 3rd Post I am very doubtful of the value of historical dramatizations (which have been much praised on this thread), especially when they go back more than a couple of hundred years, to times so utterly different from our own. They may provide good entertainment, but must surely present a very false and misleading impression of the way things and people were in the past. I would like to see some historical dramatizations produced, with no thought to viewer numbers, under the strict control of really competent historians, who could appear in the production - in suitable fashion - to explain to the audience some of the detail, our source of our knowledge, and the degree of conjecture involved. From school, I think, children should come away with a draft overview of western civilization, beginning with the Greeks, but not neglecting the middle-eastern sources (Mesopotamian, Egyptian) on which it drew. You can spend the rest of your life filling in some of the details you find particularly interesting or relevant. However, people from non-European backgrounds (heritage, ancestry) may well want to take a very different perspective - i.e. their OWN. This will tend to undermine the MYTH of a shared national identify, certainly one based on history - and so it should. http://www.spaceship-earth.org