The Best Place To Start Learning History

[ScottP]

Greetings:

As a historian and teacher at VanDamme Academy, one of the most interesting topics that I continually research is that of hierarchy in history. In my experience, most historians make no attempt to connect their work to the context of knowledge or values of their readers, or even acknowledge that such an integration is proper. Nor do they even have any awareness of the fact that gaining knowledge of history requires a structured, conceptual undertaking, and cognitive purpose to fuel that undertaking (other than simply the desire "to know"). They simply relate their knowledge, and expect the reader to keep up.

Consequently, I'm quite sure that there are many readers of this forum who find history difficult to handle, and I'd be surprised if there is anyone here who feels equally at home discussing ancient, European, and American history.

If there are those of you who feel competent across the board, I'd be very interested to hear how you personally achieved that level of knowledge, and what resources you recommend to accomplish it.

As for those of you who don't feel it, I'd be interested to hear about your attempts and frustrations.

My personal goal as a historian is to help adult students of history learn about Western civilization as a whole. I hold that it is the proper first step for any student of history to learn the "big picture," and I am working to make that possible, even for those who didn't get the education they deserved when they were young. Part of my philosophy about what I call a "First History" is presented on part of my site: www.powellhistory.com/philosophy2.html.

I'd enjoy hearing responses from others on this forum, and fielding questions about it.

Regards,

Scott

[email protected]

[softwareNerd]

Hi Scott, welcome to the forum.

History is something I mostly ignored in K-12 (or, rather, studied enough to get decent grades and then mostly forgot).

In adulthood, the few historical books I've read were focused on very specific times and topics.

Recently, I've been thinking about giving myself a better context. My first thought was that I should understand the main events along a timeline of history. Right now, I have an "atlas of world history" from the library and am reading through that. In doing this, I'm beginning to think that a timeline is too large to hold in context.

So, when I've read through this book, I figure that I should condense my understanding by dividing history into hierarchical time-lines, rather than a single time line, and use that as the context to explore specific areas of interest.

What I mean by this is that I would break up all of history into 4 or 5 periods. Ideally, I'd like to be able to summarize the most essential aspects of each period. (I suspect older periods will be of longer duration.) Also, I'd like to have a map of the world that summarizes what the world looked like at start/end of each period.

I figure that I could then take the 1 or 2 periods of most interest to me and further break that down into 4 or 5 sub-periods, and so on.

This is tentative; I'm just beginning the process, and doing what I ought to have done in K-12

I'd love to hear your comments.

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

That's a fascinating job you have. You are very lucky. I am also studying to teach History, but I still need to hone my skills. I think it is important for all students to have a general factual basis, because without facts, one really can't argue much. However, I also think it is important for students to think conceptually, as you do. I think people should try to link the past to the present--make history useful, since learns are typically active in their construction of knowledge.

Passively pouring information over people is banal. Making history relevant or fun is a great way to learn, but people aslo have to take personal initiative to learn it, for it can be droll at times. I buy up all the texts I can so I can have a foundation of knowledge at my fingertips if I were to need any facts. Long ago, I decided that I am against forcing students to memorize every inane detail. I hated that when I was in school, and I learned that you just forget said information over time.

What did you do in college? What was your thesis? Any tips/suggestions? Over time, I find that what I learn becomes a blur and is pushed out by other information. Have you ever had that problem?

Edited February 8, 2006 by Technocratic_Utilitarian

[ScottP]

Dear "softwareNerd":

It is my experience as well that most history books have too limited a scope. This is the result of a basic premise of historians that the facts in themselves are the primary value to be attained by studying the past. Ever since the backlash against the "philosophy of history" in the 19th century, historians have gradually backed away from integration.

In much the same way that you are doing, I tried various means of addressing this problem. Timelines were one approach. (You should see how many different types of timelines I have created over the years!) But I have rejected this method as a primary component of knowledge acquisition. The basic reason is that timelines cannot help you to *create* the integration you are seeking--not if by integration we can agree we are talking about a *conceptual* grasp of a vast array of facts. If you are still learning, any timeline you create will only contain facts, the broad relationships between which will be vague in your mind, if you can tie them together at all. This type of collection of concretes can sometimes appear satisfying, but in my experience the "knowledge" fades very quickly, even if you're supplementing it by continued reading. The main problem is that there are too many concretes, and you cannot hold them all in your mind by such means. I now view timelines only as an adjunct to a well developed understanding, a visualization that allows you to "see" the big picture you've already built up. I sometimes peek at my best timelines only as a quick reminder about something, like the exact dates of a particular ruling dynasty, but I never use timelines anymore as a primary means of learning.

Still, I'd be interested to hear more about what you mean by "hierarchical timelines."

As far as atlases go, I definitely agree with you, that when you study history you need to have a number of historical atlases on hand. You can never have enough good maps! Of course, perhaps I'm biased, since I was a geographic information systems consultant for 10 years! As far as atlases go, I definitely recommend getting as many different ones as you can. Avoid modern ones, though, because they tend to try to display too many themes at once. I like the older historical atlases by William Shepherd. They're not perfect, but they have a lot of maps, and some of them very effectively communicate change by the way that successive maps are arranged.

Regards,

Scott.

www.powellhistory.com

[ScottP]

Dear T_U:

That's a fascinating job you have. You are very lucky. I am also studying to teach History, but I still need to hone my skills. I think it is important for all students to have a general factual basis, because without facts, one really can't argue much. However, I also think it is important for students to think conceptually, as you do. I think people should try to link the past to the present--make history useful, since learns are typically active in their construction of knowledge.

Passively pouring information over people is banal. Making history relevant or fun is a great way to learn, but people aslo have to take personal initiative to learn it, for it can be droll at times. I buy up all the texts I can so I can have a foundation of knowledge at my fingertips if I were to need any facts. Long ago, I decided that I am against forcing students to memorize every inane detail. I hated that when I was in school, and I learned that you just forget said information over time.

I had the same experience, and I think almost everyone has. That is because Intrinsicism dominates history. Most serious historians believe in the value of the "facts in themselves," and have no interest in justifying the study of the past. They experience history as a world apart from the present, and enjoy it that way. And they expect students of history to either accept this view, or go their own way. Most people rightly reject history done this way as irrelevant to their world of values.

What did you do in college? What was your thesis? Any tips/suggestions? Over time, I find that what I learn becomes a blur and is pushed out by other information. Have you ever had that problem?

I had the good fortune to study at York University, and take a few specialized classes with Dr. Ridpath before he retired. I didn't have a thesis. I only did course work. And quite honestly, I learned nothing while I was there, despite being the highest ranking graduate of 2002.

Like you I encountered an overwhelming array of facts and found them sinking into the recesses of my mind as I moved on to new contexts. Nothing was ever quite so frustrating to me, so I struggled to find a method that would prevent this problem, which I call the problem of "sinking concretes." I consider this one of the fundamental problems of knowledge acquisition in history, closely related to the problem "floating abstractions." And having experienced it for so long as a student drove me to try to address it as a teacher. It was while building the American History curriculum for elementary students at VanDamme Academy that I started to experience a new order of retention in my studies. I took careful notice and even started directing the process. I was fortunate to have reasonably good sources (quite a few of them!) and a ruthless drive to overcome all their flaws. I created what I call a "causally integrated narrative" for myself first of all, and then for my students. And I went back to European and Ancient history and did the same. The results were extremely heartening, and I now feel like I have legitimate command over virtually all of history from the Old Kingdom in Egypt to the War on Terror. It's what led me to create "A First History for Adults," which I'm now promoting on my website, www.powellhistory.com

Regards,

Scott Powell

[email protected]

[softwareNerd]

Scott, Your course on history has three parts:

Part 1: America ...

Part 2: Europe ...

Part 3: Ancient background

I'm curious about the reverse-chronological arrangement of the parts. Is there a reason for this?

Still, I'd be interested to hear more about what you mean by "hierarchical timelines."

It is a half-formed idea. To give an example, indeed to know if it makes sense at all, I have to know some history. What I am thinking of is something like a very simple timeline that divides all of history into (say) 5 "ages". Each age has a name: (say) "Early Man", "EarlyCivilization", ... "Renaissance"...etc. Along with a name, there are 4 or 5 words that act as "pegs" for the most important people, events, discoveries, etc. within that age. Then, I have a timeline for each of those ages. Those subsidiary time-lines are against divided into 4 or 5 parts. Again, each part has a name, and 4 or 5 key facts.

The purpose would not be to understand how and why history unfolded, but to create mental units.

[ScottP]

Scott, Your course on history has three parts:

Part 1: America ...

Part 2: Europe ...

Part 3: Ancient background

I'm curious about the reverse-chronological arrangement of the parts. Is there a reason for this?

Most definitely. The empirical basis for this approach was simply the success that I achieved by following this method myself (by accident at first, then by design). More recently, I have been able to grasp why it's so succesful.

The fundamental reason is that the pursuit of knowledge of the past must not be divorced from the pursuit of happiness in the present. In other words, knowledge is not an end in itself. What I've learned about studying history is that you have to ruthlessly seek out connections between the past and the present to be able to sustain the intellectual effort required to integrate it all. There is no way that interest in a world that no longer exists can drive that kind of continual focus; only a desire to know the world in which one lives can do the job.

The best way I have found to connect knowledge and values in history is to start nearest to the present. Ancient history is too far removed from modern American to serve as a proper starting point. We pursue values here and now. The most imminently important contextual information that we can obtain from history to assist us as value seekers in that context is the history of how that it came about. The most immediately applicable narrative for that purpose is American history. It yields the most useful causal perspective on the ideas and institutions that permeate the culture we live in.

Which is not to say that European and Ancient history aren't fabulously valuable. However, they aren't as valuable, and they really only become valuable when American history is understood first. I find that studying Europe is always most interesting when I'm looking for how it connects to what I know about America. Similarly, I enjoy Ancient history most, when I'm looking for connections to later developments that I already know about in European and American history. In this approach, history is a kind of context-seeking activity. It gives you an ever widening grasp not of the past in itself, but of the present!

It is a half-formed idea. To give an example, indeed to know if it makes sense at all, I have to know some history. What I am thinking of is something like a very simple timeline that divides all of history into (say) 5 "ages". Each age has a name: (say) "Early Man", "EarlyCivilization", ... "Renaissance"...etc. Along with a name, there are 4 or 5 words that act as "pegs" for the most important people, events, discoveries, etc. within that age. Then, I have a timeline for each of those ages. Those subsidiary time-lines are against divided into 4 or 5 parts. Again, each part has a name, and 4 or 5 key facts.

The purpose would not be to understand how and why history unfolded, but to create mental units.

I would agree that integration is vitally important, but I think you've got it backwards. I would say that you cannot properly decide which mental units to form until you really see how history unfolded in concrete terms. If you pick the units prematurely, then they aren't really reflections of a conceptual understanding, and I can only predict that they will frustrate your efforts rather than facilitate them. I always find that a timelines serve me best at the end of my studies of a particular period or topic. I work at the concrete level, forging an understanding of the causal links, and then I group and visualize. Whenever I have tried going the other way, the timeline I constructed always ended up being just another set of concretes I didn't really understand.

Regards,

Scott.

[email protected]

[softwareNerd]

Thanks for the response Scott. Your reasons for a reverse-chronological approach make sense. I see the motivational value. I should try it.

As for the time-line, I agree there too. I didn't imply that I could draw the timeline before knowing all the facts. I just think of it as a way to help retain key facts. Even naming a period, as in "the Renaissance" is a major integration that is an end-result rather than a starting point. Any early timeline I make would therefore be like rough notes. I might start with some divisions that I know are based on non-essentials, but are based on the only facts I know. As I learn more facts, learn the sequences and the causations, I would then correct and refine the timeline.

[Free Capitalist]

Hi Scott,

History matters a lot to me, even though it has little to do with my chosen profession. I just think it's crucially important for a person's personal development, regardless of what they choose to do with their lives, and it's also great to see that you seem to value it greatly as well.

I'd like to respond to some things you said:

firstly,

Which is not to say that European and Ancient history aren't fabulously valuable. However, they aren't as valuable, and they really only become valuable when American history is understood first.

Well this subject is quite tricky. In the first place, it's almost impossible to understand American history, especially the Founding period and the Early Republic, without knowledge of ancient, and especially Roman, history. The number of allusions to the Ancient period and the degree to which it fueled people's personal values during the time, is staggering. And yet, I do agree with you that if a person is completely ignorant of American history and plunges into the Ancient history directly, he will find less there that will strike him as directly relevant (although philosophy and other ennobling qualities of the times are still useful).

So what I've found best here is similar to the Montessouri idea of spiral study of history -- to gain a sort of general outline of American history, of who did what, who they were, why they did what they did -- all without going into some extreme depth of detail -- and then directly go into a proper outline of Ancient history (bypassing European, especially Medieval, history as largely irrelevant), and connecting that with the Founding of America. Then, American history can be returned to in great depth, along with some general outlines of Medieval and European history, and then a more in-depth study of Ancient history. That's the best approach I've found to the subject.

I personally had almost no knowledge of, or interest in, history or anything related to knowledge of times and of people, until about 3-4 years ago, when I stumbled upon Ancient history (a historian of Rome, to be precise), which revolutionized my view, so that I set to educate myself in great detail about history from that point on. So, to respond to your first post, I am most comfortable discussing Ancient history (any Mediterranean, especially Roman and Greek), and American history (especially the early years). I also by now a very good deal about all the times in-between, as a kind of conceptual link that I've been motivated to acquire, in terms of what the heck people have been doing in all of that intervening time.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Free Capitalist

[Free Capitalist]

Maybe I should clarify a little bit what I mean by European history being "largely irrelevant" to that of the American, because in retrospect that seems like a rather controversial statement to make.

It certainly is important to know who the colonists were, that they were colonists, where they came from, why, etc, and figures like Christopher Columbus should play an important role. Or if going deeper, it can be discussed how and why Europeans came to the Americas in the first place, what the Age of Discovery was, and what the antecedent historical causes for that were (e.g. the Turks' sack of Constantinople in 1453 thus cutting off the Europeans' trade routes to India). But all of these causes are incidental to the nature of the country and the constitution that were created. While they explain how America started, they don't explain how America started (i.e. America and not just another country).

And the fundamental reason for explaining America itself lies in the blaze of republicanism (small 'r') that sprung up in America starting around the beginning of the 18th century, when the classics (Latin and Greek) books brought over from Europe had started a torrent of republican sentiment that the world hadn't seen for 2,000 years, and where everyone -- from lawyers, to politicians, to judges, to commonfolk, read about and constantly encouraged in each other the love of republic and aversion to tyranny. Even the churches helped, with priests preaching from the pulpit about how it was in accordance with God's plan that man be free (quoting John Locke and pagan Latin writers, of course). All this came together to result in the United States of America, once more creating in the world the idea of a republic, almost ex nihilo.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Free Capitalist

[ScottP]

Maybe I should clarify a little bit what I mean by European history being "largely irrelevant" to that of the American, because in retrospect that seems like a rather controversial statement to make.

It certainly is important to know who the colonists were, that they were colonists, where they came from, why, etc, and figures like Christopher Columbus should play an important role. Or if going deeper, it can be discussed how and why Europeans came to the Americas in the first place, what the Age of Discovery was, and what the antecedent historical causes for that were (e.g. the Turks' sack of Constantinople in 1453 thus cutting off the Europeans' trade routes to India). But all of these causes are incidental to the nature of the country and the constitution that were created. While they explain how America started, they don't explain how America started (i.e. America and not just another country).

I used to think much the same thing. I used to view America as a kind of philosophical Athena, springing out of the head of the Zeus that was Ancient Greece and Rome. Then I started studying the history of Europe, and especially England, intensively. I would say that America's identity, in essential terms, owes more to England than it does to Greece. Certainly, qua history, England's role in American history is the single greatest role of any nation. Of course, there's France (and the Enlightenment); there's Germany (and the Reformation); and Italy (and the Renaissance), and others.

And the fundamental reason for explaining America itself lies in the blaze of republicanism (small 'r') that sprung up in America starting around the beginning of the 18th century, when the classics (Latin and Greek) books brought over from Europe had started a torrent of republican sentiment that the world hadn't seen for 2,000 years, and where everyone -- from lawyers, to politicians, to judges, to commonfolk, read about and constantly encouraged in each other the love of republic and aversion to tyranny. Even the churches helped, with priests preaching from the pulpit about how it was in accordance with God's plan that man be free (quoting John Locke and pagan Latin writers, of course). All this came together to result in the United States of America, once more creating in the world the idea of a republic, almost ex nihilo.

There's no question of the role of Ancient Greek and Roman thought in the development of America. However, as you point out, it was John Locke (an Englishman) who played the most direct role in transmitting certain ideas (many of them original to England) to America's Founding Fathers. Among the other prominent writers who influenced the formation of America's essential political identity were the Frenchman Montesquieu (whose work reflects the French historical context) and the Dutchman Grotius (who lived in the Dutch *Republic*.)

In general terms, concerning the value of Ancient as opposed to European history, I would say the following: America owes a *philosophical* debt to Greece and Rome. However, to understand the *story* of America, qua history, demands understanding the direct agency of Europe, as America's mother continent. It requires an examination of the growth of representative institutions, such as Virginia's House of Burgesses--and their connection to the growth or parliament in England's history. It necessitates an examination of the idea of religious freedom--which can only be understood in the context of the shattering of the monopoly of religion of the Catholic Church during the Reformation. It also calls for a study of the pattern of international relations that led to the pivotal formulation of the Monroe Doctrine--in answer to the European threat. These are but three, albeit mighty important, indicative cases of the historical value of studying Europe. The *essential* connections between America and Europe are manifold. In that regard, I cannot accept the view that Europe is just filler.

Regards,

Scott.

[source]

As for those of you who don't feel it, I'd be interested to hear about your attempts and frustrations.

Hello.

I just stumbled on this thread and I'm very happy to see written by another person what I have long considered to be this way.

I had terrible history teachers in the past. They were very demanding and impossible to follow in class, and also quite uninteresting. The combination of this led me to spending a lot of time studying history in such detail as my teachers demanded, and never actually knowing anything, and consequently this led to not having time to study history the way I was supposed to - as you described, in a structured and conceptual way - nor did I until very late realize that there can be such a way of studying history.

History books I had were just not written good enough for such approach. For this reason, I have then decided I would make a program to help one study history in exactly this manner, and which would make the student see the interconnection between historical events, documents, personalities, etc. My programming skills then were not good enough to undertake such project, but today I think I can do it. I have already begun working on it, alone, meaning its functions will have to be limited. It will be my final project for this semester at college and my teachers are somewhat skeptical of me being able to do it.

In any case, this will be my first serious attempt at studying history, because I do not consider it a serious attempt at studying to read a history book and remembering all the facts in order to reproduce the text from the book for the teacher; not even if I get an A in the end.