The Teaching of History

[Lady Magpie]

Another interesting question might be, would democracy have developed similarly (not exactly the same, but based on the same or similar values and ideas) had things turned out very differently in the US--had the world not had the example of the US?

I think it would.

The point being then, yes, events that led to our constitution were important, but I don't necessarily think that the rest of the world would still be under the rule of aristocracy or monarchy.

[BeardofPants]

Following on from what you were saying Elvellon, I think it would also be important to study the foundations of modern thought and philosophy. So, all the ancient greeks (Aristotle, Plato, Pythagorus), and stuff, leading up to Kant. It's interesting to see how much influence these philosophers had on the fields of both maths and science, and so forth. Definitely a must for students.

[Elvellon]

Indeed. The importance of philosophy and science cannot be stressed enough.

PS. Interesting avatar

[Lady Magpie]

Yes! Philosophy, science, literature, religion. . .I think all of these are very important for understanding history. (says the history major with a minor in both philosophy and religous studies and an interest in English. . .)

[Elvellon]

I can understand that; the “problem” with history is how we inevitably start branching into other sciences, philosophy, etc. Just to understand more of the main passion.
It’s the perfect excuse to learn more about most things.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Well, if we are to discuss Universal History, as opposed to National History, I would suppose we should focus in the development of Civilization as such; their beginnings and major currents that market the development of our world.
For instance, the Egyptian, Sumerian and early Chinese civilizations are a good example for the study of the beginning, then Greek and Roman civilizations are essential to understand bases of the modern Western civilization, as the Renascence and the Discoveries are to understand how it become a global reality, etc.

Firstly, thank you for answering my question

I think you have a good point - always start at the beginning and go on until you reach the end (as they say in Alice in Wonderland? ) Studying the history of civilisations in this way is also a study, as you said, of the history of ideas - providing context and background for how those ideas are used today, and their later incarnations in modern history. In my history education, excellent as it generally was, there was a tendency to focus in detail on modern history, while the earlier stuff - Romans, Egyptians etc. - was left to primary schools only. I don't even know what the Sumerian civilisation was so I don't know what influence they had on the development of the world at all.

On the other hand, I have Hitler and Stalin knowledge coming out of my ears

History teaching does not get enough priority in schools, in my opinion.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Britain didn't have a Constitutional monarchy UNTIL after America. Britain changed after America - there was NO Prime Minister during the American Revolution or anything.

Well, thats a lot of crap. William Pitt was PM, just as my good colleague Radagast has pointed out. Oh, but your response is:

Originally posted by jerseydevil
He didn't have the same power that the prime minister position has today. So it's not the same.

It doesn't matter if the PM was cleaning out the chamber pots, he was still the Prime Minister, and therefore, you are still wrong. Cant you just shut up and say, "oops, I was wrong there, sorry."???

Oh, and then you claim that Japan and Australia are Democracies. And when Radagast tells you (fine work again Radagast) that that is also completley wrong, you accuse HIM (???) of needing to learn more history???

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Maybe you should learn a bit about history before making such a statement. The Monarchy has VERY limited power after we worked with them to develop a constitution and so forth after World War II. The Emporer was forced to give up his power after world war II my dear Radagast.

It doesn't matter how much power the Monarch has, nor how much power the government has, it still doesn't change the fact that Japan and Australia are not Democracies, they are CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES, and more importantly, you are wrong again.

I see you are willing to admit mistakes And more importantly, its good to see your knowledge of history supercedes Radagast's and my own ...rolleyes:

[Anglorfin]

I don't want to be the one to stir this up anymore or to deviate from the original question, but just a point of clarification on all ends . . .

The official CIA listing for the Australian government is "democratic, federal-state system recognizing the British monarch as sovereign".

The CIA listing for Japan lists it as a "constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government".

Here is the URL for further reference.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...elds/2128.html


The most interesting question to me regarding history (having something to do with the fact that I watched The Last Samurai three times in a day) is how can we as both nations and individuals preserve our cultural background and traditions while still being able to open ourselves to other influences and integrate them into our way of life? The hypothetical answer is easy, for me it would be to find a balance somewhere in the middle. But where should the lines go? It's a whole different debate for each piece.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

mesopotamia/sumeria right up to the end of roman civilisation, indus valley civilisation, early chinese up to the tang dynasty and early mesoamerican civilisation should all be taught as they are the foundations of all civilisation on this planet

[Spock]

LCOU, et. al. How the heck did we go 2 full years without a post in this???