The Importance of our History

Annabelle Mick

 

 

How should we study history? Why should we study history? Should we be studying it at all? We can all agree that history is a concerning topic. How we teach it shapes the minds of the ones that will create and become our future. This all depends on how you feel about history. If you look at this from a liberals point of view, they might say something like:

“We should worry more about the present so that we don’t repeat our past.”

But if you look at it from a conservative point of view, it would be more like this:

“We should be proud of our history and show our pride by studying it as much as possible.”

The middle ground of it all would be more on the lines of:

“We should be using our past to make our future, the past is important, but our future is important as well.”

 

One topic of discussion we could look at is whether or not our Founding Fathers are heroes.

Our Founders are the reason we are where we are. I think we can all (mostly) agree that being under the rule of Europe wouldn’t be a good thing. America would not have the same freedoms it has today. Try to think about how we would be?

There are 2 sides to this topic, but there’s also a middle. One side would rather replace our old heroes with new ones. Another side would rather acknowledge the old heroes. It’s so simple to meet in the middle on this topic! We can acknowledge the old heroes but also make room for new ones! Martin Luther King can be just as important as George Washington.

Both are heroes. The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence as a way to declare our independence to the Brits. Some also wrote the Constitution. They may not have abolished slavery, but they made a path for such a thing to be abolished. Creating more room for MLK to be a hero too. Everything they did may not have happened when we would have liked, but unfortunately, that’s also not how things work. I’d like to say it was like The Butterfly Effect. Everything you do has importance and if one thing didn’t happen, other things won’t happen either.

 

Another topic of discussion is the Confederate Statues. One side wants them removed completely, and another side wants them to be left alone. This one takes more thought than the one before, but yes, there is a middle. If the statues really are an issue, then we can remove them from their spots outside in the public while still keeping them alive and public to those who still want to see them. Think about this for a second, how can we remove a historical piece from the outside, while still keeping it available for the public to see by choice? We can put it in a museum where only those who really want to see it, can still see it with no problems. If you don’t want to see it, then just simply don’t go.

A lot of people think that they’re hateful and offensive to many people, including those of color. The south did not win the Civil War, so why keep a monument of Confederate figures? But we can’t remove a statue that someone else may believe in. Those statues are a symbol to southern culture to some people. It’s not fair to tear down something they believe in. Think about this, if a Christian has a cross on the steeple of their church or statues of religious figures of the Bible, you can’t petition to remove that because they have freedom of religion as American citizens. If you go to a Chinese restaurant and see statues of religious figures of China in a place that’s meant to show Chinese culture, it wouldn’t be fair to those who own the restaurant if you got angry with them and demand removal. It may be your freedom of speech, but don’t utilize that to tear away their freedom of religion.

 

So, why do we study history? To some, we study it so that we know our mistakes of the past and make sure we understand how not to make those same mistakes again. To others, we study it to show our pride for our country and understand just how free we really are. Then there are people who study history because the past interests them and they want to be informed of everything and show pride while also acknowledging our past mistakes.

 

How should we study history is definitely a hard thing to talk about. Some think we should study history through the form of textbooks and lectures, some think we shouldn’t study it at all, some think we should study it on our own time. There really is no way to meet in the middle on this, because you can’t study history in school while also not studying it. You can opt out, but that’s not very middle ground. I guess that’s why some don’t teach it because some people don’t agree that it’s necessary and some people do, making it a difficult situation when someone tells you “I don’t agree with this and it’s unfair for me to have to do this”.

 

I have a few interviews with 3 different people with 3 different historical backgrounds.

Dr. Michael Martin, the chair and professor of History at Fort Lewis College is our first to dive in to.

When asked why he wanted to pursue history, he gave us an interesting but quite remarkable story. Dr. Martin was first an English major at start studying literature with a master's interdisciplinary degree in medieval studies and as part of that, you have to study history, English, religion, Latin, theology, art, etc. He found an individual who studied sermon literature through a historical aspect and he liked that interdisciplinary approach to understanding history. “I expect all of my students to bring their major whether their an engineering student, biology student, sociology, or whatever they may be, bring it to impact how we’re understanding history because of [like you said] it’s that context that surrounds it that kind of helps people figure out how they wanna write about it.”

Dr. Martin was originally a pre-med chemistry major. He took an English GenEd course as an undergrad that “totally changed his life... Something clicked and I realized history was something I wanted to do.”

The next question asked what how he thinks we should study history, he said that we need to look at primary sources, but first is what are we passionate about? “The middle ages and Europe really caught my attention so that’s what I studied. I don’t study modern European or Modern US or Australian or any of that… you need a lot of backgrounds and you’re going to have to read, even read books that some people will say it’s a bad history book because you’ve got to look at as many sides as you can. And talk to people who have been studying it for a long time and get their input. Just because it’s written in a book doesn’t mean it’s the truth. It’s the writer's interpretation and that’s where I try to get people to go as interpreting not just an opinion. One of my ideas about studying history came from my mentor who was constantly pounding me about how I have a hard time stopping research and he told me “now you need to sit down and write about it” because you’re never going to research everything, start writing your work. History is a continual dialogue which is why we keep writing.”

Dr. Martin’s reply when asked why he thinks we should study history was “Those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it, but there are some good things in history that I would like if it repeated. But also it helps us understand who we are now and where we’re going for now and for the future. I also like to know more about me because I do think it helped form some of my ideas.”

I asked the question “Do you think we should recognize our Founding Fathers as heroes?” That question can be very confusing and misleading, so let me explain. Our founders created a free country. They declared independence from Britain and gave us our rights of freedom. They may not have abolished slavery that very second, but they created a path for it to happen. Women may not have been able to vote, get a real job, and do other things they can do today that they couldn’t back then, but the path was created by the founders. Things would be so much different if we were still under the rule of Britain. It kind of works like the butterfly effect. This was Dr. Martin’s response to the question, “It’s a history that I don’t study intensely and I know all the rhetoric around it. I use the word hero a little differently, what heroes did and the way they’re perceived has changed across time. Nowadays when we think about heroes, we think about superheroes. Especially because they’re big in the box office. But really, I don’t know? I’ve never really thought about that question before. But really that’s when you look at the historical context and pulling it forward in time to a later section of history to see and look for those connections, cuz I think that’s one of the questions that you’re looking at the concept on whether they’re a hero or not. When people study history, they study a section of history. We make connections across time and I think that’s another reason we should study history because those isolated incidences, they change our understanding and interpretation in time.  Think of it as this long-standing interconnection not these isolated moments in time. They (the fathers) did take certain chances. Like you said, let's move forward and see what were some of the consequences, and that word is thought of only negative but maybe what were some of those positives, like you said, we saw a change. It may not have affected it right then, but it affected a later change. It was a positive and another step forward. Because we think of progress like technology, sophistication, but again, we study ancient Egypt and they built these statues and the solstice sun hits them perfectly twice a year, well, in the 20th century when they were going to build a dam and flood that region, they had to move those statues so they wouldn’t be lost. Modern engineers moved them but didn’t get it quite right. It doesn’t hit them perfectly anymore. So for all of our technology, oops! What happened? How did they do it?”

Some people want to replace them [founders], and a good example is people that want to remove anything named after a founding father and replace it with someone like MLK. This is what he had to say, “We should make room for the new, but we don’t want to get rid of that history. What happened? We need those reminders on what did happen. I know all that controversy with the statues, destroying them is destroying that part of history, but no. We need to still be able to talk about that and understand it. Some people want to move them to museums and if you think about it, look at museums today? They’re full of things from all over the world that have been moved out of their context. There’s still an argument today between Greece and England over the Parthenon marbles should be returned to Greece. And England is saying “Well, Sir Belgium purchased them and brought them here [England]”, but even just the way they’re displayed is not the way they were displayed on the Parthenon. They wouldn’t go back up in the Parthenon, Athens built a brand new museum, and the top floor is meant to mimic the top story of the Parthenon, so the marbles would be displayed the way they were on the Parthenon. But the other thing to was when they were excavating to build the building, they found an old village underneath. They rediscovered history for other history. And now what they’ve done is built a glass floor so that when you walk in, you can and see it.”

The next question asked was “Do you believe it’s okay to dwell and be angry over our history, even though we weren’t around and don’t know any of those people at all?”  and this is his answer. “What they [slave owners] were doing is what they believe was proper and right. I saw a bumper sticker that said: “If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.” So you know, it may raise certain feelings in you, but if you just stay angry, then it’s harder to stop and be like “okay, let's have a conversation, let’s figure out why you’re angry and what can we do about it, how can we better understand it?” Just staying angry is just everyone shouting at each other and then nobody’s hearing each other because you’re just trying to overshout them. But that anger can get you the passion for something. I wanna know more, I wanna know why? Then it brings up why I study history because I wanna know why. And you can still be like, okay I do not agree with what happened but now I see their perspective but here’s what happened with the change, why it changed, how it changed. And then we can continue that conversation and make sure we don’t go back to certain things.”

Next, I asked him if, instead of worrying about our past so much, should we worry more about changing our future? “No. At least that I feel they’re connected. I think they both deserve equal consideration. I’m really excited about future possibilities. [We should always acknowledge the future but we should always acknowledge the past] right, because it will help inform some of that future and some of the future though can be totally a surprise.”

Then, I asked him what his thoughts are on Howard Zinn vs Larry Schweikart (Liberal vs Conservative history book authors). “I’ve not read Larry’s book, but I read Zinn’s a long time ago. I’m sure a lot of people look at Zinn’s book and be like “oh that’s so biased” well, then read both of them. But I also encourage people that when they’re reading up texts that are like that that is so polarized, can you find a book that you might think are a middle ground. Read a couple of others. Read some book reviews that are both for and against those books. Bring as much evidence to the conversation that you can. We may still disagree, but at least we can explain why we disagree. If all we’re saying is “you’re wrong, I’m right”, we’re getting nowhere. We should be like “okay, well I still think you’re wrong, I still disagree with that, and here’s why I think the way I do, and we’ll just go our separate ways.” It’s a continual conversation, let’s keep talking. Let’s see where we can get with those histories.”

Next, I asked him a question with a very hard topic to accomplish; should we be focused on making a non-biased history book that schools can use? “I don’t think that’s possible. The reason I study what I study is because I’m biased right off the start. Then I can try to be objective and balanced but I still want to teach stuff I think is really cool. And so, that totally non-biased, I don’t think that’s possible. If you try to write that one big history big, you’re gonna miss some of the nuances of history. Which might interest me but not you. We can’t get to all of that. My mentor was always yelling at me “Done, not perfect”. You’re not gonna get to perfect. Somebody's gonna come at you and say “close, but I think there’s this modification.”

 

The interview with Dr. Martin was very successful and appeared to lean more towards a middle ground.

The next interview was with India Downing, who majored in history while she was in college, and is considered our liberal bias.

This one was done over email and won’t be near as long as the last. The questions were the same, so I’ll insert them in a Q&A format.

1- What made you want to pursue history? “It’s always fascinated me, imaging the same spot I’m standing years ago. I also had an amazing European History teacher in 9th grade. It was by far my favorite class & it helped me to grasp how important understanding the past is to understanding the present.”

2- How do you think we should study history? “Interactively & mainly from a broad perspective. Similar things have happened across continents and centuries, and will most likely happen again.”

3- Why do you think we should study history? “Our past helps us understand current events & common behaviors. If we can learn from past mistakes, we can evolve as a people!”

4- Do you think we should recognize our Founding Fathers as heroes? “Ha. No. Important to understand the founding of the United States, and they were certainly brave, but not heroes.  Right place, right time.”

5- Do you believe it’s okay to dwell and be angry over our history, even though we weren’t around and don’t know any of those people at all? “I do not. It's important to understand where attitudes come from (our history) but dwelling is never good.  Learn and move past!”

6- Instead of worrying about our past so much, should we worry more about changing our future? “Worrying about the past and understanding it is two very different things.  Understanding it will help us change the future.”

7- What are your thoughts on Howard Zinn vs. Larry Schweikart (Liberal vs Conservative leaning authors)? “None off the top of my head, sorry.  I guess I would say it's good to study both sides.”

8- Should we be focusing on making non-biased history books that all schools can use? “I'm not sure if that's possible.  There's always bias.”

 

The next interview is with someone who loves history but didn’t decide to pursue it out of high school. Someone who loves to study history on his own time. His name is Jerry Baker, he has a conservative bias and is also my grandfather.

The questions, again, are the same as the last 2 interviewees.

1- What made you like history so much? “I’m really not sure, haha! But just because I like the studying of people, and what took place before my time. It’s interesting to me what people did and how they did things and stuff.”

2- How do you think we should study history? “I think we should study history how it is. It’s hard to talk about. We should study real history not something that somebody is changing, as it actually happened. And just because politically correct to say things and stuff like that, don’t take it out because that was history and that’s how it happened. And we should study history from books, not from current events, but books on history, museums, those kinds of things.”

3- Why do you think we should study history? “Because history tends to repeat itself. And you learn what to do and what not to do. History is your heritage.”

4- Do you think we should recognize our Founding Fathers as heroes? “That’s what they were, were heroes. They fought for what the believed in and created something wonderful. And that is history.”

5- Do you believe it’s okay to dwell and be angry over our history, even though we weren’t around and don’t know any of those people at all? “No, I do not think it’s okay to be angry over our history. We made corrections from those mistakes that were made. But no, no anger at all. Be proud of it.”

6- Instead of worrying about our past so much, should we worry more about changing our future? “You should go to the past to think about how you’re going to change the future. Use the past to learn how to change the future. There’s a lot of great things from the past that you don’t wanna mess with, like our constitution. It is not a living document. It can’t change with the times.

7- What are your thoughts on Howard Zinn vs. Larry Schweikart (Liberal vs Conservative leaning authors)? “I was raised a Democrat. And the Democrats used to be for the little people but they want socialists. They were about helping people that were underprivileged, but they were not there for handouts. They wanted to help the worker. Over time, they’ve changed and became extremely liberal to the point of socialism and the Republicans sorta moderated and took over the role that they used to be at. But conservatism and capitalism are good things. You’ve gotta have capitalism, you can’t operate on socialism. It’ll turn into communism.”

8- Should we be focusing on making non-biased history books that all schools can use? “I think that ALL school books should be non-biased. It’s not the schools' job to sway your thinking about your political beliefs or history beliefs or anything like that. It is their job to teach you what actually takes place. And the school should not bring politics into it. I think it’s ABSOLUTELY possible to make a non-biased history book. If you write history the way history was, it’s non-biased.