Skip to main content

What Lies in the Future for History?


Since I'm taking a couple of history classes this semester, I've been thinking about history as a subject. I have a few observations:

1) I find that I'm skeptical of the method of teaching history that history books employ. I find that I learn history better through my Music and Theatre Appreciation classes, which are essentially music history and theatre history. Additionally, as I read various books outside of class, I pick up on the history which frames the book much easier than by reading it from a history textbook. Perhaps this is because I actually care about music and theatre. Perhaps this is also due to the fact that it is easier to track the history of one subject easier than it is to track the history of... well, history. I've come to realize that history textbooks are essentially super-condensed compilations of the history of music, theatre, art, religion, politics, slavery, literature, the economy, pop culture, the Native Americans, the military, etc. No wonder I'm having trouble keeping track of it all. I find that I learn history much easier when I am dealing with one subject through time rather than all subjects through time. Does that make sense?

2) I wonder as to the future of history classes. Assuming that mankind is going to keep the length of one's education relatively constant, I can't help but think of the ceaseless condensation of history that will take place. Think of this: 10,000 years from now, we'll be considered the early church. The fact is, we've had enough of a time studying the first 2,000 years of church history. How about music? If the world goes on for another 100,000 years, will people even realize what the "classical" or "baroque" period even means? Perhaps all of the musical advancement made from 500 AD to 5000 AD will be lumped into one paragraph under the heading "Music's Beginnings. Does this strike anybody else as weird?

I think this is why Mr. Richter's history teachings have stayed with me fairly well. We clamped down on a specific event in history and tracked it for a while, rather than trying to fly through a 50 year period per every hour of class. I will probably rely more heavily on theological books, autobiographies, journals, an novels to learn my history (after these cursed classes are over).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Will Enter Heaven?

Check out this quote I found online: "[C]onsider this fact: fewer than 20% of people actually think they are going to hell. And yet, in answering that question, Jesus says in Matthew 7 that FEW pass through the gate that leads to eternal life. 80% doesn't sound like few to me... do some of us have the wrong idea?" There are a number of problems with this quote. First of all, you it is assuming that "few" refers to the current ratio of professing Christians to non-Christians. What's to say that Jesus isn't referring to the entire population of all the earth over all time? In that case, it's entirely plausible that 80% of people now are really Christians, as long as there are still few total Christians when all is said and done. Maybe it applies only to the people in the crowd listening to Jesus. Or, it could refer to something else entirely (as I believe). Jesus was talking to a specific people living in a specific time. We cannot decontextualize his ...

Thinking About Marriage

I gave my sister a book about marriage for Christmas. I would have hesitated giving this book to her three months ago. However, my views on marriage have changed substantially since entering college last August. Many people assume that their main calling in life is a vocation, and their spouse should be compatible with that calling. Therefore, people look for a spouse on the premise that if an eligible person cannot or is even uncertain about his or her ability to exist with a partner who does "X" for a living, that eligible person is not "the one." However, I believe this logic is twisted. What is more important to God? I think if we look honestly at the Bible, it is very clear that God places the institution of marriage over the institution of work. Family comes first, right? If you think you have found "the one," there is no need to try to add likely employment position as a qualifier to his or her eligibility. Am I making sense? What I am simply tryi...

Jesus, Lover of my Soul

An old friend and spiritual mentor of mine left a comment on my last "Religious Conversation" Post . It provoked so much thought that I wanted to share it with everybody, because I know quite a few of my religious friends are reading this, and I know quite a few of you who would make a similar statement. Here it is: There is an element in this conversation that is being overlooked (at least, I presume). There is an aesthetic beauty and, more, an affection, which Steven appears to have for God. This is not illogical; in fact, all human beings exhibit it for something. It may be subjective, and it is not conclusive, but it is completely logical. And I can't imagine an argument that would refute it. It is something like a man saying, "I love my wife. I appreciate her many virtues and charms; I believe her to be the woman most worthy of my affection and lifelong commitment." If I say this and someone were to say to me, "But EVERY man says that of his bride!...