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 ...

On the Biblical Mandate to Respect Authority

The SC choir chaplain brought up a passage in 1 Peter at the beginning of this week regarding submission to authority. It led to interesting conversation, and I'd like to reiterate part of that conversation here. 1) It is important to remember that the early churches who passed around these letters had a very practical use for them. The early church could have easily been stomped out had the early Christians been too anti-government. True, the church was persecuted. True, the church did get into trouble with the government. However, remember that the persecution happened for short bursts of time (historically speaking) and only in isolated areas. It was by no means universal persecution. Additionally, when you look at other early Christian documents, you see more injunctions to work with the rulers. And why not? The early church needed all the support it could get, while not compromising, of course. If they were all outspoken government radicals, they would not have lasted long. 2)...

An Experiment In Honesty

This last week has been emotionally unsettling, and since I've been unoccupied all day (I'm at my dad's place until I leave for San Francisco), I'm feeling it in a strong sort of way. To sort it all out, I thought the best thing to do would be to start writing about it, so here it goes. This summer has been very influential in my development - I suspect more influential than I can really understand at present. I had to leave many new-found friends and watch as friends left me. The people at Yellowstone helped me to see what I want socially. There were few Christians (besides the anomalous Campus Crusaders) who were more than nominally religious (and I mean religious in the way that we see American Evangelicals or Catholics - there were many 'mystics'). I could talk honestly about questions of death or a god without fearing that evangelical backlash I'd get at Sterling College or The Master's College. In fact, I just enjoyed being able to hang out with an...