History, The Most Important Inexact Science
Why I Read History
When Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. died February 28, 2007, the world lost one of the greatest historians who ever lived. When I was in school, the teaching of history was qualified as “not an exact science.” Schlesinger saw history as a continuing effort to solve an insoluble problem, “Because all important problems are insoluble: that is why they are important.”
Not long ago a friend told that he was interested in the present, and cared nothing about what happened in the past. I never bothered to present the fact that history is merely a repeat of soap opera that has gone before us, and continually dumbed down by the current media. At present it is calculated that “the news” is formatted to an audience of 16 year olds, as is the target audience for advertising.
Thoreau said, “To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea. Yet not a few are greedy after this gossip.” For me, it is hard to bear the local television news, and I don’t watch it. How many rapes, murders and muggings can we stand before becoming numb to the redundancy?
Relying exclusively on current news, just as unreliable as any history ever written, is insufficient information to formulate an educated understanding of the world. Without the benefit of at least a minor understanding of major historical events in human history, we are handicapped making decisions in the present.
I was motivated to write this post by a recent article in Harpers Magazine written by Lewis H. Lapham. Lapham is the National Correspondent for Harpers, and editor of an upcoming quarterly, “Lapham’s Quarterly.” On his web site he states,
“In an age beguiled by the joys of forgetfulness, our absorption in the excitements of the present tense cheats us of our inheritance.”
For a much more in depth look at why history is an imperative study, have a look at Historians.org.
“Not to know what happened before one was born is always to be a child.”
Cicero