Skip to main content

Reading History

Klansmen during the Reconstruction era

While catching up on Game of Thrones a few weeks ago, I was particularly struck by the appearance of the terrorist organization known as the Sons of the Harpy. After the outlawing of slavery, this group, sporting golden masks to hide their identities, wages a campaign of terror against former slaves, the occupying army, and those who support the new government. Their parallel in the real world is obvious, an echo of the horror unleashed by the Klan and other white supremacist groups during the Reconstruction period of U.S. history and continuing for well over a century beyond that. This unprecedented campaign of violence against newly freed slaves and those who supported them crushed the hope that emancipation and the early stages of Reconstruction promised, disenfranchising African-Americans who had only just begun to exercise their right to vote and hold office. 

In the face of this backlash, the Federal government finally backed down, removing troops from the South at the end of Reconstruction and leaving blacks to fend for themselves. This must surely count as one of the most ignoble acts in our long history, one that is conveniently glossed over in many books and high school history classes. Even those genuinely interested in the Civil War seem to lose interest after Lee's surrender at Appomattox; why is this? For those who like history, there is a division between those who learn history to understand, and those who learn history to pick up what could rightly be considered essentially trivia. 

There are people who can name all the commanders in the Civil War, able even to match them with their particular military command. They can give the correct dates for the beginning and ending of the conflict, and list major battles too. But this impressive list of facts exists in relative isolation. It does little to help them understand the division between the South and many other parts of the country in the present, or the still-tortuous relations between African-Americans and whites, in spite of so much progress. In no way does this serve to try and condemn their enthusiasm, far from it. Learning history as an unrelated string of facts, however, is insufficient, no more helpful in understanding the present than knowing the entire Yankees roster during the 1930 season would be in discussing the current season. In this form, one's knowledge of history can be trotted out to win a trivia contest, the facts existing as shiny baubles of the mind--occasionally impressive and surely interesting to look at but with little utility in viewing the present world. For those who enjoy learning about our past, this form of historical knowledge ensures that current events seem to exist in a vacuum.

Moving beyond history as trivia not only brings with it a better understanding of how we got to now, it makes the past itself far more interesting. The disparate facts are connected together to present our story in all its colors, the flaws and debates and disagreements making those we read about seem more human--more like us. There is a richness in this reading of history that those who know only trivia miss out on. They owe it to themselves to delve a little deeper, to try and understand this world we have inherited. Even those bored to death in high school by an endless series of names and dates may well find the true complexity of our past fascinating, when properly presented. 

Learning history can help us understand why the world has became what it is. Racism in the U.S. today, the rise of Islamic extremism, and the aggressive posturing of Russia all have roots well beyond the last few decades. Truly reading history with the intent to understand helps us in dealing with all of these topics, and such a reading scorns the simplistic explanations and solutions often proffered by the talking heads in media and government. Understanding history in this way isn't a panacea for solving the problems we face. Without this understanding, however, dealing with these problems will likely prove impossible. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...