When schools are faced with a budget crunch, as so many are, art teachers and art classes are among the first to go on the chopping block. As the New York Times reports, this appears to be the case in New York City:
For the first time in four years, the number of certified arts teachers in the city’s public schools is declining, according to a report to be released by the Center for Arts Education on Thursday.
In 2009-2010, there were 135 fewer arts teachers in the city schools than in the previous school year, after principals chose to cut positions from their budgets or not replace arts teachers who left. The 5 percent drop puts the number of certified arts teachers working in the schools back to where it was in 2007, when the city first began to survey principals….
…Schools, however, have also cut back greatly on other spending for the arts. Since 2007, when the city began surveying schools’ art education, spending on supplies has dropped to slightly more than $2 million from over $10 million. In a system with more than a million students, that comes to about $2 per student.
This general scenario matches up with other stories I’ve seen. But why should art be on the chopping block before history class? I believe we romanticize history, making it seem practically and ideally more important than it is. People defend history in the gauzy language of citizenship, with appeals that rarely rise above aphorism. “Those who don’t history are bound to repeat it”. This doesn’t hold up in a practical sense though. There’s a reason the phrase isn’t “those who have history as a significant part of their high school curriculum are bound to repeat it”. Being taught history doesn’t make you better voters unless you remember that history. I’m not going to go down the litany of things that huge percentage of Americans incorrectly believe about history, instead I’ll just give one prominent example. How many hundreds of millions of dollars to we spend each year teaching kids about the Civil War, and still 42% of people don’t know we fought it over slavery?
If we want students to know the most important facts and stories about history for the sake of those facts, then having them watch a few documentaries should cover the bases pretty well. As Will Wilkinson pointed out to me, history is something anyone with reading comprehension can teach themselves, in contrast art is a skill that in most cases requires careful instruction. Like I said, even people without reading comprehension can learn most of what they do in high school through documentaries and the History Channel.
Ideally speaking, I don’t think history is the most important subject when it comes to making better voters. You’d do better off to drill students on economics 101 and the basics of the budget. Maybe then we’d wouldn’t have a citizenry convinced that foreign aid is a large portion of our spending, and that understands the downsides of price controls. More importantly schools could stop reinforcing the notion that voting is some moral obligation, and let people know that voting on the basis of uninformed biases is far worse than not voting whatsoever.
There’s also a large cognitive dissonance whereby we view art as being something soft, idealistic, unpractical, and unserious compared to other school subjects. Art is a fun distraction, whereas history is serious business. But of the two art is clearly the more practical real world subject. Many serious, button downed, grown-up careers require artistic skills: architects, marketing, graphic design, engineers, web designers, city planners… the list goes on. Which careers require knowledge of history? Journalists, history teachers, politicians? It seems as though the caricatures of these fields should be exactly the opposite, and that history should be viewed as soft, idealistic, and unpractical, whereas art should be viewed as the hard-nosed practical subject of serious people.
Even in these cases where a career requires knowledge of history, like those above, what they need is 60% confined to modern world history, and the other 40% to modern world history. Where does knowledge of explorers, Mayans, and pilgrims come into play in any career? In art class even when you’re learning how to do stuff you won’t directly use in the future, you’re picking up artistic skills that have wider importance than their immediate application.
For the modern economy, for the betterment of our country, I say down with history, up with art.

45 comments
Comments feed for this article
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 8:21 am
q
here here. and besides, art is history. at least, what little kids learn in history class can be taught through making things, and then it becomes art.
my personal beef: personally, i think that drawing (by hand) should be viewed as a basic expressive skill, on par with writing (stories or essays, you pick) etc.
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 8:41 am
Hyena
I think history’s status was secured through the backward-looking tendencies of our ancestors, who tended to justify everything through the lens of the past, and the former tendency of our leadership to be concerned mostly with war.
However, that’s something you’d only learn from history and I think it hints at why, and what sort of, history is important: it’s good to have a working knowledge of how social, economic and technological structures have changed over time. That isn’t what they teach, however. I don’t think I ever had a class on the socio-economic structure of ancient Egypt, the dispersion of technology in Asia or the land title questions of Medieval Europe. Certainly not on the changes which bring about the Neolithic revolution.
That’s what people shoukd be taught: difficult, interesting material about how things change and how people either managed it or failed to.
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 9:00 am
IVV
History is also a strong tool for indoctrination. It’s a lot easier in general to instill the “correct” stories in children through how you teach history than art. It’s quite possible in art, yes, but it’s harder to do.
So, the answer is Hansonian.
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Pat
I’m amazed at the shallow reasoning behind this post. Proper history education is not about indoctrinating students with facts but about the use of primary and secondary source materials to support an argument. Keep in mind that the word “history” comes from the Greek for “to inquire” NOT “to memorize facts”! These skills absolutely require more careful instruction than art.
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Adam Ozimek
If that it were! On the margin, one could cut a lot of history class and only cut (failed) fact memorization without taking any time from instructions in “the use of primary and secondary source materials to support an argument”.
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Peter Williams -
[...] http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/06/10/down-with-history/ – Arts training is one reason my kids are changing schools. [...]
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 10:16 am
TGGP
I was always annoyed by art class, and found history more interesting. That’s not really an argument against you, just primes me not to be receptive.
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Eli
The prominence of history, and especially of political history, makes perfect sense if you view the primary purpose of public education not to enrich the lives of students, but to make them loyal subjects of the state. This latter goal was explicit in the writings of those who started the public education system in the US.
On occasion, modern defenders of public education slip up and make this point explicit as well. For instance, a 2008 California ruling on homeschooling quoted a 1961 ruling: “A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”
I think you’ll agree that this is horrifying. But it also makes sense of the poor use of classroom resources that you demonstrate. Indoctrination will always go hand in hand with public education because the government pays the bills, and political history is an effective tool for indoctrination.
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Adam Ozimek
I think we have a culture that seeks to indoctrinate those values, not just a government. If you put that statement to a vote I’d suspect it would be immensely popular. The pledge of allegiance after all is a pledge of allegiance to the republic, for which it stands. People love that thing.
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Eli
Fair point. The pledge gives me the creeps. Have you seen this?
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Gepap
Actually civics would be a far more important subject to teach citizens than the aptly named “dismal science.” Sociology would be good for high school students as well. The notion that budgeting is about economics is absurd – it is and always has been about politics, something from which economics can;t possibly be divorced, regardless of moden economic theology.
As for history v. art – most “art” classes in schools are art hsitory, with some time given for students to make their own things. In terms of engineering and architecture, those skills are taught in shop and drafting classes, classes I had the pleasure of getting but most kids don’t.
Knowing history is about giving kids a knowledge of our past, so in a sense it will be “indoctrination.” Except of course that in teaching kids about history, if done well, you teach them not only about our successes but also our failures. One of the greatest indictments against economics for example is the massive failure to force its students to read economic history and the collective thoughts of past economists. History teachers you not only about the pledge of alliegence, but also about non-violent resistance and violent uprisings. Knowing where we have been is critical to knowing why we have the society we have, and perhaps, what must be done to change it. People ignorant of history are ignorant of the rationale for the existing power structures, and are far less prepared to change them. This is why Orwell included the bastardization of history as one of Big Brother’s most powerful tools.
Also, education is not meant merely to be functional, nor to make people into happy wage slaves. It would be more worthwhile business wise to teach kids how to use fax machiens, e-mail effectively, make powerpoint presentations, and give them decent phone skills if the function of education is supposedly merely functional. Nothins would be better at indoctrination than making people ignorant wage slaves worried only about their ability to earn pay at someone elses leisure.
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Marcus
Just a quibble with your example of historical ignorance. Vast numbers of southerners will state that the Civil War was not fought over slavery, but rather “state’s rights” or perhaps something about trade policy. They have chosen to be actively ignorant of the facts, or more charitably, they have their own interpretation of history. So I’m not surprised at all that the percentage is 42%, but it’s not because of poor schooling really.
“When your beliefs are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.” http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
EM
“Proper history education is not about indoctrinating students with facts but about the use of primary and secondary source materials to support an argument. Keep in mind that the word “history” comes from the Greek for “to inquire” NOT “to memorize facts”! These skills absolutely require more careful instruction than art.”
I wish. My public high school history instruction in the mid 1990s was entirely fact memorization – mostly dates. No conceptual connections were made from one event to the next; it was just a stream of disconnected bits of information with no context or relevance.
Hey, I passed all my Advanced Placement tests. Who cares about understanding as long as our kids can fill out a Scantron?
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
confused
Most everything you learn in highschool could be learned by someone with basic reading comprehension….
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Dana
History’s on the ropes and you feel the need to kick it in the crotch? http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/03/history_job_openings_fall_economics_positions_recover
If the best rationale you’ve ever heard for studying history was that hoary “doomed to repeat it” crap than the state of history education may already be too dismal to salvage. A good history education teaches people to think critically and communicate effectively, all the while pointing out the building blocks of our modern world. This is the opposite of the “indoctrination” decried in the above posts. OK, there’s a lot of memorization in the early grades. It’s not much fun, but fun is not the primary purpose. You need to know what the U.S. Senate is, how it was created, why it was structured the way it was before you can understand the significance of the Compromise of 1850. Which is important for understanding the causes of the Civil War (and I think understanding the dissolution of a nation-state is and important thing). These are the building blocks of human understanding. No one would suggest teaching calculus to kids who never learned to add an subtract.
If you truly think that you could have learned high school history by watching the “History” Channel, that means history education needs to be improved not eliminated. I’m not saying its more important than art. Or economics. Or anything else. They are all important in our complicated world. Those of us in the knowledge economy should be mounting a robust defense of all of these subjects, not taking potshots at them or picking and choosing winners and losers based on assessments of their relative importance grounded in silly anecdotes.
Friday ~ June 10th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Rick Russell
Many are defending history, and I’m inclined to join them as I think it’s certainly no worse than other language-oriented activities like literature. And as others have pointed out, historical research is a building block of forensics and communication.
However, the second part of this thesis has not really been examined. Can you teach someone art? Can you truly teach them design (by which I mean aesthetic art rather than functional or utilitarian engineering)?
You can teach someone the technology of ceramics, charcoal and paint, digital art, music, etc. However, I don’t know that knowing the technology produces useful creative capabilities. I know digital art technologies like the back of my hand, I’ve been editing bitmaps and vector graphics since before Photoshop and Illustrator existed. Yet, these are tool skills, not design skills. Like the car mechanic, I can implement or correct a design, I can tweak it in ways to fit certain needs, or I can use some canned tools to come up with a semi-original design (see header at http://brainscroll.wordpress.com/ ), but I am *nothing* like a professional artist. I couldn’t draw a face or a hand to save my life. Same for music, I can listen to and enjoy music, but I can’t play a note. I had *years* of piano and band education in my childhood years, I took practice seriously but I never had talent and never managed to do more than mechanically and poorly function in the bottom 20% of the class. That instruction was *truly wasted* on me, and the time would have been better spent on activities for which I had greater natural ability and affinity.
I don’t begrudge art instruction; for students who have talent can develop creativity in this way, it makes sense. But there is also creativity in mathematics and computer programming and (gasp) economics. I’d say a good portion of economics is taking real-world information, breaking the scenario down into pieces and figuring out which economic principles apply to the decisions being made by firms, leaders and consumers, and how those principles might determine their future decisions as conditions change.
Friday ~ September 23rd, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Megan
you cannot say that your music education was *truly wasted* on you. Music education specifically has been proven time and again to have a positive influence in children’s abilities to learn and grow in math and science. True, they may not grow up to be virtuosos on the piano or violin, but they could use the mathematics involved in learning note values and time signitures to better understand fractions and other more complex math skills.
Just basing this on my own experience, it seems that the majority of my middle and high school history classes could all very well have been the SAME history class. And we almost never made it past World War II, nevermind anything about current events! Those are wasted class hours.
Saturday ~ June 11th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Saturday links: cognitive labor | Abnormal Returns
[...] Why is art always the first program cut from school budgets? (Modeled Behavior) [...]
Saturday ~ June 11th, 2011 at 8:59 am
Lord
Except for economists who seem in dire need of more history.
Saturday ~ June 11th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Hoover
Studying history helps economists not make grotesque errors.
“the greybeards summarily expelled both philosophy and history from the graduate economics curriculum, and then they chased it out of the undergraduate curriculum as well.
Then, by the 1990s there was no longer any call for offering courses in philosophy or history of doctrine any longer, since there were no economists with sufficient training (not to mention interest) left in order to staff the courses.
Consequently, when the Great Mortification followed in the wake of the demise of the Great Moderation, those occupying the commanding heights of the profession were bereft of any sophisticated resources to understand their predicament”
Sunday ~ June 12th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Down with History (via Modeled Behavior) « Art Perspective
[...] When schools are faced with a budget crunch, as so many are, art teachers and art classes are among the first to go on the chopping block. As the New York Times reports, this appears to be the case in New York City: For the first time in four years, the number of certified arts teachers in the city’s public schools is declining, according to a report to be released by the Center for Arts Education on Thursday. In 2009-2010, there were 135 fewer a … Read More [...]
Tuesday ~ June 14th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Breakfast Links: June 14, 2011
[...] Schools should teach art over [...]
Tuesday ~ June 14th, 2011 at 11:02 am
What does Green Mean? » Open your art books to page…
[...] budget cutbacks that always, ALWAYS, get aimed at the art curriculum first, how we should teach art instead of history. This general scenario matches up with other stories I’ve seen. But why should art be on the [...]
Tuesday ~ June 14th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Sam Thomas
I mean no offense, but if you’d taken a few more history classes, you might not have written such a foolish column. Others have pointed out that history is not (has never been) about memorizing facts. If this is what history means in some schools, we need to remedy that particular problem, not abandon the discipline. I had a terrible physics teacher in high school, shall we do away with sciences as well?
Even if the purpose of history were to teach facts, the failure of students to remember them is hardly an indictment of the discipline. Drop your average American in front of a potter’s wheel or blank canvas and see what they can do. If it’s not a masterpiece, I guess we should throw art under the bus because…well, we got rid of history because students couldn’t remember things.
In many cases, history is the only discipline that takes students outside their own narrowly circumscribed world. In what other class will students learn about cultures other than their own? Is it not important for students understand the relationship between the US and the world? History matters intensely in other parts of the world – when bin Laden calls us “crusaders” he isn’t going for a colorful metaphor, he’s doing (bad) history. Serbia wants to keep Kosovo because of a battle fought in 1389! If we venture into the world without an understanding of why the past matters, we do so at our peril.
To be honest, I don’t give a **** about voting, and I agree that the canard about repeating the past is asinine. But I do care about ignorance, and art doesn’t cure that.
Tuesday ~ June 14th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Adam Ozimek
Whose ignorance matters, and who do you mean by “we” when you say “If we venture into the world without an understanding of why the past matters, we do so at our peril.”? Because most of “we” remains ignorant about all history relevant to bin Laden and Serbia. And if not through voting, in what way does the ignorance “we” have impact our lives and the lives of those around the globe?
People remember very little history they are taught in school because it doesn’t matter in their everyday lives. Art, in contrast, teaches basic skills like matter throughout life like drawing and understanding colors and proportion, and are used in a wide variety of careers.
History may be important, but the importance ascribed to it relative to art is disproportionate and does not reflect reality.
Tuesday ~ June 14th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Bland Whitley
I think you are confusing the content of history (i.e. just the facts) with the skills that one can develop through its careful study. Sure, no one needs to know anything about ancient Rome or Ming dynasty China to get a job, but it might just be useful to know how to gather and arrange evidence in ways that produce coherent arguments. It also might be important to acquire a decent sense of cause and effect, something historical study is uniquely fitted for. Some of those skills can be acquired through other fields–they are after all the skills related to writing. But history is as good a place to acquire them as any other. I’m not saying that such skills are more important than those acquired in an art class, but I do object to your lop-sided comparison.
Thursday ~ June 16th, 2011 at 9:36 am
Sam Thomas
You seem to be asking how we interact with the world in ways other than voting. I would say that invading other countries counts. We had our soldiers read “Three Cups of Tea” (whoops!) before going to Afghanistan. Why? Because it seemed like a good idea for them to have a grasp of the society they would soon encounter.
And even if we reign in our foreign adventures, the world is coming to us. Even if they never leave home, our students are going to live and work alongside people from all over the world. It would behoove them to have a sense of these peoples’ past, or at the very least that they HAVE a past, and it is different from ours. Hesitate before saying to your new Armenian nationalist co-worker, “Let’s go for some Turkish food.” Don’t compare your treatment in the media to a “blood libel” unless you actually have been accused of killing Christian children and cooking them into matzoh.
I’d also second Bland Whitley’s point that the content in a history is far less important than the skills. (If you’ve not figured it out, I teach history.) I know damn well that they’ll forget most of the information they learn. But I want them to walk out of the classroom reading more critically, and able to write more clearly. If students are more skeptical about what they read, hear, and see in the media, they will be more careful consumers and will do so more wisely. Do you not think that the folks watching Glenn Beck could stand to do a bit more in the way of critical thinking?
In addition – if you’re worried about what skills are for on the job – you’d be hard pressed to find a profession that says, “Go ahead, write paragraphs without a focus. Use lousy reasoning. Don’t think through your argument.” Even if students never vote, never take another history class, they will have to think and write if they are going to succeed. That is what history is for.
And why are is art and history in a pissing contest? We’re on the same side here – nobody likes the fine arts OR the liberal arts.
Tuesday ~ June 14th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Random Notes | Counter Politics
[...] Art vs. History. Modeled Behavior has an interesting essay calling for the end of History, in schools at least. School districts tight for money are slashing [...]
Tuesday ~ June 14th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
NEPArtisan » Various Observations – June 14, 2011
[...] An argument that history should be cut before art. Fascinating [...]
Tuesday ~ June 14th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Mac
Perhaps anyone can teach themselves history but anyone can teach themselves art as well. There are so many self taught artists in museums. Many of them are there because they had no art education.
I think both subjects are important. I think it is silly to belittle history though. It isn’t about memorizing facts. There is a great deal of critical thinking that every citizen should do about history.
If some ignorant people who don’t care about history can’t remember why we fought the civil war, how is that a reason not to teach it? It’s still important.
We do need to understand the past and what we are capable of. We can’t afford a nation of people who don’t know who Adolf Hitler was or what he did.
Art is just as important, I agree. You claim that art plays a role in throughout people’s lives. It does to those who chose to let it play a role. Same with history. Those mall rats who don’t know who fought in the civil war, probably don’t know the first thing about fine art of have much appreciation of it. People who have an interest in the world and in learning probably have an interest in both to a degree.
It’s a pretty silly argument you make. Burn them not me!
Wednesday ~ June 15th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Adam Ozimek
If you think art is “just as important” as history, you agree way more with me than you disagree with me, and you are suggesting a large departure from the status quo where history is held as obviously and significantly more important than art.
Wednesday ~ June 15th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Barry
“As Will Wilkinson pointed out to me, history is something anyone with reading comprehension can teach themselves,…”
F*ck WW. We should stop listening to the libertarian think-tankers who brought us to the present mess. The whole frakkin’ point of education is that there is a lot that people don’t
(or can’t) learn without on their own without some prior training.
Wednesday ~ June 15th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Rick Russell
Quiet, man! How are we supposed to maintain the cognitive divide with talk like that?
Thursday ~ June 16th, 2011 at 8:52 am
GT
I shall knock down Ozimek’s specious “argument” with once sentence. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — Santayana
Thursday ~ June 16th, 2011 at 9:45 am
egyptsteve
Actually, according to Thucydides, we’re condemned to repeat the past one way or another. The advantage to remembering the past for him was just that, when the shit-storm hits, you at least know why it’s happening.
But the real problem is conceptualizing what it is that students are supposed to learn when they learn history. All the stories about people not knowing history is about them not knowing basic units of data. And Ozimek is right that learning that sort of history can be accomplished by watching decent videos.
But real history teaching ought to involve research, critical thinking, the skills of making strong persuasive arguments based on data, on discriminating what is data and what is opinion, etc. History is not the only discipline through which those skills can be taught, but it’s a good one.
As for learning about the Mayans or the Egyptians, or whatever, two things. One: As the philosopher of history Robin Collingwood put it (more or less): As the ancient Greeks put it, it’s important for any whole person to “know himself.” Humanity needs to know itself. The only way to know who and what you are is to know what you’re capable of. But no one can know what he is capable of before he does it. The only possible way to know what you might be able to do in the future is to know what you’ve done in the past. Therefore, history is crucial for humanity’s self knowledge.
Two: people should be encourage to study stuff that they think is fun and interesting, for its own sake. Lots of people find the Mayans and the Egyptians fun and interesting.
Thursday ~ June 16th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Jason
There are some good points, but I please make a distinction between “history buffs” and actual trained historians. I rarely find the same type of mentality in the two.
Also while art is important, among the people I know they often tend to not be interested in the world around them, politics, current issues to the level historians are. I guess I can see the arguments about job marketability etc, but I’d rather have a historian as president with his/her finger on the button.
Thursday ~ June 16th, 2011 at 9:53 am
GT
@egyptsteve: I’m actually catching up on my Ancient Greek and Roman History to prep for when I apply to grad. school (Classics). I really appreciate your timely comments.
Thursday ~ June 16th, 2011 at 10:11 am
s.
As an urban designer, I want to assure you that designers, architects and planners who are ignorant of history, are generally terrible at their jobs. If you don’t “memorize the facts” of how people lived and built in the past, you will fail to understand the present condition of the sites where you work. Do you really want a crop or architects who don’t know how cities came to be how they are, or who never learned why projects like Cabrini Green were total disasters? Because that sounds like a bad idea to me.
Thursday ~ June 16th, 2011 at 10:39 am
tl_angel13@hotmail.com
I would just like to point out that most revisionist historians do not believe that the Civil War was fought primarily over slavery. Context is key.
Don’t harp on something you clearly don’t understand. Your lack of education and understanding speaks through.
Thursday ~ June 16th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Mr. Grey
This is such an appalling load of nonsense I have no idea where to start. Let’s try the following:
History is not just a boring story about the past it is a guide to the present.
Firstly, and most obviously, it helps people analogize about the present. By understanding how past events occurred we can, in theory, avoid repeating them. Let me give you some examples. In the run-up to the Iraq War (which over 70% of people supported, before that little factoid goes down the memory hole) a bunch of scholars got together and predicted what a clusterf*ck it was going to be. They were right, and their predictions were based on history, not art or personal insight.
Let’s try another shall we? When massive financial economic deregulation was introduced in the late 1990s some economic historians said, “Don’t do it, it will tank the economy.” They were ignored as fuddy-duddies who don’t get it. They were right, of course.
Let’s do another. After 9/11 the U.S. went batsh*t attacking the place. Guess who told people this was and remains a bad strategy? It wasn’t the majority, that’s for sure.
Now there is no doubt that a little history is probably worse than no history (as then everything looks like one thing – such as the ignorant hysterics who rant about Iran by comparing it to Nazi Germany). But a lot is a very very very good thing indeed.
Secondly, history provides important unifying stories and myths to society. No doubt, people will try to take advantage of that by trying to indoctrinate with FALSE stories, but that is a failure of teaching and society, not a failure of the subject of history in itself. Without unifying stories societies are more likely to fragment along sectional lines.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, history shows us how much of the way we think today is so incredibly specific to our time. People ignorant of history think people are basically the same across time and space. They aren’t. Let me give you an example of how culturally-specific our thinking is by referring to the value-system that the author (probably unintentionally) espouses when making his argument. He advocates that instead of teaching history the focus should be on “hard-nosed” issues such as economics or budget-balancing. Well apart from the fact that good history should do that to some degree anyway, this statement reveals the uniquely utilitarian bias the modern world exhibits towards all learning. If someone doesn’t get something they can “apply” it shouldn’t be thought. This is a robotic and myopic view of what “useful” knowledge looks like and – historically speaking – an anomaly in the history of human thought; not the norm. That little historical nugget is interesting in itself.
“A man who does not know history is destined to remain a child forever.” Cicero said that. Know who he is?
Oh, and the Civil War was 100% percent about slavery. Go read the secession proclamations written by all the seceding states if you are not sure.
Tuesday ~ June 21st, 2011 at 6:35 pm
C.
Basing the idea that the Civil War was “100% percent (sic) about slavery” on secession proclamations alone is a top-down way of looking at the situation. For individuals at the time, the decision to participate in the Civil War (or not) was one that came with varying motivations. Political affiliations, personal finances, family allegiances, the romance of war, etc., all played significant roles. On a more macro level (which, I think, is the language you’re trying to speak), westward expansion and its political outcomes weighed heavily, and while slavery may have been tied into the question here, and indeed, probably acted as the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, I think broader issues of power were ultimately more meaningful to the average individual involved in the process. Most people, after all, were not slaveholders. All that said, my opinion on the issue is less important than the recognition that professional historians shy away from definitively stating direct causes and effects, leading to a hodgepodge of narratives and interpretations of times past.
While I agree with some of what you’ve said, Mr. Grey, I think it’s important to recognize that historical studies beyond a secondary level of education are largely about nuanced interpretations of events that help shed new light on old ground. I agree that it’s a presentist activity, but history is not something we’re doomed to repeat if we simply don’t study it. We can thank the respective contingencies of differing periods of time for that. It does, however, offer a host of other benefits, including the ability to revisit our old biases and worldviews as we open ourselves up to fresh insights about our own, and others’, identities.
Thursday ~ June 16th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Thomas
This post is breathtakingly ignorant, and I don’t normally like to be so harsh in my criticism, but it is. Let me begin by saying that I think that art is hugely important. Creativity is a very important skill in any profession, and it is honed (as much as it can be, there are limits, some people are just more creative than others) through many acts of artistic expression, and thus starting art education early on in a child’s life in school and continuing it throughout is an immensely good idea. But somehow you’ve managed to miss the importance of history, perhaps because it is so all ecompassing. History has been around forever, which should say something to you about its importance. The narrative format has long been a way that people have utilized to explain their origins, to entertain, to convince others of the merits of their ideas, to pass down knowledge. It has long been a battleground because of people’s desire to manipulate others, to subjugate them, to control. It expresses everything that humans are and have been, and it points to where we will be. Understanding history helps us to better understand ourselves. One of the most basic ways that people get to know one another is through telling stories about themselves and others. History is everywhere, it is part of every discipline. Economics has Economic History, which does important things like inform our response to the current economic crisis (Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman is a prominent economic historian). Science has the History of Science, which helps to inform science policy through its examination of the foundations of scientific formation, which helps to structure the institutions that foster innovation (e.g. Thomas Kuhn’s the Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a foundational work in our understanding of how scientific innovation happens, and also a great work of history!). The Military has miliary history, which does important things like inform successful military strategies such as the “Clear, Hold, and Build” strategy in Iraq. Business has business history, which helps companies understand which things might work in the present by examining what has been tried in the past. Politics has political history, which helped James Madison structure the foundations of our country. I could go on, but the point is that by teaching us where we’ve been, history helps us chart a better path into the future. We live in a world created by the past. If you want to expand your business into Eastern Germany, do you think it might be a good idea to understand some of the history of Eastern Germany so that you know how to integrate your business into their culture? I would, and learned that from my German history professor who told an ammusing story about how when after the wall fell the German railway company Deutsche Bahn, which was formerly confined to the West, was trying to sell the cute medieval East German town of Bautzen as a tourist destination, and so they made up posters that said “Faerht nach Bautzen!” or “go to Bautzen!” The only problem was that Bautzen was the site of one of East Germany’s most notorious political prisons, and to the East Germans the phrase “Faerht nach Bautzen!” meant “Go to Jail!” Needless to say that add campaign didn’t last very long. And so I would change your list from professions needing to know history, from professions benefitting from knowing history, and I would actually make it a rather short list: ALL. You see, in the modern world every job that pays anything is focused on information, and history just happens to be the storehouse of all of human knowledge, every mistake and every success, and I so I don’t see how anyone could possibly think that history wasn’t of immense importance for school children to learn. Your inane argument that history has be learned by anyone with the ability to read could seemingly be applied to any subject. For instance Ramanujan was able to recreate all of 19th Century Mathematics from a simple algebra text book (you see the things you learn from history), but of course hardly anyone is that smart so we don’t say that kids don’t need to take math class. The same goes for history, and just because it tends to be so bably taught in comparison to math doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be taught. If you learn history, I mean really learn it, you learn how to identify which facts are important and which are not, you learn about causality and how different events relate to one another, you learn how to organize disparate sets of facts into a coherent narrative, you learn how to get rid of your preconceptions, how to examine your biases, how to understand how the past present and future are interconnected, and hopefully you gain wisdom, which is really the ultimate goal. You see, humanity has over the years tried a lot of different things, from different systems of governance to different ways of making our food. Some worked, and some did not, and understanding why is of great importance for our future. You ask why is knowing about the Mayans important. Well maybe for you it isn’t, but if you’re interested in why a very successful civilization collapsed all of a sudden, you might want to know, and I hope that you can see how that has far reaching consequences for everything from our public health system to our schools. Learning history is about learning about ourselves, which is where the Greeks told us we should start and where therapists tell us we should start today. “Those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it” is true because in the past someone has likely tried what you’re trying to do today, or at least something similar enough to provide some lesson to you, and if you don’t learn that lesson you’re likely to find yourself right back where they were after they failed. Our greatest advantage as a species over the others is our ability to get collectively smarter over the generations. That’s what learning history is all about.
Thursday ~ June 16th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Art/History « Movements and Moments
[...] believe in the power of art. Not as a fun distraction, but as a useful pedagogical tool. This post from Adam Ozimek makes a good point about the skills that youth learn in art class being more [...]
Saturday ~ June 18th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Down with History? « The Benevolent Solipsist
[...] Ozimek is looking for a fight. In a recent post he sought to defend the arts from being cut from public school budgets by suggesting another subject [...]
Sunday ~ July 3rd, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Thomas
History is not the subject we need to get rid of. Millions of dollars are going into school sports, when they could be going into more important classes such as art, science, math. Students are putting their focus on sports and simply not caring about anything else, and then they get to graduate from highschool witthout knowing a thing about necessary skills for life. Most devoted high school football players end up in the fast food business when they reach adulthood. Athletics is not a necessary course, therefore the schools should not spend on it as much as they currently are.