Randym Reflexions: On History
Too often, history is taught simply as a timeline: names and dates are quoted at students, who simply memorize them and return them on a test without really understanding it. Well, yes, history is linear. And yes, it's important to get it in order. However, to fully understand the whys of history, one must know the circumstances surrounding a given event.
"Why?" is not a scientific question, however, and is subject to an observer's opinion. The scientific questions for any subject, including history, are "What," "Where," "When," and "Who." Each of these can be proven, given the appropriate evidence. "Why" is and will remain an opinion, not fact.
However, history is not a series of impersonal events of social change, where humans are mere pawns with no impact peculiar to the individual. History was invented as a subject of study in order to teach people what has gone before, what to do better or to emulate. It was, in fact, a method of moral instruction.
History is not simply dates and names placed in a particular order. This is memorization, not understanding. It requires additional information to make that jump. One also has to learn about the times in which an historical figure lived in order to comprehend what might have been going through that person's mind. To put it another way, to understand "Why?" we must first wonder "Why not?"
Alternate history remains, in mainstream opinion, a field of layabout amateur historians simply describing opposites in history, such as the South winning the Civil War. Such speculations seem to have no intellectual depth, remaining simple fiction to be ignored by the true historian. In reality, alternate history can be a deeply researched field which examines pivotal points in history, examining different possibilities and what-ifs. By doing so, one can realize how certain events unfolded the way they did.
For example, take the spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire. The easy spread from city to city depended on the system of roads and communication. Then if one looks back to the last war with Carthage, one finds that without defeating that power, Rome would not have expanded to Jerusalem, much less built its famed road system. At best, Rome would have remained a western Mediterranean power, while Carthage's connections with its parent Phoenician lands would have allowed that city-state to be part of a confederation, if not an empire, in the eastern Mediterranean. In addition, Carthage's religious attitudes were even more hostile to the values of Christianity than Rome was. When one considers this, and the many other variables, it becomes an obvious part of God's plan for Rome to defeat Carthage.
The above example is inspired by Anne Carroll's Christ the King, Lord of History. It is the only place I have found a true "historical speculation" in a history text, and in fact this speculation on Carthage's defeat as part of the coming of Christ is also the inspiration for my position on alternate history as a whole.
When one moves from pure memorization to active speculation, from dry lists to searching after a hidden reason, true understanding of history can be found. If not, then history seems to be simple coincidence, an inevitability and predetermination that, if truly considered, only an atheist can accept.
"Why?" is not a scientific question, however, and is subject to an observer's opinion. The scientific questions for any subject, including history, are "What," "Where," "When," and "Who." Each of these can be proven, given the appropriate evidence. "Why" is and will remain an opinion, not fact.
However, history is not a series of impersonal events of social change, where humans are mere pawns with no impact peculiar to the individual. History was invented as a subject of study in order to teach people what has gone before, what to do better or to emulate. It was, in fact, a method of moral instruction.
History is not simply dates and names placed in a particular order. This is memorization, not understanding. It requires additional information to make that jump. One also has to learn about the times in which an historical figure lived in order to comprehend what might have been going through that person's mind. To put it another way, to understand "Why?" we must first wonder "Why not?"
Alternate history remains, in mainstream opinion, a field of layabout amateur historians simply describing opposites in history, such as the South winning the Civil War. Such speculations seem to have no intellectual depth, remaining simple fiction to be ignored by the true historian. In reality, alternate history can be a deeply researched field which examines pivotal points in history, examining different possibilities and what-ifs. By doing so, one can realize how certain events unfolded the way they did.
For example, take the spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire. The easy spread from city to city depended on the system of roads and communication. Then if one looks back to the last war with Carthage, one finds that without defeating that power, Rome would not have expanded to Jerusalem, much less built its famed road system. At best, Rome would have remained a western Mediterranean power, while Carthage's connections with its parent Phoenician lands would have allowed that city-state to be part of a confederation, if not an empire, in the eastern Mediterranean. In addition, Carthage's religious attitudes were even more hostile to the values of Christianity than Rome was. When one considers this, and the many other variables, it becomes an obvious part of God's plan for Rome to defeat Carthage.
The above example is inspired by Anne Carroll's Christ the King, Lord of History. It is the only place I have found a true "historical speculation" in a history text, and in fact this speculation on Carthage's defeat as part of the coming of Christ is also the inspiration for my position on alternate history as a whole.
When one moves from pure memorization to active speculation, from dry lists to searching after a hidden reason, true understanding of history can be found. If not, then history seems to be simple coincidence, an inevitability and predetermination that, if truly considered, only an atheist can accept.
posted by Bowman the Black at 9:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home