should all history books be destroyed and forgotten?

[lewisnotmiller]

how is youtube bad for teaching about history? besides that many people may not like youtube because of the value that's percieved about it like myspace, facebook and forums boards has.
does it not provide a better source of history with actually seeing what happened, rather than just reading? like with world war 2, the 9/11 attacks, famous crimes, etc.

Why would you possibly assume no bias in YouTube? Your understandng of bias is way too limited. I can easily present a topic in a completely truthful manner and still show clear bias. This is the case by book, video or orally.

The trick is not to distrust an sources of information. It's to learn critical reading skills. These apply to ALL information sources, including books, video, YouTube, personal recollections and photographs.

 

[kloth]

Why would you possibly assume no bias in YouTube? Your understandng of bias is way too limited. I can easily present a topic in a completely truthful manner and still show clear bias. This is the case by book, video or orally.

The trick is not to distrust an sources of information. It's to learn critical reading skills. These apply to ALL information sources, including books, video, YouTube, personal recollections and photographs.

video may not be 100% accurate, but it's a lot better than old rewrote history books.
we can always keep modern history books if anything. history books that have video to help back it up.
the real trick i believe is to take things in stride, rather than just believe anything and everything without question or thought.

 

[McBell]

video may not be 100% accurate, but it's a lot better than old rewrote history books.

Based on what?

the real trick i believe is to take things in stride, rather than just believe anything and everything without question or thought.

Wait...
Isn't that what you want everyone to do?
Just believe what they find on youtube?

 

[esmith]

video may not be 100% accurate, but it's a lot better than old rewrote history books.
we can always keep modern history books if anything. history books that have video to help back it up.
the real trick i believe is to take things in stride, rather than just believe anything and everything without question or thought.

So you only want history to start at the advent of the YouTube age? Again only reading one source of history is only taking one persons view on the subject. As it has been stated before, to be well informed you must use many sources of information and draw your own conclusions, which may or may not be correct.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

video may not be 100% accurate, but it's a lot better than old rewrote history books.
we can always keep modern history books if anything. history books that have video to help back it up.
the real trick i believe is to take things in stride, rather than just believe anything and everything without question or thought.

Right... so if I'm interested in the History of the Roman Empire, can look at YouTube videos that source their history from...well...history books.

Or are you contending that bias only exists in the written word, so to 'be safe' we should pretend nothing happened pre-1960.

On what basis are you claiming video is less biased than the written word?
Isn't the point that cross-verification of' information is preferable to reliance on ANY single source, even including personal experience?

 

[DallasApple]

[youtube]mFfvbu02JTI[/youtube]
Apples and Bananas (Rock with Barney) - YouTube

 

[DallasApple]

I also saw Barney "live" and learned a LOT!

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

No. As the saying goes, people who forget history are destined to repeat it. Perhaps the way in which history is being taught to young children should be modified in some way, but certain events such as the Holocaust and slavery in America's history, should never be forgotten.

We must remember history. Events such as the Holocaust must be taught to children even 100 or 1000 years from now, lest we forget and repeat the same mistakes.

 

[Caladan]

for a few reasons.
1. we have no proof how history really went down. how many people have rewrote history books for their own personal needs in the past? what proof do we have that the original documents are 100% factual?

Much of history is the art and science of doing exactly that. Identifying the agenda and reliability of historical or ancient documents, or description of events. You seem to have narrowed down history to simply story telling, while in fact much of the job of a historian, or an archaeologist is to bust through the myths and ideals of the past and expose them.

2. how many people are still angry about certain things in the past? a past that happened decades or centuries before they were even born? but they belief what they are taught 100%.

So basically, you are saying that people should be ignorant about their family's or culture's history, past, or heritage, for the simple reason that they might get upset?

some say the history books has not been altered. but why not? even some books with even more serious content like certain bibles have had some changes. so what's to stop that being done to history books as well?

I've never heard that one. The one thing they always pound people with is that all history books, and indeed any research or thesis is in fact agenda driven. But that certainly doesn't render any of them useless, it just means we have to take the agenda into consideration. Many texts do not even try to hide the agenda, as having an agenda is not necessarily a bad thing to begin with.

maybe it would be best to go by a history with more proof. like when we started using photography or video to document history better. if you believe seeing is better than just believing.

In that case I don't understand why you are up in arms. Most people are certainly not THAT upset about events which happened long before the age of photography or modern media. In fact I would say that this age is not necessarily bringing more objectivity, as photographs and videos are easily edited, staged, or broadcast in such a way that is aimed to make people see a certain reality.

 

[kloth]

Based on what?



Wait...
Isn't that what you want everyone to do?
Just believe what they find on youtube?

based on seeing is believing more so than reading is believing.

as for the second question, i never said that.

 

[kloth]

So you only want history to start at the advent of the YouTube age? Again only reading one source of history is only taking one persons view on the subject. As it has been stated before, to be well informed you must use many sources of information and draw your own conclusions, which may or may not be correct.

i never said that either. i did bring up the video age. funny how you missed that part.
we should take reliable sources.

Right... so if I'm interested in the History of the Roman Empire, can look at YouTube videos that source their history from...well...history books.

Or are you contending that bias only exists in the written word, so to 'be safe' we should pretend nothing happened pre-1960.

On what basis are you claiming video is less biased than the written word?
Isn't the point that cross-verification of' information is preferable to reliance on ANY single source, even including personal experience?

knowing about the roman empire is something you would have never missed if you were never told about it. why teach your kids something they don't need, when there are so many other things in the modern age to learn?
like i mentioned before, we could keep modern history books that have video to back it up.

No. As the saying goes, people who forget history are destined to repeat it. Perhaps the way in which history is being taught to young children should be modified in some way, but certain events such as the Holocaust and slavery in America's history, should never be forgotten.

We must remember history. Events such as the Holocaust must be taught to children even 100 or 1000 years from now, lest we forget and repeat the same mistakes.

do you always go by sayings? just because everyone else does, then you believe it? people don't learn from history anyway. we still make ALL the same exact mistakes over and over. i'm not saying to take away science books, keep those.

Much of history is the art and science of doing exactly that. Identifying the agenda and reliability of historical or ancient documents, or description of events. You seem to have narrowed down history to simply story telling, while in fact much of the job of a historian, or an archaeologist is to bust through the myths and ideals of the past and expose them.

So basically, you are saying that people should be ignorant about their family's or culture's history, past, or heritage, for the simple reason that they might get upset?


I've never heard that one. The one thing they always pound people with is that all history books, and indeed any research or thesis is in fact agenda driven. But that certainly doesn't render any of them useless, it just means we have to take the agenda into consideration. Many texts do not even try to hide the agenda, as having an agenda is not necessarily a bad thing to begin with.


In that case I don't understand why you are up in arms. Most people are certainly not THAT upset about events which happened long before the age of photography or modern media. In fact I would say that this age is not necessarily bringing more objectivity, as photographs and videos are easily edited, staged, or broadcast in such a way that is aimed to make people see a certain reality.

people know nothing of their family past really. cover ups happen today the same they have gone then. people will lie for their family "honor" just like they do in courtrooms.

 

[Caladan]

people know nothing of their family past really. cover ups happen today the same they have gone then. people will lie for their family "honor" just like they do in courtrooms.

Sorry to hear about your family, must have been rough growing up.

I see it's going to be another night of wonderful and intellectual stimuli on RF... might as well take a break watching an episode from the sixth season of True Blood (maybe somewhere in her mind's eye, Draka is reading this).

 

[kloth]

Sorry to hear about your family, must have been rough growing up.

I see it's going to be another night of wonderful and intellectual stimuli on RF... might as well take a break watching an episode from the sixth season of True Blood (maybe somewhere in her mind's eye, Draka is reading this).

i never said that about my family specifically. i never said how i grew up either, sir, which is irrelevant to the subject. knowing about your ancient family history is not needed anyway for growing up good, even if you allow it cripple you today. i get the feeling you might be speaking of your own growing pains. you also seem to be getting very upset about this, and looking for cheap shots. so i'll let this go with you.
thanks for the interest.

:beach:

 

[McBell]

based on seeing is believing more so than reading is believing.

So you want it to be much easier for people to lie about history?

as for the second question, i never said that.

I was asking a question, hence the question mark...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Interesting. On the one hand we have exhibit A...

do you always go by sayings? just because everyone else does, then you believe it?

But when asked why you think video is more accurate than writing, you offer up this...

based on seeing is believing more so than reading is believing.

Gets tough to know where to start with this stuff, to be honest.
First off, you've offered no reason to suspect video is in any way more reliable than writing in terms of accuracy. I have no doubt it's NOT more accurate. Why should it be? You think that our history of the Vietnam War is more accurate and commonly understood than the American Civil War?

Secondly, history is undervalued and much more important in my mind than you give it credit for. Note I have said 'in my mind', but given that you're topic is 'destroying all history books' that actually counts. The way you view history, based on your posts here (which may or may not be a full representation of what you actually think about this) seems to limit the impact of learning about history to direct learning about verifiable facts. This would seem to me an extremely limited view of what history teaches.

I could wax lyrical about it, but it'd be wasted on you. No issue with that, it's you prerogative. But I'll happily take the perspective and balance an understanding of history provides me, along with the countless examples I have looked at since I was a child on how humans act under pressure, how they act in situations of depravity, the true nature of heroes, etc. My ability to verify information, to cross-check it for veracity, for critical reading were largely developed through studying history, but these are amazingly important skills when surfing the net, since the sources of information are so commonly not of clear academic standing.

 

[kloth]

So you want it to be much easier for people to lie about history?

well you don't have to believe the audio part of a video if you don't want, but having video is much more reliable than drawings or paintings. and often you can't lie with the audio when the video shows what's going on in person.

Interesting. On the one hand we have exhibit A...



But when asked why you think video is more accurate than writing, you offer up this...



Gets tough to know where to start with this stuff, to be honest.
First off, you've offered no reason to suspect video is in any way more reliable than writing in terms of accuracy. I have no doubt it's NOT more accurate. Why should it be? You think that our history of the Vietnam War is more accurate and commonly understood than the American Civil War?

Secondly, history is undervalued and much more important in my mind than you give it credit for. Note I have said 'in my mind', but given that you're topic is 'destroying all history books' that actually counts. The way you view history, based on your posts here (which may or may not be a full representation of what you actually think about this) seems to limit the impact of learning about history to direct learning about verifiable facts. This would seem to me an extremely limited view of what history teaches.

I could wax lyrical about it, but it'd be wasted on you. No issue with that, it's you prerogative. But I'll happily take the perspective and balance an understanding of history provides me, along with the countless examples I have looked at since I was a child on how humans act under pressure, how they act in situations of depravity, the true nature of heroes, etc. My ability to verify information, to cross-check it for veracity, for critical reading were largely developed through studying history, but these are amazingly important skills when surfing the net, since the sources of information are so commonly not of clear academic standing.

with those two wars you mentioned. we have interviews with the soldiers and their next in command, soldiers families, presidential leaders, the public, footage up front in the middle of the action and all kinds of other stuff from the Vietnam war.
if you were to lets say do a report on this war let's just say, make a serious documentary on it, and you only had one choice. books or videos to help with that resource. what would you pick? the books side to the war or the video? if you could only pick one.

 

[dust1n]

well you don't have to believe the audio part of a video if you don't want, but having video is much more reliable than drawings or paintings. and often you can't lie with the audio when the video shows what's going on in person.

with those two wars you mentioned. we have interviews with the soldiers and their next in command, soldiers families, presidential leaders, the public, footage up front in the middle of the action and all kinds of other stuff from the Vietnam war.
if you were to lets say do a report on this war let's just say, make a serious documentary on it, and you only had one choice. books or videos to help with that resource. what would you pick? the books side to the war or the video? if you could only pick one.

I might be mistaken here, but, uh, it would be impossible to make a serious documentary without video. Of course, a documentary with no book work would be terrible.

 

[kloth]

I might be mistaken here, but, uh, it would be impossible to make a serious documentary without video. Of course, a documentary with no book work would be terrible.

if you don't explain why it would be terrible, then it's hard to follow what you say. anything you read in a book can be heard in a video. but interviews where you actually hear and watch them talking is much assured than reading the same interview only.
to me at least.

 

[dust1n]

if you don't explain why it would be terrible, then it's hard to follow what you say. anything you read in a book can be heard in a video. but interviews where you actually hear and watch them talking is much assured than reading the same interview only.
to me at least.

Wow... I'd love to a see a video of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, or Bolano's 2666. Or any number of my textbooks!

It would be terrible because something unresearched is going to be poorly constructed. Why is something more assured is someone says it as opposed to writes it-- that doesn't follow. Secondly... people speak much differently then they read, and most people can't recite immaculately. It would sure be hard to speak a 600 page narrative without ever having written any of it down.

 

[McBell]

well you don't have to believe the audio part of a video if you don't want, but having video is much more reliable than drawings or paintings. and often you can't lie with the audio when the video shows what's going on in person.

So based on the video I saw last night, it is a historical fact that Gollum fell into the fire in the mountain with the one ring that binds them all.

And here i thought that it was fiction....