should all history books be destroyed and forgotten?

[Caladan]

Yeap, videos are reliable.

[youtube]up5jmbSjWkw[/youtube]
ALIENS IN MEXICO !!! - YouTube



[youtube]cZuZ_ha2XtM[/youtube]
Dome of the Rock UFO Jerusalem - New close up footage - YouTube

 

[dust1n]

Even if it's the case that video was superior, which I doubt, I still am failing to see the reasoning for destorying all the history books.

 

[esmith]

Why don't we take a look at one time period that eventually resulted in over 169,000 Americans casualties. Yet, just less that 9 years before the start of this "conflict" the US had made some of the same mistakes. The year is 1950 and the Secretary of State Dean Acheson leaves Korea out of the US "defense perimeter" (although evidence from Russia & N.Korea archives indicates this had no bearing on the action taken(2). Although anyone looking at the area could see that Korea was the only land base the US could use to threaten both China and the Soviet Pacific Fleet. The US was in a stand-down mode from WWII, President Truman and his Sec Def Louis Johnson slashed the US military far below what it was prior to WWII proposing the scrapping or mothballing much of the Navy's surface fleets and amphibious forces, Johnson ordered nearly all of the Army inventories of surplus World War II tanks, communications equipment, personnel carriers, and small arms be scrapped or sold off to other countries(3). In 1949 the US troops began the withdrawal of Korea, leaving the South Korean army with only light weapons, and no anti-tank weapons. Their air force consisted of 12 planes (trainers or light observation). Whereas North Korea had 122 aircraft, primarily top line fighters and bombers, and over 90,000 well trained and equipped ground forces.(4)

This is just one period of time where history books should point out the obvious adage of "Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".


(1) Korean War Casualty Stats
(2) Dean Acheson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(3) Louis A. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(4) Hot Shots by Jennie Chancey and William Forstchen

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

You seem to be completely missing my point.
1) American Civil War. No direct video footage.
2) Vietnam. Lots of direct video footage

Based on your hypothesis we should be vastly more informed about Vietnam. I don't believe that is true.

As for your question, books, easily Luckily, it's only hypothetical so in actual real life I would get as much information of decent quality as possible, critically evaluate & cross-check it, and form my opinion about the topic a hand.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

You seem to be completely missing my point.
1) American Civil War. No direct video footage.
2) Vietnam. Lots of direct video footage

Based on your hypothesis we should be vastly more informed about Vietnam. I don't believe that is true.

As for your question, books, easily Luckily, it's only hypothetical so in actual real life I would get as much information of decent quality as possible, critically evaluate & cross-check it, and form my opinion about the topic a hand.

 

[kloth]

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.

okay, but this is about history books. non-fiction. :foot:

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....

again, this thread is about history books. there is nothing saying that everything on video is non fiction. if you wanna believe homer simpson is a real life person you can, but i'm not claiming that. :beach:

You seem to be completely missing my point.
1) American Civil War. No direct video footage.
2) Vietnam. Lots of direct video footage

Based on your hypothesis we should be vastly more informed about Vietnam. I don't believe that is true.

As for your question, books, easily Luckily, it's only hypothetical so in actual real life I would get as much information of decent quality as possible, critically evaluate & cross-check it, and form my opinion about the topic a hand.

i didn't miss your point. i just don't see eye to eye with it.

what i am saying is we should forget about the American Civil War, we don't have any concrete proof what it was really about. you may not like that idea, but future generations who are not acknowledged about it won't ever miss it.
this may be a matter of seeing is believing rather than reading and believing. now no offense, but you may be more systematic than me, you may feel that forgetting certain history you grew up on would be taking a large chunk out of your personal life. unless the world ends, then future generations may thank you.

Even if it's the case that video was superior, which I doubt, I still am failing to see the reasoning for destorying all the history books.

the Mexico video was pretty cool. but it doesn't seem to be showing a reliable national known tv news source making a report about this. it's not like people are going to watch something like 'star wars' and think it's real. we all know fake videos can be made and we can tell they are obviously fake, but when people read an old history book from 500 years ago they suddenly come across, they believe every word without question or thought usually, especially if they get it from school. but even from a book store. why? i guess people are just trusting if the publisher is well established.

 

[OlafTheHairy]

Hi, I'm new here, well a long-time lurker who finally got spurred into activity by this thread! Having a PhD in history probably has something to do with it . There are so many points made by kloth that I have issue with that I barely know where to start, so i'll pick up from the last reply and just go on from there!

what i am saying is we should forget about the American Civil War, we don't have any concrete proof what it was really about. you may not like that idea, but future generations who are not acknowledged about it won't ever miss it.
this may be a matter of seeing is believing rather than reading and believing. now no offense, but you may be more systematic than me, you may feel that forgetting certain history you grew up on would be taking a large chunk out of your personal life. unless the world ends, then future generations may thank you.

You made the same point earlier about the Roman Empire, implying that if it was simply wiped from the history books then no-one would ever know or ask of it again. This is utter nonsense. Why? Because the legacy of such events and periods of time are all around us even if you don't own a single history book. I live in Britain and here there are all sorts of historic buildings, monuments etc. that date far back in the past. If all history books were burned we would simply lose the explanations behind these sites, not the sites themselves, and the result would be that people are totally ignorant but still naturally curious, as human beings are. Your assumption that people would simply forget about the Romans, for example is naive because you seem to forget that a ton of physical evidence will remain, not least in Rome itself!

the Mexico video was pretty cool. but it doesn't seem to be showing a reliable national known tv news source making a report about this. it's not like people are going to watch something like 'star wars' and think it's real. we all know fake videos can be made and we can tell they are obviously fake, but when people read an old history book from 500 years ago they suddenly come across, they believe every word without question or thought usually, especially if they get it from school. but even from a book store. why? i guess people are just trusting if the publisher is well established.

This is why it's important that history continues to be taught, and that children are given the skills and opportunity to analyse sources of information. If people are reading history books and taking everything at face value then the problem lies with the reader, not with the book. This doesn't only apply to reading history, in fact you've seemingly unwittingly given another crucial example of why learning the historical method is so important...the media. You say that a 'reliable tv news source' reporting on the Mexican video would be an important factor, why, exactly? Should we simply believe everything the media tells us, without question? Do they not have an agenda?

 

[kloth]

Hi, I'm new here, well a long-time lurker who finally got spurred into activity by this thread! Having a PhD in history probably has something to do with it . There are so many points made by kloth that I have issue with that I barely know where to start, so i'll pick up from the last reply and just go on from there!



You made the same point earlier about the Roman Empire, implying that if it was simply wiped from the history books then no-one would ever know or ask of it again. This is utter nonsense. Why? Because the legacy of such events and periods of time are all around us even if you don't own a single history book. I live in Britain and here there are all sorts of historic buildings, monuments etc. that date far back in the past. If all history books were burned we would simply lose the explanations behind these sites, not the sites themselves, and the result would be that people are totally ignorant but still naturally curious, as human beings are. Your assumption that people would simply forget about the Romans, for example is naive because you seem to forget that a ton of physical evidence will remain, not least in Rome itself!



This is why it's important that history continues to be taught, and that children are given the skills and opportunity to analyse sources of information. If people are reading history books and taking everything at face value then the problem lies with the reader, not with the book. This doesn't only apply to reading history, in fact you've seemingly unwittingly given another crucial example of why learning the historical method is so important...the media. You say that a 'reliable tv news source' reporting on the Mexican video would be an important factor, why, exactly? Should we simply believe everything the media tells us, without question? Do they not have an agenda?

if the worlds memory of the romans was totally wiped clean gone, and any proof of it's existence destroyed. the world would still carry on with no set backs in my opinion, it's a much different age and time now. since the 20th century, the world has changed drastically since then. what was going on with history before then doesn't matter much to me, however many hundreds or thousands of years humans existed before then, then weren't able to do nearly as much as humans have done the last 100+ years. so what is their credit worth? not much to me.

lets say i believe you really do have a Phd, not that i am saying you don't. then that tells me there is no way you will ever see things different from what you have been conditioned with your entire life, and perhaps dedicated your life and career around. you at least will not admit it, that's how people are. well most at least.

children are being taught useless information these days, pushed through school like drones to get through the system with a population that keeps rising at high speeds. this is why we live a world with so many people who are selfish, self centered, materialist, careless, reckless, hateful, violent, ingrateful, lost, full of issues, not sincere, not honest who are only concerned with their ego and showing off.
it doesn't matter if they are taught by older drones at the best drone schools.
i also didn't say to rid all history, but start from a medern day and age of history that's more realible.
i didn't say that if mexico news put that video out, then it makes it 100% true. if you don't wanna believe anything the news says then that's your right.
funny how you might doubt the news but believe everything what you are fed about the romans?
thanks for you interest in my thread.

 

[OlafTheHairy]

if the worlds memory of the romans was totally wiped clean gone, and any proof of it's existence destroyed. the world would still carry on with no set backs in my opinion, it's a much different age and time now. since the 20th century, the world has changed drastically since then. what was going on with history before then doesn't matter much to me, however many hundreds or thousands of years humans existed before then, then weren't able to do nearly as much as humans have done the last 100+ years. so what is their credit worth? not much to me.

Of course the world has changed drastically, no-one would argue with that, however it's useful to be able to look at historic failures, for example because we can learn a lot from their experiences. What's more, many people are interested in how things came to be as they are now. If we stick with the Roman Empire example, it's impossible to explain how Christianity came to be the dominant religion in Europe and the West without reference to Constantine the Great. You are never going to erase this curiosity from people.

I should also add that the legacy of the Romans is everywhere, not just in history books or even architecture. Latin is everywhere, it's used in law, in biology, it's even written on the side of pound coins over here! Much of the English language is ultimately of Latin origin. Destroying all evidence of the Roman Empire is impossible without literally destroying the whole of Western Civilisation, even if you don't care about it yourself, as is your right which I have no argument with.

lets say i believe you really do have a Phd, not that i am saying you don't. then that tells me there is no way you will ever see things different from what you have been conditioned with your entire life, and perhaps dedicated your life and career around. you at least will not admit it, that's how people are. well most at least.

I don't mean to make a fuss about having a PhD, it was really only an explanation of why I became interested in this thread. I'm actually quite ignorant of a lot of history because there's so much of it out there! For the record, my area is (or was) ancient Greece...I don't work in the field any more.

I'm interested in understanding what you mean about conditioning, I assume you mean through history classes at school, right? It's true that children are very impressionable and even right now I can remember falsehoods that were taught to me in history classes, particularly regarding the ancient Britons (who really seem to have borne the brunt of the old saying 'history is written by the victors'!), but this has been put right since and people are a lot more aware of this period nowadays. Is this what you mean or something on a grander scale?

children are being taught useless information these days, pushed through school like drones to get through the system with a population that keeps rising at high speeds. this is why we live a world with so many people who are selfish, self centered, materialist, careless, reckless, hateful, violent, ingrateful, lost, full of issues, not sincere, not honest who are only concerned with their ego and showing off.

I'm not sure what all this has to do with history, and I'm not sure how ensuring people are completely ignorant is going to improve such things.

it doesn't matter if they are taught by older drones at the best drone schools.

Does this only apply to history or other subjects too? I agree that history is the most easily manipulated of all school subjects, but wiping out all evidence is only going to make it easier for a malicious system to come up with total rubbish.

i also didn't say to rid all history, but start from a medern day and age of history that's more realible.

I've been looking at your previous comments regarding using Youtube for teaching modern history and two points spring to mind. Firstly, this would only have the result of making history classes less analytical. Showing a video and saying 'here are the facts' simply isn't history, it's dangerously close to indoctrination because video evidence is very easy to maniplate...you only have to watch Ancient Aliens as an example. Secondly, a question...do you mean videos in the form of documentaries or simply raw footage? I ask because credible documentaries would use written or other evidence in order to give the show context, as well as being based on research, which is also written.

i didn't say that if mexico news put that video out, then it makes it 100% true. if you don't wanna believe anything the news says then that's your right.
funny how you might doubt the news but believe everything what you are fed about the romans?
thanks for you interest in my thread.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but I got the impression that you meant video evidence becomes more credible when shown by the media.

I didn't say I disbelieve everything on the news, many things are less subject to bias, for example sports results, weather reports or mundane news stories. However I would be sceptical of a news channel reporting something as fact when other channels report it differently, if the story doesn't make any sense or is based on opinion or weasel words, e.g. 'many people are doubting...', 'however some think that...' etc.

Regarding the final comment...who is doing this feeding of information you are telling me about? For my research I studied Greek historical texts that have been in the public domain for milennia, other Greek historical texts that have recently been dug up out of the Egyptian desert, inscriptions, coinage, some archaeologcal evidence as well as a whole range of incidental evidence (e.g. ancient Greek poetry). Are you implying that all this evidence was somehow falsified?

 

[OlafTheHairy]

One further comment on this:

funny how you might doubt the news but believe everything what you are fed about the romans?

What makes you think I'm not critical about sources on the Romans, the Greeks or any period of history for that matter? For anyone writing a PhD thesis on history it is a matter of duty to be critical, not just of ancient sources and evidence but of modern scholarship too. Analysing a news report or a historical text for accuracy or bias is much the same thing (except, of course, that I had much more time to do so with the texts).

 

[YmirGF]

This is a silly thread. There are videos of vegetables dancing on YouTube that are far more intelligent and interesting than this.

You saw the Michelle Obama dancing videos too!

History is one of the most important subjects around. End of story.

Indeed it is.

youtube does a better job at that than history books that were made before the video age.

I only managed to get to the end of page two before I decided this thread wasn't worth the effort of serious introspection.

All this aside, I can readily understand why certain groups would like history to conform to their narrative, however these nasty things called facts tend to spoil their little sideshows.

 

[kloth]

Of course the world has changed drastically, no-one would argue with that, however it's useful to be able to look at historic failures, for example because we can learn a lot from their experiences. What's more, many people are interested in how things came to be as they are now. If we stick with the Roman Empire example, it's impossible to explain how Christianity came to be the dominant religion in Europe and the West without reference to Constantine the Great. You are never going to erase this curiosity from people.

I should also add that the legacy of the Romans is everywhere, not just in history books or even architecture. Latin is everywhere, it's used in law, in biology, it's even written on the side of pound coins over here! Much of the English language is ultimately of Latin origin. Destroying all evidence of the Roman Empire is impossible without literally destroying the whole of Western Civilisation, even if you don't care about it yourself, as is your right which I have no argument with.



I don't mean to make a fuss about having a PhD, it was really only an explanation of why I became interested in this thread. I'm actually quite ignorant of a lot of history because there's so much of it out there! For the record, my area is (or was) ancient Greece...I don't work in the field any more.

I'm interested in understanding what you mean about conditioning, I assume you mean through history classes at school, right? It's true that children are very impressionable and even right now I can remember falsehoods that were taught to me in history classes, particularly regarding the ancient Britons (who really seem to have borne the brunt of the old saying 'history is written by the victors'!), but this has been put right since and people are a lot more aware of this period nowadays. Is this what you mean or something on a grander scale?



I'm not sure what all this has to do with history, and I'm not sure how ensuring people are completely ignorant is going to improve such things.



Does this only apply to history or other subjects too? I agree that history is the most easily manipulated of all school subjects, but wiping out all evidence is only going to make it easier for a malicious system to come up with total rubbish.



I've been looking at your previous comments regarding using Youtube for teaching modern history and two points spring to mind. Firstly, this would only have the result of making history classes less analytical. Showing a video and saying 'here are the facts' simply isn't history, it's dangerously close to indoctrination because video evidence is very easy to maniplate...you only have to watch Ancient Aliens as an example. Secondly, a question...do you mean videos in the form of documentaries or simply raw footage? I ask because credible documentaries would use written or other evidence in order to give the show context, as well as being based on research, which is also written.



Sorry if I misunderstood, but I got the impression that you meant video evidence becomes more credible when shown by the media.

I didn't say I disbelieve everything on the news, many things are less subject to bias, for example sports results, weather reports or mundane news stories. However I would be sceptical of a news channel reporting something as fact when other channels report it differently, if the story doesn't make any sense or is based on opinion or weasel words, e.g. 'many people are doubting...', 'however some think that...' etc.

Regarding the final comment...who is doing this feeding of information you are telling me about? For my research I studied Greek historical texts that have been in the public domain for milennia, other Greek historical texts that have recently been dug up out of the Egyptian desert, inscriptions, coinage, some archaeologcal evidence as well as a whole range of incidental evidence (e.g. ancient Greek poetry). Are you implying that all this evidence was somehow falsified?

we do learn from failures of history, and so what? we still repeat the same ole down fails over and over time again when we know better. so keeping old history books around for that reason is not valid at all to me. as far as religious history, that doesn't concern me no offense to anyone. i don't think religious is doing much good these days, and maybe never has. but that's from my experience and opinion.
i am not saying to bring down buildings or to destroy science books, just history books. you don't have to break down a building because the history on it is gone.
you can say you have a Phd. it's just from my experience in debates on forums i just notice everyone always brings up they have a Phd, degree, masters, etc. in the same exact subject at hand or close to it, which seems odd, but maybe it's true. whatever.

by conditioning, i mean at school, on tv, from their parents and what their parents were taught. i come across people who often have never thought of or had brought to attention of an alternate possible theory. some history might be true, but without knowing for sure then it's worthless to me, especially when people don't better themself from learning about history at all.

i think we would have a better chance of making people not so ignorant and to better themselves, is by teaching them history that stands more ground. the romans history almost seems like a fairy tale to me, that's why i would say things like that should not be taught in school. being taught with books is good/better so long as there is video footage from that era to go with it. other wise it's like reading up on ole saint nick.


people are still going to come up with theories of ancient history, but at least without history books as such, they won't be convinced like how people are with history books and believing everything it says 100%. like how mankind got it's start on earth, from what i seen most people are not convinced how it started.

i'm not saying youtube is 100% accurate with their footage, but way more than just reading a book and having that as your only resource. like with the manson killings, as interested as people are about that case, imagine if we only had books to go by and not interviews from video of the actual people involved. if we only had books on that case then i would bet that a 100 years after that crime, some people would really start to believe manson was the son of man after twisting it a little. the human mind is easy, easier than they care to admit, especially the masses.

as far as the media and their video footage. i would say it's more creditable than someone who just shot it with their home camera. nothing is 100% solid in making sure it's all facts, but video helps make things more convincing, people can still lie.
but books from 500 years ago that have been rewrote time again, and the only proof is from that book has most people convinced of how all kinds of history.
as much as i would like to believe people have more common sense than that, they don't, most people believe in and are proud to be following drones.
that's my opinion at least. take it for what it's worth to you.

 

[kloth]

I only managed to get to the end of page two before I decided this thread wasn't worth the effort of serious introspection.
.

then why reply?

One further comment on this:

What makes you think I'm not critical about sources on the Romans, the Greeks or any period of history for that matter? For anyone writing a PhD thesis on history it is a matter of duty to be critical, not just of ancient sources and evidence but of modern scholarship too. Analysing a news report or a historical text for accuracy or bias is much the same thing (except, of course, that I had much more time to do so with the texts).

because you are defending roman history being taught. documentries and news reports are better than ancient stories out of a book as it's only resource.
lets say there was actual video of interviews of the romans and on the scene footage of what the romans were doing there, would you have kids go by the books still to learn first or the video first? even if you used both.
it's like if you hear about an armed robbery at a store, are you going to go by what the news paper says about what happend? or by what you see on the surveilence camera(s) if posted on youtube? assuming the cameras got it all and the audio as well.

 

[Me Myself]

Hstory is one of the least trustworthy subjects IMHO. Even when we analize the trustworthiness of each source of info.

That said, as long as everything is taken with grain of salt (and the correct amount of grains for each claim ) it is okay.

I do think its important to know history, at least version of it that we have now and this version being a constantly refined one.

We should actually learn from history after all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

i didn't miss your point. i just don't see eye to eye with it.

what i am saying is we should forget about the American Civil War, we don't have any concrete proof what it was really about. you may not like that idea, but future generations who are not acknowledged about it won't ever miss it.

We'll never see eye to eye because I dont subscribe to the theory that ignorance is bliss. The concept that no one in the future would wonder about history if it wasntcrecorded and wouldnt miss it is frankly prepostorous. Id love to see you explain that tgeory to Caladan on this site, for example.

this may be a matter of seeing is believing rather than reading and believing. now no offense, but you may be more systematic than me, you may feel that forgetting certain history you grew up on would be taking a large chunk out of your personal life. unless the world ends, then future generations may thank you.

Phttt. Trying to equate my views to some misguided personal experience I extrapolate out to a skewed
worldview is one of the better demonstrations of irony I've seen lately.

when people read an old history book from 500 years ago they suddenly come across, they believe every word without question or thought usually, especially if they get it from school. but even from a book store. why? i guess people are just trusting if the publisher is well established.

The ONLY people who do this are people who are not well-read and haven't been taught critical reading skills. Ironically the interpretive nature of history it is one of the more effective vehicles for teaching this.

 

[OlafTheHairy]

we do learn from failures of history, and so what? we still repeat the same ole down fails over and over time again when we know better. so keeping old history books around for that reason is not valid at all to me. as far as religious history, that doesn't concern me no offense to anyone. i don't think religious is doing much good these days, and maybe never has. but that's from my experience and opinion.

I'm not religious, the spread of Christianity was just an example of how people would remain to be curious about these things. If you're not interested then fine, but you cannot speak for the whole of humanity, the very existence of history as a discipline is testament to mankind's will to learn about the past.

i am not saying to bring down buildings or to destroy science books, just history books. you don't have to break down a building because the history on it is gone.

To bring a situation where no-one is interested in the past would require such destruction. Destroying history books alone would be pointless, it would only see history being researched again from scratch through archaeology and other disciplines, only with far fewer resources.

you can say you have a Phd. it's just from my experience in debates on forums i just notice everyone always brings up they have a Phd, degree, masters, etc. in the same exact subject at hand or close to it, which seems odd, but maybe it's true. whatever.

Feel free to ignore what I claim, it's not important to my argument anyway...when I talked about having to be critical as a historian, this would apply equally to any historian.

by conditioning, i mean at school, on tv, from their parents and what their parents were taught. i come across people who often have never thought of or had brought to attention of an alternate possible theory.

This is true with any subject, and it is why history continues to be researched. Believe me, there is nothing more frustrating for a historian than to have an argument over some historical 'fact' that has long been debunked, only to be answered with those words...'Well, that's what my teacher taught me in school, are you telling me he was lying?'. When it comes to historical research, such conditioning is virtually irrelevant because it is so superficial anyway. The ancient Britons from my last post is a great example of this, and thankfully the popular perception of them has changed significantly since I was a schoolboy. In any case, I don't agree with your argument because you seem to be saying that it's better to be ignorant and stay that way rather than have prejudices challenged, this can only be done with research and effective teaching.

some history might be true, but without knowing for sure then it's worthless to me, especially when people don't better themself from learning about history at all.

i think we would have a better chance of making people not so ignorant and to better themselves, is by teaching them history that stands more ground. the romans history almost seems like a fairy tale to me, that's why i would say things like that should not be taught in school. being taught with books is good/better so long as there is video footage from that era to go with it. other wise it's like reading up on ole saint nick.

This simply doesn't make sense. As I just said, the way to combat ignorance is through research and teaching, not by actually enforcing ignorance through abandoning 99% of history. On the subject of Rome (and Greece for that matter) you're so far off the mark, there is a ton of evidence to be found on the subject, far more than any one person can be familiar with even if you limit yourself to literary evidence alone.

people are still going to come up with theories of ancient history, but at least without history books as such, they won't be convinced like how people are with history books and believing everything it says 100%. like how mankind got it's start on earth, from what i seen most people are not convinced how it started.

That's a problem with people, not history books. Like I said before, the solution to this lies in teaching people to be analytical and sceptical. Ignorance and cynicism achieves nothing and won't stop people speculating.

i'm not saying youtube is 100% accurate with their footage, but way more than just reading a book and having that as your only resource. like with the manson killings, as interested as people are about that case, imagine if we only had books to go by and not interviews from video of the actual people involved. if we only had books on that case then i would bet that a 100 years after that crime, some people would really start to believe manson was the son of man after twisting it a little. the human mind is easy, easier than they care to admit, especially the masses.

Again, that's no reason to believe that it's better to be ignorant of the matter. In Manson's case, obviously video evidence is enriching and can be more stimulating and interesting, but that doesn't negate the importance or need for other forms of evidence. Regarding his name, the vast, vast majority of evidence for the origin of family names is written and not in video format.

as far as the media and their video footage. i would say it's more creditable than someone who just shot it with their home camera. nothing is 100% solid in making sure it's all facts, but video helps make things more convincing, people can still lie.

Of course video can make a claim more convincing, but that is a hinderance to discovering the truth rather than a benefit! Convincing someone only means making them believe and be less sceptical, it has absolutely no impact on actual truthfulness. You can convince everyone in the world that you are the son of God but it can still be a big fat lie!

but books from 500 years ago that have been rewrote time again, and the only proof is from that book has most people convinced of how all kinds of history.
as much as i would like to believe people have more common sense than that, they don't, most people believe in and are proud to be following drones.
that's my opinion at least. take it for what it's worth to you.

I doubt the re-writing of books was anywhere near as common as you seem to think, especially as the majority of literary works tend not to be of a historical nature. In any case, it's pretty rare that there is only one piece of evidence for a particular historical event once you take everything into account (e.g. archaeology), and even then you have to put the event into a wider context which may well reinforce the idea or expose it as false.

 

[kloth]

Hstory is one of the least trustworthy subjects IMHO. Even when we analize the trustworthiness of each source of info.

That said, as long as everything is taken with grain of salt (and the correct amount of grains for each claim ) it is okay.

I do think its important to know history, at least version of it that we have now and this version being a constantly refined one.

We should actually learn from history after all.

sounds like we agree, that makes one person.
i think by now society has learned enough to know better and make society much better than the past from what we have learned, yet history keeps repeating itself with the same ole hate, violence, wars, parents not teaching their kids better, kids not learning from their parents mistakes and doing the same poor parenting with their kids but then complaining how they were raised, if we had learned something there should be a solution that is worked on and working to stop poverty, crime, domestic abuse and what now, if it's not getting worse then it's certainly not getting better the way i see it.

We'll never see eye to eye because I dont subscribe to the theory that ignorance is bliss. The concept that no one in the future would wonder about history if it wasntcrecorded and wouldnt miss it is frankly prepostorous. Id love to see you explain that tgeory to Caladan on this site, for example.

Phttt. Trying to equate my views to some misguided personal experience I extrapolate out to a skewed
worldview is one of the better demonstrations of irony I've seen lately.

The ONLY people who do this are people who are not well-read and haven't been taught critical reading skills. Ironically the interpretive nature of history it is one of the more effective vehicles for teaching this.

you're attempts to try and insult me with ignorance is bliss remarks tells me that you are not a mature person to habdle such debates, perhaps due to fear of change or throwing fits if proved wrong and making a stance of having to always be right. unless you want to say calling someone ignorant is not an insult, then i guess i could say the same for someone who is stupid, because stupidity happens. i never said nobody would care about history if it were not recorded, they would simply rely on it more that wriitings, i am sure you understand that, but it sounds like you are throwing a tantrum.


that reply from me was cleary quoted for lewisnotmiller unless you are that person as well, sounds to me like you are another person who has at least one other account for some reason.

reading skils don't matter when it comes to reality. just because you can read well doesn't mean the story is fact. bottom line is i believe that most (not all) people are gullible and systematic and believe what they are fed. look how many people are against what i say here as opposed to not, most people don't think for themself and are happy to follow because it's more safe and they want to belong.

 

[McBell]

look how many people are against what i say here as opposed to not, most people don't think for themself and are happy to follow because it's more safe and they want to belong.

How does this not make you no better than those whom you whine about?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Speaking of youtube videos on history.

Here is a entertaining and informative youtube series on world history.

[youtube]Yocja_N5s1I[/youtube]
The Agricultural Revolution: Crash Course World History #1 - YouTube

It even got me interested, and history tends to bore me.

 

[OlafTheHairy]

you're attempts to try and insult me with ignorance is bliss remarks tells me that you are not a mature person to habdle such debates, perhaps due to fear of change or throwing fits if proved wrong and making a stance of having to always be right. unless you want to say calling someone ignorant is not an insult...

I don't want to speak for lewisnotmiller, but it's pretty clear to me that he wasn't calling you ignorant. He was saying that if you had your wish then people would be ignorant of history, and that you think this is somehow a good thing. Anyway, saying someone is ignorant isn't necessarily an insult, for example I'm ignorant about Mexican poetry. All that means is that I know little or nothing about it.

reading skils don't matter when it comes to reality. just because you can read well doesn't mean the story is fact. bottom line is i believe that most (not all) people are gullible and systematic and believe what they are fed. look how many people are against what i say here as opposed to not, most people don't think for themself and are happy to follow because it's more safe and they want to belong.

People are usually more gullible about subjects that they are ignorant about. The huge problem that I have with your proposal for teaching history is that it strips away a lot of the need for source analysis and criticism by concentrating solely on events with video evidence. To make this worse, the reason you give for proposing this is that people are gullible and take things at face value!!! Can't you see the contradiction in this? How on earth are people going to be taught how to be critical and analytical when history classes involve showing youtube videos?

Real history is taking all the evidence, analysing it, then putting it together so it forms a coherent whole, it is asking and finding answers to questions that are not explicitly obvious. This is thinking for yourself, it's using criticism and logic whereas what you seem to be proposing is cynicism, which is merely destructive and not constructive as history should be. What you're proposing isn't even history.

As for your last comments, the other posters on this thread are showing the exact opposite of what you claim. The problem is that you haven't proven why people should show the same cynicism towards historical evidence as you show, mainly because you don't seem to know how much evidence there is or how many kinds of evidence there are. What you are proposing isn't in the slightest bit constructive, it's not informed, it's based entirely on the fear that people might lie about things and that evidence shouldn't be given any significance. In that case we may as well get rid of the justice system because it's based on the same procedures.