Give history another try, please.

Being someone who absolutely loves the topic of history, it often makes me cringe a bit when, after expressing my enjoyment of the subject, someone responds with “I hate history.” I have found that, while this does not always hold true, often, the same people who say “I hate history”, are also the ones who say, “I don’t see the point in history. If you want to know something about history, just look it up in a book. There’s nothing else to study!” A statement like this points to the real issue: people don’t really understand the study of history.

I think this misunderstanding of the study of history mostly comes from early school experiences with history classes. I love history, and I’ll be the first to admit, I hated my history classes in elementary, junior high and high school. Why? Because they were boring. It’s that simple. While there were a few reasons that brought about them being boring, I feel that the main reason was that the teachers I had were poor history teachers.

The courses I had were all similar in approach. The approach was, essentially, to lay out the major outline of the era of history being studied, and then move on to the next one. This is what I call bullet point history.

• In 1492, Christopher Columbus “found” the American continent.
• Jamestown, the first English settlement in the United States, was founded in 1607.
• The first shots of the American Civil War took place at Fort Sumter, which was built after the War of 1812.

All of the information that was presented in my history courses was presented in bite size bits, and all of the bits were facts. I’m not implying that historical facts don’t exist; that would be absurd. I’m not arguing that Jamestown wasn’t founded in 1607, or that the first shots of the Civil War didn’t take place at Fort Sumter. I’m simply pointing out the fact that, when it comes to history, this stuff is relatively boring. Is a knowledge of dates and major events important when studying history? Of course. You have to have some idea of the timeline; it wouldn’t do to say, for example, that Columbus found America in 1322, or that the Weimar Republic period came after the fall of Nazi Germany. You have to have a sense of the flow of history. On the other hand, while having an idea of the outline of history is useful, it can also be rather dull if you don’t fill in the gaps and explore. It’s on par with taking the Lord of the Rings and presenting only the absolutely most important bits of the story. Like this:

• Bilbo had a ring of power, which Sauron had made.
• The Ring was passed on to Frodo.
• It was decided by Gandalf that Frodo could not stay in the Shire any longer, so he left, heading east, so he could destroy the Ring.
• Frodo met Aragorn, a friend of Gandalf’s, at Bree. Aragorn would be the hobbits’ guide.
• The Enemy intercepted them many times, notably at Weathertop, where Frodo was stabbed in the shoulder by one of the Ringwraiths, servants of Sauron.
• Frodo and company reached the borders of Rivendell, where they were again threatened by the Ringwraiths.

Lord of the Rings is considered by most people to be an excellent trilogy, but one could easily argue that when presented in such a fashion, it’s rather dull. Why should we expect any different when you take the huge, complex, fascinating story of history, and present it in such a way?

To make history interesting, you have to go further than the top-most layer. You have to quit skimming the top of the ground and dig in to the dirt: why did this happen? What caused it? Did the culture of the people tie in with what was going on? What were the motives of this particular person, group, society? What repercussions will this have over the next 5 years? 50 years? 100 years? If the person or group of people being studied were trying to achieve a particular result with their action, did the action they take work? What unexpected side effects will their action have? In other words, don’t just read the list of “facts” about a time period. Engage the history. Poke it, prod it. Ask questions of it.

When you start getting into such questions, it can be seen that history is extremely interpretive in nature. Two people can read the same set of historical “facts”, and end up having widely differening views of what occurred. It is this interpretative nature of history that makes it even more interesting. (I should note, however, that some people hate this, because they feel that there is no real “right” answer - there are many interpretations of any particular historical period, and many of them are perfectly plausible. When it comes to history, there usually isn’t a simple answer, like 2+2 = 4.)

If you’re one of those people who “hates history”, I’m asking you to give it another try. Pick a time period that you think you might like, and then study it. Don’t just read bullet point information about the period, study it. Really try to grasp what was going on and why. Try to think about how it would affect later time periods. Figure out why the actors were doing what they were doing. Read other interpretations of the period, and then come up with your own interpretation. Is it the same as one of the interpretations you read? Similar? Totally different? Keep in mind, your interpretation doesn’t have to agree with others. It simply needs to be backed up by the facts available.

If you do this and then continue to hate history, that’s fine. (Granted, I don’t understand how that’s possible, but as can seen above, I’m biased about this.) If you really try to study history instead of reading the “Cliff’s Notes” version of it, and then still dislike it or find it boring, move on to something else. But please, quit saying you hate history or find it boring if you haven’t really studied it. Such an act is like looking at the paint job of a car and declaring that you hate how the vehicle drives.