Is History Important?

[mushroom25]

history should be compulsory at GCSE, says Antony Beevor

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11116561/Antony-Beevor-history-should-be-compulsory-at-GCSE.html

is it relevant to today's students?

(btw how many of you didn't get 100% in the quiz?)

[kvalidir]

I scored 100%, and I think history is a vital thing to study as it gives you a breadth of understanding and grounding for why virtually everything has happened in your life. We are all the result of the history of our ancestors and social and political changes and choices which were made during their lifetimes, to not study that is to deprive yourself of an awful lot of knowledge and experience which is directly relevant to you.

[maggiebee]

Polishing my halo - I got 100%. I do think history is important to today's schoolchildren. We learn lessons from the past that can influence the future.

[-Talbot-]

History should be compulsory. I detest the fact that my kids are doing religious education (I detested when I had to do it) History is real RE is ***.

[Baldric]

100% here as well, and Yes, I do think it's important.

[-Talbot-]

mmmm I got 100% too. (although you didn't ask who Did get 100%)

[Vicasso]

100% and I agree with all the above

[sandyRoe]

100% here. The events of the past that are held in the collective memory or pored over by historians are the stuff that fuels much of the violence of our times. It is an important subject.

[Old_Geezer]

I think it is important but not important enough to be compulsory. It makes a good leisure interest. Maths, Science, English Language (in the UK obviously), should all be compulsory. The rest optional. Although I am open to other subject suggestions for the list given a decent argument in their favour.

[woofgang]

100% but I don't think that facts or dates tell you anything about (much) about the past. I think its much more important to know how real people lived and what they thought and to trace why things happened.

[Old_Geezer]

History is written by the winners, and argued over by the experts anyway. Plus one can interpret history as you wish and drew different and counter conclusions from it. As such it is not objective enough to be compulsory. And given it is a memory based subject forcing me to have taken it instead of something else would have ensured a failure when none need have been achieved. I would not have been happy, in my life I have been obliged to sit through enough tedious subjects to memorise as it is. Make all sciences compulsory if one wishes, but not subjects such as Geography, History, General Studies, and the like.

[anotheoldgit]

I got one wrong and that was the question regarding Italy switching sides, they never switched sides in the true sense, although the answer says they did.

/// In WW2, the Italian government did NOT switch sides. Some of the leaders and businessmen of Italy and the citizens wanted to switch sides. But Churchill and England did not want the Allies to allow the Italians to join their alliance. Instead they demanded that the Italians surrender. This is why there was a long delay between the time Benito Mussolini step down in August 1943 and the announcement of their surrender on 8 September 1943, the day before the landings at Salerno. ///

[brionon]

It depends ,when I was at school History was Kings and Queens and not much else. It Could have been about the common folk and been interesting.

[janbee]

Yep ! Another smarty pants here. 100%.
Yes I think history is vital.

[anotheoldgit]

History is very important if we use it so that we can see where we made mistakes in the past, so that we don't make the same mistakes again..

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "History is very important if we use it so that we can see where we made mistakes in the past, so that we don't make the same mistakes again.."

That just about nails it.

I too got 100%, but I'm willing to bet that few people under twenty-five would do so - we are products of an education system which believed, as AOG points out, that history enables us to see where have been, and apply it to where we are going.

It remains interesting that the current and previous governments, whose ministers have no direct experience of warfare, were willing to commit troops to wars whipped up by misguided principles and false intelligence.

History (and here is where it is seen to matter) shows us that before the Falklands War, there was deep doubt and a desire to avoid conflict at all costs by the then Cabinet, all of who with the exception of Margaret Thatcher had seen wartime military service, and for whom war was a stark reality, not a distant concept wrapped in phrases like 'war on terror', and 'regime change' or even the hypnoitcally horrible and sinister 'boots on the ground'.

[-Talbot-]

AOG points out, that history enables us to see where have been, and apply it to where we are going.


Well that doesn't bode well.

[-Talbot-]

“We learn from history that we do not learn from history”
― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - "“We learn from history that we do not learn from history”
― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel"

That deinitely nails it!

[Zacs-Master]

Yeah, Hagel wasn't much of a drinker tho according to Bruce.

[jim360]

I wasn't 100% sure on the Eisenhower question but got it right anyway to make it to 100%. I didn't do history at GCSE. I don't think it should be compulsory either as I remain unconvinced that compulsory subjects at school, at least the way they are taught at the moment, actually benefit anyone. Most of my formative learning in History, Science, Maths, even English, was done outside school. Unless the way these subjects are taught is radically changed, making them compulsory merely looks good, without actually being so.