The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Is History Important?
127 Answers
history should be compulsory at GCSE, says Antony Beevor
http://
is it relevant to today's students?
(btw how many of you didn't get 100% in the quiz?)
http://
is it relevant to today's students?
(btw how many of you didn't get 100% in the quiz?)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
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.
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.
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.
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. ///
/// 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. ///
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'.
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'.
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.
