History cannot teach us lessons | Steve Mason | TEDxGroningen
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ค. 2024
- History cannot teach us lessons? Nope. You see, the idea that history teaches lessons rests on a confusion between history and something else entirely: tradition. What's the difference?
Steve Mason is Professor of Ancient Mediterranean Religions and Cultures at the University of Groningen. He has spent most of his career professing ancient history in Canada. Since 2015 he researches and teaches ancient Mediterranean cultures in the University of Groningen. His latest books are on the Jewish-Roman War (AD 66) and method in studying ancient history. For other kinds of fun he attempts tenor sax (for his ears only) and other exercise.
Steve Mason was born in Toronto and raised between there, Britain, and Australia. He has spent most of his career professing ancient history in Canada. Since 2015 he researches and teaches ancient Mediterranean cultures in the University of Groningen. His latest books are on the Jewish-Roman War (AD 66) and method in studying ancient history. For other kinds of fun he attempts tenor sax (for his ears only) and other exercise. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
I don't think I completely agree that History teaches no lessons, but people can find different "lessons" from the same history. Also, when people present "lessons" from history, it is usually a simplified summary of period in history (World War II, the French Revolution, etc). But when you learn more about those time periods or events, often they are a lot more complicated and nuanced. History is SO much more than a condensed 500 page textbook, or a 10 minute TH-cam video (although those aren't bad places to start... just don't stop there).
I think you can still learn lessons (i.e. see similarities in human behavior), but I think the problem occurs when you simplify an event to a bumper-sticker lesson, and people feel like that is all they need to know about that event. "The American Revolution happened because they didn't want to pay taxes!" I think history can teach people perspective that can help them understand the past and present world better. But I don't think it is a crystal ball that predicts the future. There are definitely some trends, and behavior that tends to be repeated, but the situations are not exactly the same, nor do they always call for the same response
(for example:
1919: WWI was terrible because we tried to solve our differences with force, so let's try to talk it out next time.
1945: WWII was terrible because we tried to avoid conflict, so we have to act fast and not give in to dictators.
1991: The Cold War was worst than it needed to be because both sides assumed that the other was out to get them, and avoided negotiation, and almost blew up the world.
And it goes on. So, while I think we should learn from the past, History is not clear about what lessons you should learn or when to apply them).
Great and informative video! Currently, one of the varieties of resources I am using for a history class I am in and I must say this was great. I appreciate how he provides a different perspective on history. One that I had never considered or thought of before.
Democracy is when people can originally thinks by themselves, i.e, why it doesn't fit anywhere. History cannot teach us lessons but we can learn from it by applying our mind over the facts.
Any ways, Thank you Steve for sharing what you have learned from history.
History doesn’t teach lessons no, but we can learn what not to do. So learn from it, so history doesn’t repeat itself.
"The only thing we learn from history, is that we do not learn from history"
People that are in power do make the same mistakes again and again... History is not important because when it actually comes down to it, politicians ignore the past and follow their own ego trip
This gave me an excellent perspective on my class. Thank you!
I really liked what he said, "History liberates us from tradition" and how he even defined a key separation in history & tradition. How he described tradition. Great talk! There ARE objective lessons though.
To address: The "lesson" is ongoing because history is constantly being crafted, but even though the lesson is not "finished", you're in that constant state of lesrning. For example, a medical doctor is always "practicing medicine" because they're constantly learning new things on the field. When you're teaching a lesson, the student doesn't learn after the lesson is over, but is in a constant active state of learning until the lesson is over.
The trap that we can fall in while studying listory is casting judgement, whether good or bad, and not studying all aspects of whatever concept of man we're muling over. Many look at history to validate their claims, not looking to see if what they claim is the truth or the whole truth, but just enough to prove their point. History is a "CAUTIONARY Tale", it means to not assume but to be aware and to seek wisdom.
Lessons to learn from history:
1. Increased awareness & perspective of time: "Before I, there was" (rabbit hole)
2. You can persuade the masses by exploiting their needs
3. Division weakens the group
4. Exclusion alienates the group
5. Exclusion increases group-think
6. Group-think creates prejudice
7. Societies naturally create government
8. Civilization is a social contract
Just a few lessons of the dome. The key is generalized lessons, whole conceptual lessons that is neither positive or negative, but pure observation.
"History is inconvenient to my agenda, so I shall void history."
If the past was not important for the present, time would not be important. And time is not important, life would not be important.
What I am saying is the past is not to be neglected. If you neglect the past you are neglecting the progressions of reality which you are not separate from.
This was dope. I see people missed the point of this lecture. Well done. This really got me thinking.
This challenged me. I will need to rewatch this and think about more. My first reaction is to disagree. I think the value of studying any discipline is to inform effective decision making in any sphere from the private and personal to professional practice to international policies. Thus, my understanding is that the study of the past indeed brings lessons through inferences and implications of what ought to happen going forward.
I’ve heard Dr. Martin elsewhere say that historians strive to explain the evidence in order to determine what probably happened in the past. I wish he had wrapped up with that statement here. I think he’s absolutely on target with his assertion that our school history books teach not history, but tradition. Furthermore, they seek not to explain evidence, but to turn out good patriotic citizens.
Doctor simp
I find knowing history, especially RECENT history is helpful when hearing political debates about stuff like immigration etc. The general public have short memories unfortunately so something like the recession can be blamed on immigrants or the opposing party a few years later. I'd say roughly knowing the last 100 years of history will explain why most of the world is the way it is now if you need that in your life. Some, for political gains, will bring up ancient history but I'm super wary of those. E.g. anyone who brings up Templars in modern politics is an automatic no from me.
Older history is fun, tons of great stories, very treacherous for morals and values though. Too many people judge by or ascribe modern values to historical events or figures. Very few (thankfully) think like someone in the 1810s.
History isn't something mandatory to learn. It's something interesting but definitely not mandatory.
I came here because I hate History classes and homeworks.
same
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Dawg you gotta get a jacket that fits
This feels a little like an argument from semantics - if history only consists of neutral facts of the past w/o instructive lessons embedded in them, then perhaps it's fair to say history doesn't teach. I would argue in many cases, brute facts (history) at face value are instructive. Hiroshima and Nagasaki at face value instructed the world during the Cold War that any use of nuclear weapons would lead to mutually assured destruction, and this became a strong deterrent that to date has prevented their use as weapons of war.
This is how I felt as well, that he was just arguing semantics. It almost seems like he is trying to redefine both the words history and tradition. If we are seeking out information from historical events, and we are able to obtain a helpful message from that, is history not then teaching us? Just my thoughts on the subject.
The amount of people I'd like to share this video to.
I guess understanding the past to make sense of the present is something that’s unnecessary. Sorry, but I find this to be a silly notion. Maybe I missed his point though.
You did.
Are passed ARMY strategies lessons? If one person took a left and found out that it was the wrong turn and told the next person, would you take a left too? No, you wouldn't, so is that not a lesson learned?
He describes the force of tradition like it’s a romantic hero
Awesome! Thank you!
Historical traditions aren't always correct, and that's something to learn and can teach us...I know it has done so for me.
This guy is really off, he had some interesting points maybe even some things he got right but to say that he is correct on this subject is just flat out wrong.
I absolutely agree with you. It's like saying "People are confused about what they believe to be the sky. The sky is actually the sun." I'm listening to this guy speak and was like "Is he for real?"
Interesting
ok so you are saying that profession of industrial design came out of nothing like no past. And all the technology of cars and design of airplane came out of nothing. someone just woke up some day and made all of this stuff. they did'nt look how cars have been made in past or what technologies are available to us from past. they just made all of this from vacum. great lesson
We are the sum of our choices, and those choices become history through us.
The lesson comes in the end of the video
If you think I’m going to listen again, you’re nuts.
Professor Steve Mason is a qualified scholar, highly regarded by his peers, who is doing an extraordinary, original work in his field, to which he should stick and refrain from philosophising. Trying to create an impact on a non-scientific audience with an out of the hat unsubstantiated theory is a poor service to education and scholarship.
a 15-min TED talk is not for education nor scholarship. It is not a theory. It is just an opinion piece. Don't see the problem
You have clearly misunderstood the entire talk. Lol. First keep an open mind and understand what's happening here
It's interesting how he tells us history can't teach us lessons and then uses historical examples to prove his point. Ha ha ha
Sounds like he is saying that biology is a static proposition; ergo nothing can be learned. Therein is the problem because stimulus and response is continual.
Half of the comments are
I don't understand
Others :
It's deep , I get it.
Me: why is history a debate? This speech sucks.
POV: you drop a baby on their head.
Even hairfall has its history. You must know.
Just because it doesn’t teach us does not mean we can’t learn from it. Kind a silly talk but nice try none the least and fun to ponder.
"The only thing we learn from history, is that we do not learn from history"
It's not silly. He made perfect sense. Try and come with an argument that makes you believe otherwise before calling it silly
@@deepitkujur5486 he used the word past to differentiate from the word history. He got into semantics which is fine since he defined his words sort of. He never really defined the history he was talking about. It seems to me that when talking about history hes talking about a school or college subject that’s is taught to you and you accept without questions whereas an individual studying the past and comes up with with his own conclusions, well, he does not call that studying history but rather the past. Here is the thing someone that reads book about the Past are reading books that where written by someone about the past/ historical event or events ie history. I have learned much through reading history that I apply in my life. If you want to get technical yes he is right history cant directly teach me anything since history is not a conscious person teaching lessons but I can learn from it. Not everything in history is a lesson, history is just the past, but we can learn much from it. But again if he mean a college or high school course kind of history as a history class, Yeah maybe it can’t teach you anything. Also what kind of history is he talking about exactly. Just world, politics or anything kind of history. I enjoy reading and learning about all kinds of history and as a musician I also read music history and I have learned and benefited much from it. My philosophy has also altered a bit through reading history.
Appeasement isn't simply talking to rogue states, it's how they are talked to. Giving a state or person everything they want in a negotiation.
History is written by the 'winners'. History should be presented with FACTS from all sides. It is only through passage of TIME that we hopefully LEARN from history.
History never repeats itself but it often does rhyme.
This dude high on himself.
😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Nah
Man seems kinda pointless if I cant learn from history to even listen to this...
Historiography can teach us themes. Why do societies succeed or fail. Isn't the French Revolution an object lesson when people tried to change society and economic growth and even human behaviour (the persuit of virtue) through radical theoretical application and violence! So I don't quite agree