Knowing history
I'm not sure I know what it means to "know history". Yet people all around me are telling me to do it. Help!
Know you some history
A quick image search for "know history" reveals a fountain of such blunt instruments. We get find many quotes about the importance of paying attention to history:
Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
—Edmund Burke (1730-1797) (source)
No History. No Self. Know History. Know Self. (Fight for Ethnic Studies)
—A sweatshirt.
Apparently, for the quoters of such quotes and wearers of such sweat shirts, to "know history" has a clear enough meaning that you may command someone to "know thy history!" in the same way you might command somebody to walk, not run, by some weight machines? Even a hat that says "no excuses" sends me a fairly clear message. But "know history"?
Some click baity headlines (paired with discussion that does have some good content) drill in the importance of "knowing history" further:
- "Does it help to know history?" (2014) from The New Yorker
- "You have to know history to actually teach it" (2014) from The Atlantic
Alright buddy, you got me. It's important to "know history," whatever that means. Tell me, how may I join the ranks of the enlightened?
Singular causes, fixed narratives
The words "know history" are often used to shut down any real discussion or exchange of ideas. Clearly to "know history" is something we view positively. So, if we are accused of not knowing history, then all but the strongest will squirm, maybe protest a bit, but eventually yield to the louder, more stubborn voices.
For some people, to "know history" means to agree with all their conclusions, faulty reasoning, and disputable evidence, all with the wave of a hand. When these people encounter others that use these same methods (and also happen to disagree) with them, they go absolutely bonkers.
One particularly annoying way people talk about history is making good use of the fallacy of the single cause. This isn't to say that there aren't things that boil down to one main cause (if you push a rock down a hill, your pushing is a pretty singular cause, though of course inertia and gravity were necessarily there). However, singular cause ideologues more often than not do not have falsifiable positions—no evidence you present will be sufficient to have them take back their positions.
Some examples of singular cause explanations:
- It all boils down to CLASS CONFLICT.
- It's RACISM that has kept the Hungarians oppressed this long.
- FIAT CURRENCY ruins economies. (Lol, admittedly I've become sympathetic to this position).
- The WELFARE STATE is responsible for all of Western Europe's ills. (Maybe in part, but its paired with many other policies, no?)
- DRUMPFFFFqwierupqewofjoqw;eijfq;
How are we supposed to know these single cause explanations are valid. Well duh. You have to know history!
...the person that told you to know history proceeds to recite a fixed narrative. Don't interrupt. Don't suggest facts to the contrary. Just keep calm and...
...know history 🤐
Studying the past
To "know history," by my understanding, is no simple matter.
On the other hand, I think that we all do know how to talk about what happened or tell stories in some form or another. This isn't giving a mathematical proof or establishing a theory by experimentation. Rather, its a humanistic endeavor—something closer to literary or artistic than STEM.
Allow me to offer an analogy (which is, of course, not an argument) about history: I'll compare giving an account of the past to creating a still life drawing.
Drawing connections
Art has to appeal to general audiences; it has to look good. Hopefully, a well-done drawing "speaks a thousand words", rather than requiring a thousand words of explanation to begin to make any sense of.
In the same way, when giving an account of the past, we strive to create an accurate representation of what we are narrating—a still life should "look like" the scene it depicts—but we also recognize that as an artist, we have the freedom to bring attention to aspects that might not be immediately obvious to a casual observer of the same scene.
Different artists drawing the same scene may differ in their interpretations of things, but they must agree on certain facts. In still life, I'll take this as given. Fruits in a bowl are shaped in a certain way. We can tell if someone grossly distorted some form or added something extra or subtracted something very important.
In the same way, I think that there are objective facts that we can call "history". There's lots of bashing on telling children to memorize dates of historical events, lists of presidents, and the like. Rote memorization, terrible! Fair enough, it doesn't take much creativity or critical thinking (whatever that means) to do that. However, if we don't start talking about history from some basic facts (e.g. sequences of particular events), building up a more complex narrative becomes difficult, if not impossible.
Analogously, an artist must have some training in accurately capturing forms (i.e. doing 'realistic' drawings) before they go off the rails with exaggerated stylized drawings. All too many 90s kids started drawing anime style before studying drawing from life, and the results are deviant art dismal.
To "know history" is similar to being able to recognize and appreciate a good drawing. To "write history" is to make those drawings yourself. Just as appreciating a drawing involves recognizing technical skill, creativity, as well as noticing similarities and differences between the works of different artists, "knowing history" involves recognizing the accurate representation of objective facts, creativity in making an engaging presentation, as well as similarities and differences between various ways of presenting accounts of the past.
Some historians, for example, produce histories of ideas, tracking memes (can't think of a better term to use here, ha!) through some time period. On the other hand, biographers tell the stories focusing on some individual.
Not knowing history
Not knowing history is being a bad art critic. Uninteresting to talk to, wrong on many facts, perhaps rather annoying, and unashamedly elitist. To command others to know history, rather than presenting or pointing to somebody else's presentation of the past in an accurate, engaging way is to be become this fellow.
Knowing history
As sketched above, I understand "knowing history" as being able to recognize and appreciated facts presented in interesting ways. We may be given some fact or statistic, such as the number of people killed in some battle. The historian gives context and meaning to this fact, drawing interesting comparisons, engaging philosophy, etc.
A starting point for knowing history, however, is the evaluation of evidence and the establishing of facts. Don't continue discussing history with a person that does not admit new evidence, or discard "facts" when presented with evidence to the contrary. That person is the butt-hurt student in an introduction to drawing course that rages at the instructor and more skilled students, denying the validity of their critiques and insisting they made no errors accurately representing some form.
If you want to know history, be a skilled artist, or at least an interesting critic.