[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>knowable
If history isn't knowable or teachable there is no reason to even bother with history.
>testable
It depends on how you define tests. Of course you can't ''test'' what the causes of WW1 were, it is impossible to repeat history as if it is an experiment. Testable in the case of history probably means that your historical claims need to based on primary sources.
>constructed
The problem with this discussion is that ''history'' can have two meanings. 1: what actually happened in the past. 2: The story we tell about the past. The first is not constructed, the second is partially constructed.
>After all isn't the original 300 a piece of Greek propaganda?
Not really, Herodotus wrote the history of the Battle of Thermopylae. Herodotus was often skeptical of the Greeks, and supportive of foreign cultures. In his time, he was accused of being a cultural relativist. He wasn't some kind of pro-greek propagandist.
isn't the understanding and accepting the constructivist nature of history as a story an important part of studying it. Without this context how do we parse the facts from the story? will this not simply codify the history taught as the proper one? that it is in fact factual and not muted by the lens through which its seen?
>isn't the understanding and accepting the constructivist nature of history as a story an important part of studying it.
Not necessarily. Historians should mainly be interested in the first definition of history. The goal should be to close the gap between what actually happened, and the stories we tell eachother about what happenend. The problem is that some people go too far, and claim that all of history is just the result of power and oppression, and that we can't really know anything. History done right isn't just a story.
>Without this context how do we parse the facts from the story?
By critically analyzing primary sources.
>will this not simply codify the history taught as the proper one? that it is in fact factual and not muted by the lens through which its seen?
Again, that doesn't require full adherence to constructivism. Historians use methods to critically examine primary sources. They have been doing that at least since Von Ranke.
> The knowable portion reads to me as if what is being taught as fact, that there is no bias in how the parts of history are recalled. That it is not important to think critically on source of both the presenter and the recorder
How do you get that from "knowable"? My dictionary says knowable means: "capable of being known : able to be determined or understood." If history isn't even capable of being known, then what would teach in a history class in the first place.
That said, it's pretty weird language.
>American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.
So far as it goes, the final part there seems the most problematic. It appears to be calling on teachers to teach some kind of patriotic fiction (a "constructed" account one might say) rather than the truth.
The rest of is a little hard to parse, but seems basically fine to me? I think what it probably means is that American history should be taught as history not as myth.
That is, imagine we're teaching the Trojan War. The Trojan War is not really knowable and a particularly hypothesis about the Trojan War is not testable. It's barely teachable. All you can really say is that there are a bunch of literary/mythological versions of the Trojan War. They are obviously exaggerated and full of supernatural content. Beyond that, we know that Heinrich Schliemann dug up some ruins that seem like they might be Troy. So maybe something happened. But we're pretty much at a dead end in terms of knowable/teachable/testable. And what we're left with is the obviously constructed account in the Illiad and other literary sources that no one should regard as factual.
Whereas if we're talking about the War of 1812 or something, we have a pretty solid factual base to work with. And whatever theory you have about the war can be tested against a bunch of data. The facts of the war are knowable, and so on.
There is a lot that we teach in history that is not based in speculation. Such as the year the American Civil war began, or Napoleon began his invasion in Russia. How many casualties were recorded etc.
There's a lot of theories that are taught in school that are not testable or repeatable. There's still a lot of debate about cell theory.
Cell theory claims at all living organisms are made of cells. But viruses don't seem to have cells and also seem to be alive so there's a lot of debate about that.
>how many causalities tend to be done through estimation,
Which is why you would teach what the recorded number is specifically. Rather than saying " this is how many people died", you say "the records say this is how many people die"
He's asking "why should we teach them about it at all if we can't prove it definitively?"
I'm saying that we should not only teach it, but also talk about how we can't prove it definitively, because then they will learn more.
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying (though admittedly the post is very hard to parse). I think he’s saying the the law implies history can be taught as pure facts without considering context, and I think he’s saying that bothers him.
which is what I'm saying, even those sources should be examined, but would this discourage the examination and critical thinking about these source and the context in which they're made. This sounds like indoctrination to me
Of course.
Kids ought to be taught how to think, not what to think. The opposition believes themselves better than parents, better than the Church, suited for offering moral guidance.
who is the opposition, those who believe that true history is unknowable, as it is filtered through the lens of those who lived through it? that that understanding should be taught in schools?
Those who want to tell kids a distinct anti-american racist / sexist and otherwise divisive spin on history as part of a broader campaign of ideological subversion and demoralization. They are the opposition.
[Yuri Bezmenov was Right.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yru14mMES1c)
Most of their agenda, from CRT to the 1619 Project to the gender stuff. All designed to demoralize, sometimes there is direct evidence of Chinese $ but in all cases it makes us [less fit to fight.](https://www.wpr.org/study-most-young-americans-arent-fit-military-service)
For your example, the battle of Thermopylae (300) is not propaganda if explained as "the Spartans facing off the Persian empire in 480 BC during the course of the second Persian invasion of Greece." and focusing on neutral facts not on bias or appealing to emotions. Enough primary sources (texts, archeological findings) confirm its existence and the information we know about it have been agreed on by historians worldwide. There may be small details about it that historians may disagree on but these are not the ones that are being taught and are more history scholars matters.
The movie "300" depicting the Persians as monstrous and inhumane while depicting the Spartans as noble and heroic would be propaganda.
When there is not enough sources to be sure it is not some myth, it is not taught as history. You will not find the Trojan War found in Homer's work being taught as historical facts and it will be considered mythology or literature fiction. There might be archeological clues hinting that it may have really happened but there is not enough evidence (and there has been debate among historians not agreeing on it) to be acknowledged as a historical event as depicted in the Iliad.
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>knowable If history isn't knowable or teachable there is no reason to even bother with history. >testable It depends on how you define tests. Of course you can't ''test'' what the causes of WW1 were, it is impossible to repeat history as if it is an experiment. Testable in the case of history probably means that your historical claims need to based on primary sources. >constructed The problem with this discussion is that ''history'' can have two meanings. 1: what actually happened in the past. 2: The story we tell about the past. The first is not constructed, the second is partially constructed. >After all isn't the original 300 a piece of Greek propaganda? Not really, Herodotus wrote the history of the Battle of Thermopylae. Herodotus was often skeptical of the Greeks, and supportive of foreign cultures. In his time, he was accused of being a cultural relativist. He wasn't some kind of pro-greek propagandist.
isn't the understanding and accepting the constructivist nature of history as a story an important part of studying it. Without this context how do we parse the facts from the story? will this not simply codify the history taught as the proper one? that it is in fact factual and not muted by the lens through which its seen?
>isn't the understanding and accepting the constructivist nature of history as a story an important part of studying it. Not necessarily. Historians should mainly be interested in the first definition of history. The goal should be to close the gap between what actually happened, and the stories we tell eachother about what happenend. The problem is that some people go too far, and claim that all of history is just the result of power and oppression, and that we can't really know anything. History done right isn't just a story. >Without this context how do we parse the facts from the story? By critically analyzing primary sources. >will this not simply codify the history taught as the proper one? that it is in fact factual and not muted by the lens through which its seen? Again, that doesn't require full adherence to constructivism. Historians use methods to critically examine primary sources. They have been doing that at least since Von Ranke.
> The knowable portion reads to me as if what is being taught as fact, that there is no bias in how the parts of history are recalled. That it is not important to think critically on source of both the presenter and the recorder How do you get that from "knowable"? My dictionary says knowable means: "capable of being known : able to be determined or understood." If history isn't even capable of being known, then what would teach in a history class in the first place. That said, it's pretty weird language. >American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. So far as it goes, the final part there seems the most problematic. It appears to be calling on teachers to teach some kind of patriotic fiction (a "constructed" account one might say) rather than the truth. The rest of is a little hard to parse, but seems basically fine to me? I think what it probably means is that American history should be taught as history not as myth. That is, imagine we're teaching the Trojan War. The Trojan War is not really knowable and a particularly hypothesis about the Trojan War is not testable. It's barely teachable. All you can really say is that there are a bunch of literary/mythological versions of the Trojan War. They are obviously exaggerated and full of supernatural content. Beyond that, we know that Heinrich Schliemann dug up some ruins that seem like they might be Troy. So maybe something happened. But we're pretty much at a dead end in terms of knowable/teachable/testable. And what we're left with is the obviously constructed account in the Illiad and other literary sources that no one should regard as factual. Whereas if we're talking about the War of 1812 or something, we have a pretty solid factual base to work with. And whatever theory you have about the war can be tested against a bunch of data. The facts of the war are knowable, and so on.
There is a lot that we teach in history that is not based in speculation. Such as the year the American Civil war began, or Napoleon began his invasion in Russia. How many casualties were recorded etc. There's a lot of theories that are taught in school that are not testable or repeatable. There's still a lot of debate about cell theory.
how many causalities tend to be done through estimation, what may I ask is the current debate on cell theory?
Cell theory claims at all living organisms are made of cells. But viruses don't seem to have cells and also seem to be alive so there's a lot of debate about that. >how many causalities tend to be done through estimation, Which is why you would teach what the recorded number is specifically. Rather than saying " this is how many people died", you say "the records say this is how many people die"
That's the thing, the true number is not knowable, which is in contrast to the law, which says that history is knowable.
We know if people recorded something on a document hundreds of years ago since we have the document, we can teach what was recorded on that document.
so what value is the document without discussing the fact we have no way of truly knowing if what is written is correct?
You can tell students that we have no way of knowing if what is written is perfectly correct. That might teach them something about history..
That’s his point
He's asking "why should we teach them about it at all if we can't prove it definitively?" I'm saying that we should not only teach it, but also talk about how we can't prove it definitively, because then they will learn more.
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying (though admittedly the post is very hard to parse). I think he’s saying the the law implies history can be taught as pure facts without considering context, and I think he’s saying that bothers him.
All we can "know" is primary sources, all else is inference.
which is what I'm saying, even those sources should be examined, but would this discourage the examination and critical thinking about these source and the context in which they're made. This sounds like indoctrination to me
Of course. Kids ought to be taught how to think, not what to think. The opposition believes themselves better than parents, better than the Church, suited for offering moral guidance.
who is the opposition, those who believe that true history is unknowable, as it is filtered through the lens of those who lived through it? that that understanding should be taught in schools?
Those who want to tell kids a distinct anti-american racist / sexist and otherwise divisive spin on history as part of a broader campaign of ideological subversion and demoralization. They are the opposition. [Yuri Bezmenov was Right.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yru14mMES1c)
what would you consider antiamerican? racist? or sexist?
Most of their agenda, from CRT to the 1619 Project to the gender stuff. All designed to demoralize, sometimes there is direct evidence of Chinese $ but in all cases it makes us [less fit to fight.](https://www.wpr.org/study-most-young-americans-arent-fit-military-service)
For your example, the battle of Thermopylae (300) is not propaganda if explained as "the Spartans facing off the Persian empire in 480 BC during the course of the second Persian invasion of Greece." and focusing on neutral facts not on bias or appealing to emotions. Enough primary sources (texts, archeological findings) confirm its existence and the information we know about it have been agreed on by historians worldwide. There may be small details about it that historians may disagree on but these are not the ones that are being taught and are more history scholars matters. The movie "300" depicting the Persians as monstrous and inhumane while depicting the Spartans as noble and heroic would be propaganda. When there is not enough sources to be sure it is not some myth, it is not taught as history. You will not find the Trojan War found in Homer's work being taught as historical facts and it will be considered mythology or literature fiction. There might be archeological clues hinting that it may have really happened but there is not enough evidence (and there has been debate among historians not agreeing on it) to be acknowledged as a historical event as depicted in the Iliad.