![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
History closed to young?
Aug. 5th, 2004 09:22 amFrom today's Torygraph
How much of a country's history is it reasonable for people to know? The Torygraph article is your typical "country is going to the dogs - Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" rant but it does raise interesting questions. Is it really more appalling that teenagers don't know when the Battle of Britain was than they don't know when, say, the Battle of Lepanto was? Do we really expect people to memorize lists of battles, dates and 'famous' people? Is what's taught today (of which I know little) any worse than the kind of history satirized by Sellars and Yeatman? What is it reasonable for people to know of their own past?
This seems very problematic to me. I'm in my mid 40's and have been reading history avidly since I was a child yet I have huge gaps in my knowledge and anyway keeping up with any field is like painting the Forth Bridge. I wonder how many academic historians even have much of a grasp outside their own specialist field?
How much of a country's history is it reasonable for people to know? The Torygraph article is your typical "country is going to the dogs - Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" rant but it does raise interesting questions. Is it really more appalling that teenagers don't know when the Battle of Britain was than they don't know when, say, the Battle of Lepanto was? Do we really expect people to memorize lists of battles, dates and 'famous' people? Is what's taught today (of which I know little) any worse than the kind of history satirized by Sellars and Yeatman? What is it reasonable for people to know of their own past?
This seems very problematic to me. I'm in my mid 40's and have been reading history avidly since I was a child yet I have huge gaps in my knowledge and anyway keeping up with any field is like painting the Forth Bridge. I wonder how many academic historians even have much of a grasp outside their own specialist field?
