historycore — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:02:43 +0000

G. Santayana has been credited with saying something like, “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.” I have always argued with that word “know.” IMO, the rote memorization of facts allows some kind of “knowing,” but is it the most useful type? When History majors reach a certain point in their educations, they are required to research and write. Their professors, in editing and grading, can determine whether the students are ready and able to pursue degrees in History. For me, that was the beginning of my “understanding” History instead of “knowing” it. Recently, in a group of fellow professors, I commented that History is not about “facts,” and a colleague (not in History) said, “What!?!” My fellow History prof, sitting next to me, then commented, “They haven’t got a clue.” I guess I discovered that other professors think History professors are jokes, with very easy classes to teach. That explains why coaches are so often History teachers in high school! But, history is not about memorizing facts. True, “knowing” dates, times, places, and players is useful, but it is not the purpose of studying History. So, to update and upgrade Santayana’s quote, I add: “Those who do not understand History are doomed to repeat it.”

Historycore's Blog