why humans practice history?

Question

why do humans practice history?

Answer 1

History is a process that is always in the making. One could say that "the present is history." It is also the case that "people make history" and everything we experience in the present is the result of the actions of people at an earlier point in time. 

 

The best way to make the subject of history come alive for students is to begin with something meaningful to the issues of our present day.  

Too often history is thought of as historical facts that happened in the past.  Historical "facts" such as "the Stamp Act was imposed in 1765" or "the Emancipation Proclamation" of 1863 are important to know about.  But these must be understood in terms of the social forces (people, groups, customs and laws created by people, power differences, natural disasters, wars, religious beliefs, etc.) that helped generate a specific event or change and the social consequences and responses to the historical moment.  The social forces at work leading up to and during the struggle over the Stamp Act are very relevant to understanding many of the conflicts that we saw during the 2016 Presidential campaign.

 

One lesson that comes from knowing history is that most change in the direction of greater equality and democracy has come because the people with grievances have joined together until their collective power is equal to, or threatening to, the people who hold the greatest political or economic power.  Grievances don't usually come from a single event, but a number of events generate an accumulation of grievances, which gives rise to a desire for change.  It is important to understand what other conditions have affected the ability of people to organize, spread their ideas, and be successful in their agenda.  The introduction of the automobile helped farmers across North Dakota travel long miles to get other farmers to join a movement against the encroaching power of agribusiness.  After World War II, the car made possible the growth of suburbs, but that same phenomenon broke up strong working class neighborhood's where people lived and worked near each other, making communication and organizing for their interests. What can we learn from technological changes that helped or hindered people's ability to build community and commitment to each other as we enter the world where 140-character tweets are the way people communicate?

 

Whether we study the Stamp Act, the Emancipation Proclamation, the origins and impact of Nazism in the 1930s, or the recent electoral campaign, the most important historical lessons are found in the interplay of competing interests, the efforts of people to defend or challenge the political and economic balance of power, and the conditions that enable people to make progress in their struggle for change or to protect the status quo.

 

THE lesson of history is that all major events that shaped subsequent events, including our present, are a function of the interaction of groups of people pushing for changes in their their school, church, workplace, community, nation, or world to bring about change they think will benefit them and the friends and strangers they care about.  Study any important historical moment, and it will become more interesting, meaningful, and unforgettable when studied through the lenses of "people make history" (but with the circumstances they have inherited) and "the present is history." Then you will see how these past "moments" in history are nstructive for understanding our own "moment in history."

 

Answer 2

This notion that history repeats itself is useless. No event is exactly like any previous event. Furthermore, we suffer from a confirmation bias. This means that we tend to look for evidence that supports what we already believe instead of evidence that might refute our beliefs. Take any policy issue today, whether Iran or social security, and I can bring historical examples to support whatever position you want. You want to argue in favor of the Iran treaty and I can give you the examples of Nixon going to China and Reagan agreeing to work with Gorbachov in defiance of many of the same neo-conservatives that are now arguing against the Iran treaty with the same arguments used against China and the Soviet Union. If you want to oppose the Iran treaty, I can raise for you the spector of Munich. It is obvious to each side that history "proves" they are right because they come to the issue with a bias that causes them to see the parallels in their example, while ignoring the differences and doing the exact opposite for the opposition's historical examples. Reasonable people are going to disagree over the Iran treaty. If there is a decisive argument, it will come from outside the realm of history. That being said, a knowledge of history is important for forming an educated opinion on something like the Iran treaty, because history offers context. One should be aware of past U.S. interference in Iran, leaving the Iranians with a deep suspicion of American intentions. There is also the Iranian government's own bloody history in which the taking of American hostages is only a minor aspect.  

Answer 3

The answer to your query is that by studying history we learn from it in order to prevent making the same or similar mistakes again.  The classic expression of this was made originally by Edmund Burke (1729-1797) "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."  Another variation was by George Santayana (1863-1952) "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  A common mis-quotation that is heard a lot is: "Those who ignore history are bound (or doomed) to repeat it."  At any rate, all three place some value on learning from the past.  Example: Would modern Americans stand idly by and let a ruthless and dangerous dictator like Adolf Hitler rise to power again?  I hope we learned that lesson from the history that unfolded in the 1930s and 1940s.  It cost a lot of lives to fix.