One thing that stuck out to me in the podcast was the difference between the history of how a singular person came to be versus looking at how the person impacted the people around them. In the podcast, Dr. B talks about George Washington. From our high school history class, I remember that we kinda just talked about his rise and then what he did that impacted other events, but never really his leadership tactics to cause success and unsuccessful missions. Evaluating the common people’s attitudes and quality of life is the most effective when determining if someone is considered a success or failure instead of looking at how the leader could have become more wealthy or just advanced part of society. I know the greatest good for the greatest amount of people might not be what everyone likes to believe or actually produce results in the short run, but I think as a whole will be more beneficial in the long run.
Critical Thinking
I really like your example of George Washington – I know when I learned about him whether it was middle or high school we just really looked at events that he took part in (mainly in the Revolutionary War). There is a huge lack of analysis when examining these important figures who we all know about, but do not necessarily understand how they got there and how someone else didn’t or how they could have improved. Sometimes we do not look at the greater picture in the long run and see small individual successes rather than examining what is making people or things successful over a long period of time.
I also agree with you and what Evie said above. I think overall in our society there is a lack of analysis on all ends. This means there is a lack of conversation. I also think George Washington and other historical figures are great examples of this. We tend to look at the same three subjects in class or the same attributes that a leader has. How does this hurt our perception as young students? How will we be able to change it?
A big part of it is based upon our education system. Were taught that history is a list of facts when in truth it’s much more complicated than that. Knowing the whole picture takes time to teach, but is vital in understanding humanity as a whole.
I think that it is so interesting that education varies so much as well. For example, some schools teach the Civil War as “The War of Northern Aggression.” Further, in Idaho, they are trying to pass a bill that states that public schools cannot teach about the Civil War, Women’s Suffrage, etc. (essentially teachers cannot teach about the bad parts of the U.S. or their funding will be reduced). Because there is such a vast difference between what we are taught, how can we ever be sure of anything? How will we ever know the truth if we only have 1/2 the story that is then understood/taught/told differently throughout the country?
I think talking about figures like George Washington, it is important also to not just look at the other people around him, but also the impact of his actions on these people. While we tend to glorify Washington as a national hero for helping get the colonists to be independent, he also impacted those around him negatively, such as the slaves who suffered under his control. In looking at figures, it is important to understand not just the historical figures, but also those around them, and the impacts of decisions on them.