History is taught wrong

>find a guy who studied history
>try to discuss with him the great movements and changes that went through the ages, and the applications they have for the modern day
>he knows nothing about it
>all he did was memorize dates, people, and events. He has almost no understanding of what they meant or why they were actually important.

What is up with that? Why are studies of history so focused on tiny insignificant details instead of the greater meaning behind it all? How exactly is learning all the individual battles in WW2 going to teach you why that war happened and the reasons the winners were the winners?

It all seems to stupid to me.

You are a very dumb person

usually those who study history go into archiving or teaching, so its no surprise that they can get by with just memorization.

THIS

I've been saying this for all time. I personally don't like to focus on the dates, but time and again I see people, their teachers, and my own teachers have been caught up with when X thing happened.

It's SO stupid. Most of my teachers understand how these aspects are less important (depending on the context, obviously, something like the leadup to WWI is pretty important with the days and dates).

Whenever I talk to my parents or friends about history, I always try to explain the bigger picture instead of "Oh yes, the Anglo-Zulu War first started in 1879..."

Ugh fucking this.

I learn history through Hardcore history, and thanks to that, I can see the big picture of history and apply shit to my life.

I spoke to a historian the other day and I fucking swear I'm more historically intellectual than him.

Didn't Hitler say the same also in Mein Kampf?

That is some pretty good bait, I'll be stealing it for future shitposting.

This whole thread is good fucking bait

>What is up with that? Why are studies of history so focused on tiny insignificant details instead of the greater meaning behind it all? How exactly is learning all the individual battles in WW2 going to teach you why that war happened and the reasons the winners were the winners?

That is not history.

what do you call it, then?

>history is taught wrong
So is English, apparently.

This is, I think, stemmed from two big issues: 1) Teachers aren't taught to teach or aren't taught to teach what they are teaching. 2) Once they are teaching, they have nothing or no one to challenge them and will try to cut corners, making life easier. compounded with problem 1, you get horseshit being taught in class under the guise of need-to-know information. yep.

Shit like this makes me glad about how history classes were in my school.

People and events were important, of course.
There were often questions about dates, too

But by far the most of the focus of both the classes and the exams were about the importance and impact of said events.
I rarely took the time to remember any dates at all, as that was barely tested. The only thing the teachers cared about regarding dates is if you know the order in which things happened.

>normie claims he loves history
>all he knows about history is some shit about ancient rome relating to the senate

>I ask him about how the senate formed and how much power the senate had
>i dunno

Fucking normies.

Teacher here, although in science.

This is probably true. Most teachers, >90%, are pretty stupid and don't care for the actual subject they purport to teach. Government initiatives and curricula stifle what little enthusiasm a teacher may have for it also.

>tfw you don't know how the senate formed
:(

Some people call it pseudo-history, others positivist history.

Either way, it's not history. You should read What is Cultural History? by Peter Burke if you want a quick look at the history of history.

Is there any way to work around the system or no?

>Why are studies of history so focused on tiny insignificant details instead of the greater meaning behind it all?
They aren't. No one cares about dates anymore, it's all social changes, movements n' shit.

Maybe it depends where you live? I think there might be some countries which are still hung up on the whole kings dates and battles routine.

Historical illiterate here, can someone recommend me a good place to start for learning ancient history leading up to the start of Rome? Especially on stuff with Troy and ancient Greece. audiobooks or podcasts perhaps?

what ur describing is classical typical institutional indoctrination within the field today. starts in highschool and then tertiary, at least in au.. its pretty shitty, most hists arent worth their salt. no critical thinking or thought analysis. they arent encouraged nor trained and it seldom comes about naturally independantly.

HISTORY IS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN. WHY IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF HISTORY

YOU
ARE
A
FUCKING
POMPOUS
RETARD

>You need to understand the inner workings of usually insane historical figures to TRULY UNDERSTAND history
Kill yourself.

>Have History BA
>Most people in my history classes were more interested in media narratives and contemporary politics than in the events being discussed in their own context
>Some play Civilization in history class and tell the professor they were "running a simulation" on the subject matter after class ends
>Some were as normal as it's possible for nomralfags to be
>The rest were intelligent people from and with whom you learned a lot
OP is a faggot

Not the guy you quoted, but from my understanding History is both about when and why. On most universities, mine included, you're supposed to know the whens like the back of your hand from your previous education, thus allowing you to discuss in depth the whys.

We also learn a lot about the hows. As in, how famous historians reached their conclusions or how each school of thought deal with the problematization of the study of history.

To know when it happened, why it happened and how it happened. That is the study of History, on a very crude definition.

>On most universities, mine included, you're supposed to know the whens like the back of your hand from your previous education
You might just be a bad student, or have bad professors. This isn't true of my university.

How is it bad for the teachers to suppose that you already know the basics and focus on more in depth, important stuff? Isn't that the very objective of higher education? I wouldn't consider myself a bad student for knowing stuff, or my teacher for assuming so.

Do you spend time on your history classes learning about who did what in which year? For us, we usually discuss the higher meaning and the long-lasting consequences of those events, instead of the events themselves (that we're supposed to already know about since high school). Sometimes we learn about how each historiography school approach the subject.