The Little Things

Sometimes my favorite thing about the study of history is something small and funny, something that really makes the history come alive or something that makes me laugh. Like knowing that David Souter eats the SAME THING for lunch everyday: an apple (the entire thing, core and all) and yogurt, or knowing that Ruth Bater Ginsburg hates having her chambers right above Clarence Thomas because the cigar smoke from his office blows up through the vents.

It's even funnier though when reading about historical figures that have been dead for hundreds of years (and even more important because the need to humanize them is much greater). An example: not much is known about Thomas Jefferson's mannerisms. He was exceedingly shy and timid in public situations and was once compared to an awkward stranger at a party who would silently hover from group to group without ever saying anything (that guy!). Also, whenever Jefferson was alone (or in the close company of his slaves or friends) he was always singing or humming to himself! He loved it.

Doesn't that make a previously unreachable historical figure a little more human? I love things like that-the little things. When studying history, it's important to keep in mind that less is more: never study too much history too fast or without much attention to detail. What's the point of that? Rather, study a more specific period of history, the people from that time, and what they did. And when you do this, don't be afraid of tightening the lens as tight as you can. Don't be afraid to learn about the little things-they'll make everything more human (and you'll laugh).

Chice

Literature vs. History: Part 2

The following is a continuation of my earlier post Literature vs. History: Part 1...

But what can you really learn from history? The old me would have raised his handsome eyebrows and said, "um...nothing!". There's a good reason for this. History is usually taught (at least in the classroom setting) in a horrid and boring way, reduced to mere names and dates. Why wouldn't you hate history when it's taught on a piece of paper (and nowhere else) like that? And it is taught like that by about 99.9% of teachers (at least at pre-university levels). The number of history teachers out there that shouldn't be in their respected profession is staggering.

But what can it really teach you? Can learning endless things about men who lived hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago teach you anything about our existence today? Does it contain any gateways to a greater understanding of the world around us? It turns out, absolutely.

So can it teach you anything? Can learning something about men and women who lives hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago teach you anything about life today? Does history really contain any gateways to a greater understanding of the world around us? Recently I've discovered that yes, it does.

The first time history taught me something valuable was my Junior year of high school. I had just read a couple of dystopian novels in my British Literature class (Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984). As you can imagine, I had a great deal on my mind about the future and possible ways things could go wrong, and then congress (of course through pressure from President Bush) passed another national security law to "make the country safer". I remember this specific one had something to do with torture, and I started to actually get nervous about America and our safety (not from terrorists but from out own government). Throughout the rest of the year however, I learned about countless times in our history when various president's have urged congress to pass laws restricting various civil liberties during wartime. In fact, the measures passed by congress in the War on Terror this time around were nothing compared to many laws passed by several former presidents. (Alien and Sedition Laws to cite one example. Can you imagine what it would be like if President Bush tried to get congress to pass those today? It could never happen-we'd all be in prison.) I immediately calmed down: I had been relying on the dystopian futures in a couple of novels without knowing any of the history surrounding this kind of issue. This doesn't justify the passing of these laws, but it does calm one down. It's not the end of the world.

(I have to run. Conclusion to follow (soon) in Part 3...)

Chice

Literature vs. History: Part 1

Hello Everyone,

I've been thinking a lot lately about the difference between, and the relative merits of, English and History (can you tell I'm a student?). That is to say, literature and history. I'm a lover of both, and I go through phases where I consider one or the other to be more important or more philosophically valuable, but ultimately I just can't decide. Which holds more truth? Which is the more philosophical? Which is more worthy of study and consideration? Literature or history?

If you would have asked me this question any time within the last few years, I wouldn't have hesitated to blurt out, "Uh, literature!", before laughing at you. I spent a great deal of my time (at least I intended to) reading the great works of fiction my various fine English classes had to offer, and frankly considered history to be irrelevant, stupid, and a huge bore. Where else but literature can you learn about Happiness and Ignorance than from Huxley's Brave New World? Where else can you learn about the paradox of civilization than from Conrad's Heart of Darkness? And what of Camus and his mediations on Existence and the Absurd with The Stranger (my favorite novel)? "You can't learn about any of these truths from history!" "Don't be an idiot!" This is what I would have said to you (or at least thought about you).

But then I remembered something that is seemingly obvious (but often forgotten) about literature: it's bullshit. That's to say, it's a lie. You can say a lot about literature, some of which is debatable and some not, but we can all agree on this: literature is nothing but lies. It's all made up. Now, the obvious next thought is that literature is a compilation of lies aiming for the truth. An author's intent is of course not to lie to you (the reader) but instead to convey some kind of truth or message through lies. But the word "truth" can be tricky: after all, any "truth" being portrayed in a work of literature isn't the truth, just a truth (more specifically, the author's truth). And that is all that can be truthfully be said about literature. I think people often lose sight of this fact, and take what they read for some kind of universal truth. It of course isn't and can't be such a thing-it's just one asshole's opinion. In fact, this asshole's (excuse me, author's) opinion or truth isn't even as noble or pure as that, because the mere fact that he or she is taking the time to write a novel to convey such a truth obviously means they're attempting to convince those who read it of that truth! What if this truth is of political nature, or what if this truth is some other kind of propaganda? This muddies the waters even more, does it not?

Everything I've just said it quite obvious, but it is also not often forgotten? When you pick up a novel, you're not picking up a gateway into any greater understanding of the world, but merely one person's attempts to convince you of what they'd call (in the best of times) a greater truth. None of this is to say that you can't learn from literature. This all is merely a warning and a reminder to think about what you're reading, and to think hard about what you're reading because you are reading a lie, and a lie about a world that doesn't exist (but a lie hoping to measure up to a world that does).

More to follow in Part 2...

Chice