[PeculiarGroove]

Suffolk University in England has announced plans to scrap any history studies related to anything that took place pre 1700AD.

Personally, I think this is crazy. What about the Magna Carta? The Reformation? The English Civil War? The Wars Of The Roses? The Battle of Hastings? Shakespeare? Are they no longer important?

What do you think?

[NuckingFutz]

Sounds too crazy to believe. Did you site the source?

[KathyM]

That IS very strange, but it does happen. It happens here too - i.e., history being either re-written or deleted altogether. It could be a way to control the masses (keeping them calm) or it could be because there isn't enough time/space/energy to cover those topics. Professors are under so much pressure these days.

As it is with most places, when new owners/leaders/parties are in charge - it's their choice on what is said about the building/property/business.....including it's name and history.

Hopefully, in today's world people will be able to read about those events on their own outside of the university setting. People who have a strong connection to that history won't be able to delete it from their hearts.

I sincerely hope your young people won't have to learn about Shakespeare by only studying recreations in movies and plays. I suspect the real old Bill wouldn't be pleased if he were around to see all his work scrapped.

I certainly hope Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner won't go down in history as playing a part in "The War of the Roses."

[lonegael]

Sad, but not suprised.

[hawthoerne]

that's................. really. REALLY weird.

I agree with you, PeculiarGroove.

[(JD)]

Not weird at all when you understand the goal of the one world government. Progressivism requires the rewriting or deletion of previous historical events in order to enate their own agenda. What children today don't know, or when they don't know the truth i.e. Iran's declaration that the Holocaust never occurred, allows them to believe many evil things.
I personally think it's part of prophecy. Whatever it is, it aint' right! But there's no stopping it.
Even our own USA history has been rewritten in many areas ... and no just recently, though moreso recently.

[KathyM]

Originally Posted by _Sky

Even our own USA history has been rewritten in many areas ... and no just recently, though moreso recently.

That's right Sky. As a kid, I was taught about the victorious "Battle of Wounded Knee," conducted by the brave and courageous U.S. Army. I'm glad the survivors of the event and history buffs were able to set the record straight.

When my son was in junior high school, his history book carried only one small paragraph about the Civil Rights Movement. The summary of the CRM made it sound like a piece of cake and completely resolved. Those of us who lived through that chaos remember it differently. Those of us who have to live with continued overt and covert racism, oppression and discrimination also see it differently.

[Hippie]

Before 1700? WEll, there goes my birthday celebrations out the window.

[perpetuallysad]

Of offense meant, but I tried to find any information confirming this and I find nothing whatsoever. Could you please give me some sort of source so I can read about this myself?

Thanks


edit I did find some information and it says that pre1700 UK history won't be taught because of budget cuts and lack of demand.
article

[perpetuallysad]

Also, god I know I'm annoying, but its the University of Sussex, not Suffolk University.

[michele#3]

Stupid and weird! Are they trying to re write history or something? Oh, I just read the previous post it says something about buget cutbacks and lack of demand. Hmm... I think all history is relevant to the present.

[sunflower55]

Revision in history is done all the time.
There's *no* conspiracy in it;
And it's not evil in its intent.

As historians learn new information, adjustments are made to the record. This happens for many reasons. In the ancient world, or up until fairly recent times, it's usually do to finding new information that was previously undiscovered. A new discovery may have been made that adds to the record. For example, a new archaeological dig uncovers new material previously unknown. A family releases documents that it has held onto for multiple generations. A new piece of work from an artist is discovered. A stolen piece has been recovered. A restoration uncovers something previously hidden underneath. All of these reasons, and more, can change the historical record.

One clear example is the Renaissance. Most were taught that it was a time of great advances. But, the historian has now looked at *all* the people, not just the artists, the courts, and the merchants - most of whom were male. But, when they viewed the lives of the women of the time, we see that there was a real *loss* of social, economic and political power.

That change in perspective, and the resultant change in the concomitant story causes what one historian labeled a "double vision." While real gains were made in multiple areas, there were tremendous losses for 1/2 of the population! This is historic revision. It's what most of us never learned in school. But, new information leads to a new story.

In more modern times, the reason is more obvious. Records are kept locked up and secured by the government until a certain number of years after the person's death. This is for many reasons - privacy of the family and national security to name a few. When these records are released, it changes the previous knowledge. When the knowledge changes, so does the previous story -- the history.

Historic revision has *always* gone on. The history of history - called historiography - tells of this compelling case. Simply look up a piece of history that you recall from your school years, and google it with historiography in the google search. You'll find multiple schools of history, with their own angle, and how the study of history has changed over time. So, even the change in the *study* of how history is conducted changes the story!

There is *no* evil intent involved in historic revision. Unless, of course, you think the advent of knowledge itself is evil! LOL! If so, nothing I, or anyone else says will convince you of anything.

The study of history prior to 1700 at that school was a result of budget cuts -- and *not* some evil intent as some originally assumed. Neither is historic revision. It's the historian's job to correct the record when the evidence requires that change.

But, Americans sure do love a conspiracy theory! After all, the American Revolution was born of one! It's in our blood.
But, the historian needs evidence.

Peace!

[perpetuallysad]

sunflower55 thank you so much for saying that!

[sunflower55]

Michelle#3,
I too think all history is relevant to the present. It's a shame the University is being so short sighted. The lack of knowledge about the Ancient World is alarming! Many think people in the Ancient World were Neanderthals, rather than highly sophisticated, knowlegable people who shared their wisdom with us via the Crusades because of the Arab world and the Christian monks; and through multiple secular and religious writings. Although students may be unaware of the importance of this knowledge, the University is not. They are making a very bad choice, in my opinion.

Peace!

[KathyM]

Originally Posted by sunflower55

For example, a new archaeological dig uncovers new material previously unknown.

My husband likes to watch the History Channel. I'm particularly sensitive to archaeological digging. It makes me nauseous to see them uncover human bones and man-handle them as if they mean nothing at all. I'd be FURIOUS if they ever did that to any of my relatives - or ME.

It's hard to believe the "truth" they appear to uncover about the person/object community life at the time. It's usually sensationalized, and it's only based on observation by those foreign to the area who have only studied books about the region.

For example....

What would they say about Haiti if the information of the earthquake was lost? Will they say the Haitians buried their people in mass graves along with their garbage - or say it was a massive human sacrifice to appease their "Gods" How will they explain all the foreign influence (missionaries and medical teams) they uncover - will they call it humanitarian aide or will they call it an invasion/conflict?

If it's okay to dig into the earth to uncover bones and history in other countries, why is it not okay to do it here? Would anyone here in the U.S. be upset if a foreign team of archeologists started digging up the graves at Arlington National cemetery years from now? I would. What would they be able to glean from their observations, and what will be said?

[sunflower55]

Archeological digs are done here in the US all the time, Kathy.
One major discovery is that Amerins, (American Indians), here in the North East did indeed have private land ownership. Digs have uncovered stone walls that sectioned off these privately owned areas. What we once thought was publically owned and shared land was not true for *all* Amerin people.

A great book to read on the subject is Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of New England by William Cronon. In it, you will learn many insightful new things that your previous history classes never taught you. It's an amazing study.

Please understand, too, that the historian has a scientific method to follow. It's not a case of, "I think," and publish. There is co-oberation of evidence that's required in most cases. And when that's not able to be done, (due to a paucity of sources), then there must be multiple alternate evidences that point to the thesis being proffered. And there are multiple peer reviews to get through too. That is not an easy hoop to jump through, I can assure you!

Historians do not speak of "truth." They offer the best theories as any scientist does. Historians are social scientists. And while you say they only know of the culture through books, that is not always the the case, though it may be so. Many historians go to the land that they are experts in and study it in depth for years. One school of historiography requires it. However, others rely on the sociologists' study of the particular land, and make use of their knowledge. The sociologist, of course, has gone and studied a particular people first hand.

In either case, the knowledge is valid. I find it interesting that "book knowledge" be considered invalid for some reason, when, today, there is a plethera of knowledge about any and everything! A lawyer, for example, has book knowledge. A doctor has book knowledge. And as they practice their craft, they get better at it. Does anyone deny their knowledge about their profession? So, too, it is with the historian.

Historians know about nature's catastrophies too. Pompeii was destroyed by a volcano. The ash is there to tell of it, plus many written sources tell us about it. Earthquakes and hurricanes; tornadoes and tidal waves all leave tell tale signs. Plus there is the written record that's left behind from neighboring areas and any survivors. So, the record of Haiti will not be lost. It's a hard sell to say *all* the information about the destruction done by the earthquake will disappear, when the dead sea scrolls are still around today.

And, while I'm not here to argue, I respectfully disagree with you about how human remains are treated. There is a very high regard placed upon human remains found today! Of course, I am talking about standards in the USA; I cannot speak for other countries standards. And if they do not treat them with due regard, I, too, would share your distain.

But, again, the point of this post is historic revision, and the loss of history classes at a certain university. It's a shame the university is taking away an important learning opportunity for students who are already shamefully unaware. But, that doesn't make the decision to do so evil in its intent. Budget cuts in this economy are normal. I just wish they would make them at the administration level, where there's usually so much pork, and not at the teaching and learning level, where it's sorely needed.

Peace!

[perpetuallysad]

I would also like to mention about the original post, that the university isn't going to stop teaching history prior to 1700. It has decided to no longer train historians in those areas, meaning that they are doing away with the "majors" related to those times. I am not saying this is any less disgusting, but they aren't going to stop teaching everything that happened pre-1700. Sadly they will no longer sponsor scholarship and research into those time periods. And the decision hasn't been finalized, it has been suggested. Right now there are hundreds of students at the University of Sussex who are having a sit in to protest this. Click this to read about the protest

[KathyM]

sunflower

I was not referring to American Indians or dinosaurs in my post. I was asking about Arlington National Cemetery. You'd have no problem if a foreign "team of experts" came in to dig up the graves and make their own assessment of what happened or how they died?

[perpetuallysad]

For the most part, archeological digs are done on entire areas that have been covered by newer buildings or just by the sands of time. They are done on sites where the information about the place isn't readily available and when there is information to be learned. Things now are done in a much more modern manner. Arlington National Cemetery is not going to be covered by the sands of time unless we have some sort of cataclysmic event and hundreds or thousands of years later the people don't know what happened, what was located where, etc. And then they may very well dig up some of the cemetery, but I have to think its really quite unlikely to happen any time soon and if it does it won't be in a disrespectful manner. To ignore history is a terrible mistake. We have learned a great deal from all types of archeological sites, including graves. Especially from graves tens of thousands of years old. Those people didn't leave us libraries of documents about their lives. Seeing how they treated their dead and the things that were buried with them really does teach us a great deal. I guess I just don't see it as a desecration, but more of an information gathering expedition.

[sunflower55]

Originally Posted by KathyM

My husband likes to watch the History Channel. I'm particularly sensitive to archaeological digging. It makes me nauseous to see them uncover human bones and man-handle them as if they mean nothing at all. I'd be FURIOUS if they ever did that to any of my relatives - or ME.

It's hard to believe the "truth" they appear to uncover about the person/object community life at the time. It's usually sensationalized, and it's only based on observation by those foreign to the area who have only studied books about the region.

For example....

What would they say about Haiti if the information of the earthquake was lost? Will they say the Haitians buried their people in mass graves along with their garbage - or say it was a massive human sacrifice to appease their "Gods" How will they explain all the foreign influence (missionaries and medical teams) they uncover - will they call it humanitarian aide or will they call it an invasion/conflict?

If it's okay to dig into the earth to uncover bones and history in other countries, why is it not okay to do it here? Would anyone here in the U.S. be upset if a foreign team of archeologists started digging up the graves at Arlington National cemetery years from now? I would. What would they be able to glean from their observations, and what will be said?

Kathy,
Arlington National Cemetery is *one* sentence in the entire 4 paragraphs that I responded to in your post. I do believe that PerpetuallySad responded to that issue quite well. I have no need to repeat her post.
Nor do I have any need to argue...

But, again, the point of this thread is historic revision, and the loss of history classes at a certain university....Maybe you'd like to start a new thread?

Peace!