Historical Value

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I was thinking about this when I was at work the other day. Let me start by explaining...
I work at a living history museum. My job is to tell people stories and historical facts about the buildings they are touring, and it just so happens to be field trip time. We are visited by many kids every day, but it was something a parent did that made me think...
I was telling a story about Henry Ford as people toured his birthplace. I told them about the living conditions of the time, and so on, and then a woman (one of the parents) says, "Someone REALLY lived here?" I said, "Yes". She said, "REALLY? Is he still living?" She seemed to disregaurd the fact that I was talking about Henry Ford, who founded the Ford Motor Company in 1903, AND that the museum is called Henry Ford Museum. How could she go there without knowing who he was?

OK, now to my point...
While re-reading The Lord of the Rings I really noticed this time how all of the characters are very well educated with their history and how they all know about their ancestors and the doings of the past. I though, "How wonderful would this be if people today still had such an appreciation for their history." I don't know what it's like where you live, but near me people are not very well educated (as a whole). I saw on the news that the local high schools tested at a 22% satisfactory reading rate! High school! These kids probably couldn't even tackle a book like The Lord of the Rings!!! I just find it sad that an alarming amount of people today are forgetting their history and losing the importance of it.

I was wondering what this is like around where you live and if you see the same thing.
Also, I was wondering what you think would happen if Frodo wasn't as well educated... let's say that he didn't know any Elvish, he didn't know that maps of Middle Earth and he didn't know the history of Middle Earth. I think that it could've damaged his mission.
Any opinions????

Sorry, this was a long one! smilies/eek.gif

[Tarthang]

Well, what can I say, but us Americans, are a bunch of lazy dumb asses. Our keep up with the Jonses economic culture, means that we have all the gizmo's and gadgets that make our life so comfortable, that as a whole we've become complacent and easily take things for granted. This parent helps prove this point by not even realizing, that our lifestyle and technology weren't alway's around, and therefore another way of living is inconceivable.

It would seem we have lost our sense of value in what helped make America the powerful nation it is today. Namely drive and ambition, especially in regard towards education. What need do I have learn anything, All i really need to know is how to operate my pc, log into and use the net, to find out anything I need to know.

So what woiuld happen if all our wonderfull technology were to fail overnight? I'd say within five years, most Americans would die from lack of knowledge to survive in a world without technology. All those third world countries with little or nothing, would quickly become first world nations.

As far as the characters in LOTR being educated. well only the main characters. If you recall, Merry or Pippin remark that they wished they'd paid more attention to the planning stages in Rivendell. So not all of the main characters were necessarily as well educated as it seems as implied. I imagine a lot of the characters history was preserved in the form as folktales which were to some greater degree for entertainment purposes than just educational, especially in the case of hobbits. Elves are immortal, so they have all the time in the world to learn their history, the same could be said of the dwarves. Aragorn, Boromir and Faramir, Eomer, Eowyn, Legolas and most of the others were of the nobility where an education was as much an asset as privilige, when compared to the common man. And JRRT provides very little contact with the common men of Middle Earth.

[Nufaciel]

Yeah, I know what you mean. As a whole, people tend to be so comfortable, the think they don't need to know anything. I've taken people down to Mexico and they are floored by the conditions there. My family that lives there lives within ten miles of the Texas border, and they have don't have running water, very few have electricity. In the village where my family lives only my aunt and my grandmother have phones. There is no indoor plumbing (nothing like using an outhouse). They only have to go to school up to grade 6, and their day in school is like 4 hours. Anyway, my point is we have it good, and people take this for granted. I for one try not to do this. I'm always studying something new.

Anyway, in Lord of the Rings, if you remember, the lady in the healing house (can't remember name offhand). She's supposed to be learned in her lore, but she has to be told what athelas is.

[littlemanpoet]

It comes down to what we value. The (Edwardian) hobbits of the Shire, reflecting a late 19th century sensibility, valued community, family, knowledge, oh, and food. We value the new rights (right of privacy, right to know, equality of opportunity)- and take for granted the old. These new rights point to what is most important to us. History is not among them because it serves no utilitarian purpose in terms of what we value. Mind you, I speak of us rich, fat, lazy and short-sighted Americans in general. I took a BA in History because I love it. It has done me next to nothing in terms of employment. Just as well. Tolkien could not have written a stupid American Frodo. Obviously. Now THAT might make an interesting fantasy story. I'll be it's beendone before.

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

littlemanpoet: a stupid American Frodo?!? Now that would have been funny!
Here (Canada) history is considered just as important as, say, math. We spend weeks - even months - in other subjects studying something history-related. I'm trying to write a history, and I never realised how hard it would be before. My history teacher (he is very cool) is obsessed with history. There are a few topics which, if you get him talking about them, you will not be able to stop him. I think history is very important - if we forget our own history, where we came from and what has happened before, then what will we have learned? - and it is currently one of my favourite subjects (tied with Drama. Normally I would say English, too, but the English class here... let's just say I wish some of you smart people went to my school). It is complex, varied, and vibrant.
If Frodo hadn't been as well educated as he was, the effect would have been disastrous. However, the lack of such an education did not seem to slow Pippin and Merry down too much. I think it was very important that Frodo knew a bit about the Elves, and could speak their language a little. His being an "Elf-friend" helped on their mission. The Gondorians and Rohirrim mentioned above might probably have been educated as a part of their noble lifestyle.
This is a very interesting thread. I think that hobbits probably used oral tradition more than anything, too...

[Laiedheliel]

Hmm, this is an interesting one. As a citizen (proud at times, not at others) of the U.S. of A. and still a student of the public schools, I can say a few things on this one:

1. Many of the kids in my grade are slackers, pure and simple. Already by eighth grade they are bored by school, and all they wish to do is return home to their phones, VCRs, TVs and PCs. When some of my friends, most of which take advanced classes right along side me, heard I was writing a book, they were shocked, as if it were obscene to be using one's god-given talent, or to put out an extra effort.

2. Many of the parents in my district (I do not speak for anyone in particular, and do not speak for anyone outside of my school district) are under-educated, fathers working and mothers playing the fifties housewife role. I know some of my friends' parents attended college, but a shocking amount did not and now work at labor-class jobs or not at all, and have little knowledge as to what their children are actually doing and being exposed to. This trait their children have inherited, and have not yet come to the dreadful realization that times have changed and that an education is an essential tool to unlocking one's future in this country.

3. As previously said, we in the U.S. take wayyy to many things for granted, not just education. Take 9-11 for example: We took for granted that we were safe, and all of our securieties (sp?) were shattered. We have so much in this country, but we do not share, and generally do not except that people in some other countries have very little. I have a Chinese (sp?) pen pal, and when I hear about the way she looks at her education, as a gift, I realize how naive my friends and I really are. It seems to me that the whole of Europe and Asia tend to take their education so much more seriously, and have retained a rememberance of what life is like without it, and without all of our modern-day convinences (sp?), or as some like to say, modern-day curses. (Though we here at the Downs depend on one of those 'modern-day curses' to have intellectual convos like this one...)

*Whistles at the novel she just wrote* Sorry guys, I have really strong feelings on this one, and if you have read this far I am taking a break to thank you for reading my three very lengthy reasons...

As far as the education in ME, the characters we saw in the LotR series were, at least this is my impression, unusal, with the exception of elves, in their high educations. Frodo knew much more than any of the Hobbits in Hobbiton, and Bilbo knew more that he. Aragorn was the heir to the throne of Gondor, and he grew up in Elrond's house. Legolas was the Prince of Mirkwood, and immortal. Gimli was a really out there dwarf. Sam, Merry, and Pippin's education, though they may or may not have seemed formidable to others of their own kind, paled in comparison to the other characters in the book. I happen to agree with whomever said so above: that most of the history and lore passed down to the Hobbits and Dwarf were more for entertainment purposes, not for preparing for a greater scheme or future, and certainly not for a Fellowship to vanquish the Dark Lord.

*Stops her rambling to take a deep breath* Whew, I think this is the longest post I've written that hasn't been in an RPG. As I have said, I happen to have really strong views on the subject, even for a fourteen year old.

Anyone else?

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Laiedheliel ]

[Birdland]

I have to sadly agree with all of the statements posted above. Actually, coming to a board like this and hearing from so many younger people, who obviously DO have an interest in history, languages, and mythology has restored my faith somewhat in the this generation. (I hope you are not as rare a breed as you seem to be stating.)

I could go on and on with this topic, but the main theory I'd like to put forward is that the denizens of the Shire have always impressed me as being - well - rather "American" in their attitudes and interests. They are a comfortable, insulated, and well-off country, set in the middle of a dangerous and threatened world. They have little or no interest in the going-ons of anything outside of The Shire, and they have very little idea of their own history beyond the time that their ancestors arrived in Eriador, let alone other cultures. And even that has been reduced down to tracing family trees. They've even forgotten their own language! Bilbo and Frodo were definitely the exception, with their interest in history and other cultures around them.

Now Tolkien explains this away by stating that Hobbits were originally a rather primitive race of hunter-gatherers in their ancient past, and had no written records of their origins, beliefs, or history. This has always struck me as one of the few false notes to Tolkien's mythology. Even so-called primitive cultures always have a rich oral history, which is handed down through the generations.

Is it possible that; as the Halflings settled and prospered in their new home, and gave up their "wandering ways", that they rejected their own history, and let what knowledge they had of themselves "die out"?

Oh, one more point (in a totally different direction). Isn't it interesting that Sam, the lower-class son of working parents, had more of an interest in "education", then the upper class, well-established Tooks and Brandybucks? And it wasn't viewed as a way to ingratiate himself to his "betters" or raise himself up. It was a pure love of knowledge that he regarded as a precious gift, and his one source of pride.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Laiedheliel]

Birdland, I am truly sorry to answer what I have to, but the teenager of today are not the culture loving, knowledge hungering fiends you see before you. Morals that once existed to keep this breed from being so rare have fallen from their guilded pedastals (sp?) and have left those few desendants of the breed scraping the bottom of the barrel. I am glad I have aided in restoring your faith in the generation, but do not give up on us yet, we may surprise you. Do you think our children will grow up without this exposure and knowledge? Heh heh.

Sam, now that I have put some thought to it, is like what you said also, Birdland, but he seems to take it still at an entertainment value, and does not seem to have realized the real-life applications of the knowledge he has aquired; other than it being one of his sole sources of pride, the other being his garden...*Sigh* Reminds me of some, no most of my friends. As far as the oral passing down of history of Hobbits, I do not see it as an inconsistancy, just as a disapointment, my only with the series. I believe that with all of the creative genius in that man's head, JRRT should have come up with an better way of explaining that. But at the same time, if they had a history, would the Hobbits still be the light-hearted creatures of pleasure we all have come to love?

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Laiedheliel ]

[Bramblerose Gamgee-Took]

In Autralia, our history is important, but there isn't a lot to know, as Australia has only had white-settlers living in it for 200 hundred years. History is one of my favourite subjects in school, and I try to find out as much as I can. Sadly though, I am only a few who actually pay attention.
I think if Frodo didnt know as much as he did, he would have almost certainly blundered in destroying the ring.

[Kuruharan]

Ah-Ha! Another one of my hobby horses. However, I'll spare you my usual venomous rant about the ills of American public education. (I can hear you all sighing with relief). But there are a few things I'd like to point out.

Ignorance of the past is not just a modern "problem." This is a problem that has always been around since the dawn of recorded history. The vast majority of people in all cultures over time have always had a rather flimsy grasp of their past.

Why? Well, illiteracy was a big part of the problem. Only the wealthy and educated had the time, to say nothing of the money, to spend writing and studying their history. To the majority of people it had little practical function in their work. Not to discount the importance of oral history, which was indeed very important to most cultures throughout the world, but much of this oral history tends to fall under the category of myth rather than history. One of the pitfalls of studying history is that you are reading the records of the powerful, and therefore literate, classes. The true opinions and feelings of the vast majority of "common people" are utterly lost to us. With regards to Middle earth, this point was touched on by Tarthang, Nufaciel, Birdland and Laiedheliel.

This is one of the reasons why there is an ongoing movement to place history in the literary arts rather than the social sciences, but this is not the place to open that can o' worms.

Moving on to more modern times (i.e. when reading and writing became more universal) the same, "history is not relevant to my real life" attitude still abounded. People who had to work, hard, for their living did not have time to study their past in depth. Their knowledge of history was pretty much restricted to "popular history" or the way that society remembers the past, whether it is accurate or not. (Usually not.)

With all due respect to Edwardian England, I suspect that by far and away the largest segment of the population had no firmer grasp on history than, "We kicked France's butt at Waterloo! Go us!"

Hmmm, this has come off sounding like more of a defense of us lazy Americans than I had really intended. However, in all fairness I felt that it needed saying that this is not a problem that is exclusive to modern America, or for that matter modern times in general.

Something that I do very much fault modern America for is the fact that the vast majority of the population actually has the opportunity to really learn their history (something that is very rare I can assure you) but most of them do not.

Alas, I guess it's that factor of human stupidity. There have always been dumb people, there always will be. But as far as most people can see there is no reason to learn history. Unfortunately, those of us who do have knowledge of the past can clearly see the dangers.

"How in the world can studying how everybody in the past messed up help me?"
-Actual statement I overheard

Well, for starters "Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it." Except that one thing learned from the past is that humanity never learns from the past.

Another thing is something I have come to believe more firmly the more I learn, and that is, "The more things change the more things stay the same."

Those are two cliches I know, but there is a reason they became cliche. They are true. This is something that ought to fill all thinking people with dread because the one thing that HAS CHANGED is that humanity's toys have gotten more destructive.


Gee, this got rather depressing toward the end, didn't it? I'll have pity on those of you who slogged your way down through this post and stop here. ;)

[Joy]

I'll tell you the truth, History was not one of my favs in school. But when I began to homeschool, my mom told me to look at history as Great Literature.

Now, my mom only has a high-school education, but she was a great teacher. She taught me the value of history and literature. She helped birth a love for writing in me.

I can not speak for all American's nor the public school system, as I went to a private school. But from what I have seen, America's students are lagging behind in the Math/Science and Social Sciences/Humanities. Some of the students that I met at my college, fresh out of high school, did not even know which countries were North and South of us.

Many of the students didn't know how to write a decent term paper in the standard MLA format - somehow that had slipped by the teachers.

During my 6 yrs at the college - I had a triple major - There was only 1 History major!

I do not completely blame the American students for the lack of knowledge in these fields. The teachers and the parents are partly at fault. If the parents don't encouraqe their children to read, the child is not going to progress to a higher level of learning, nor will have the desire to learn until it is too late.

Also, we need teachers in the school system that have a love for the subject that they are teaching. When a child see exhuberence in a teacher concerning a subjuct, this will make a child want to learn.

A personal story - I knew that for my major I was going to have to take a literature class. Don't get me wrong, I love reading, it was just that I didn't want someone to force me to read certain sections. I chose British Lit 1. We started with "The Last Surviors Speech" and "Beowulf." As we were reading these, my professor would read selections to us and she would even go as far as to act some scenes out. I was strange to see this 100lb lady pretending to weild a sword as she was reading. This class was the impetus for me reading the Old English classics and falling in love with them. Now I act exactly like this professor when reading smilies/biggrin.gif

[Thingol]

People often find it easy to look down on the people/culture of today’s world while idealizing the past. The truth is Kuruharan is correct, the human race has really changed very little since the dawn of time. Very few people have ever been interested in studying history, even their own. Anyone who has actually studied history in any depth will realize that the past isn’t all that the romantics make it out to be. The great majority of people are, and have always been shallow, greedy, ignorant, and capricious. People don't learn, they never have, and they probably never will. History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. Napoleon Bonaparte

[Birdland]

One of the pitfalls of studying history is that you are reading the records of the powerful, and therefore literate, classes. The true opinions and feelings of the vast majority of "common people" are utterly lost to us. - Kuruharan
Which is just another way of saying "History is written by the winners." Who were generally the people with the money, education, and power. smilies/smile.gif

But don't be too hasty to dismiss the oral histories, Kuru, whether they were tales told 'round a fire, or bardic odes. It was the only resource for people who for most of the ages did not have to time to devote to "learning their letters".

"History became legend; legend became myth." is generally the case with oral history, but there is a kernel of truth to most of these legends, like the grain of sand in the middle of a pearl. One of the most interesting theories I heard about Arthurian legend was that Arthur was the cheiftain who brought the secret for processing and forging iron to the ancient Celts. Hence; The Sword in the Stone. (get it?) Scholars have pursued these grains of truth through the centuries, simply because they represent an aspect of history that was neglected by the "winners" who were writing the books.

As for Hobbit history, I can't think their "Wandering Years" were a very pleasant time. A small race in a world of doughty, prideful men would have had a rough way to go, to say the least. (Just look at what the Wild Men of Rohan were subjected too, before Theoden granted them protection.) Maybe the Hobbits, when they finally found a land to call their own, were inclined to put the past behind them.

But still, I can't help missing a suggestion that they remembered the outlaws, rebels, heroes, and lovers that fill the songs and tales of other cultures through the eons. They must have had them. I just wish Tolkien had had the time to "record" them.

[Laiedheliel]

Ha ha HA! Finally a stimulating topic that ties in with both ME and real life. Ah, me, I've died and gone to the Downs version of Heaven, even if some of the statements here are depressing.

I am forced to agree with those who posted above: Since the dawn of time man has failed to realized his greatest mistake-not learning from the mistakes he's already made. Time has gone on, civilization has evolved quite rapidly, and with all of the new discoveries and knowledge around him, he has not noticed his own halt in evolution. We do not grow because we do not learn. We choose today not to learn anything beyond daily nesseccities (sp?); and I am also forced to agree with Joy, we Americans have begun to lack not only in history but in virtually all acadimcic subjects. But you can always count on us, it seems, for a dirty joke.

Point being this time, folks, is that human nature is not inclined to look backwards, as is vividly shown by all that have come before us and even those around us, but forwards, and discriminately at that. We look forward to tomorrow, but not the day after, another mistake we should have learned from long ago. How many children do you know that care about what happens three weeks from now? Three months? Years? I didn't think so. But as in grammer, one must remember: there are always exceptions to the rule.

As to ignorance being a eternal problem, I have to say "no". To say "yes" to this statement, I would have to lay down some conditions. If ignorance were not brought upon oneself by choice, then I could say "yes", but we must learn from our mistakes above and be more specific. Being aware of our ignorance, even blissfully ignorant, is a modern problem. In the Dark Ages, or even during the Renisance (now I know I spelled that one wrong), we did not know we were ignorant. Kuruharan touched on this when he mentioned illiteracy before education was cheap and widely available (when I say cheap, I'm talking about in non-third world countries, with no disrespect intended). Just recently have we become aware of our ignorance, and frankly, from what I've seen, no one cares. Am I completely off the mark here? If someone cared, we would look to our history, we would learn the skills offered to us instead of turning away in favor of modern trinkets.

Obviously we here have realized this fault, and on a small personal scale we here have begun to fix our problem; but what can we do for the rest of the world? Tee hee, there are too many perpetually stupid people to try to light this fire in all of their minds. But that is not the question at hand. History is. It lives through us, no matter how resistant we are. And every interpretation is different, but all are equally important in their own unique ways: to teach us what to do and what not to, and to tell us what is real and what isn't.

*Reads her post and sighs, again.* O, dear, I've gone and written another book on the subject. Congrats to you if you manage to read and understand this, and thanks again for trying... smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/cool.gif smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Tarthang]

Wow what a topic. Looks like pretty much everyone here echoed what I had said, only in more precise terms. Kuruharan definately spelled it out better than I did.

In response to Laiedheliel's forst post, 3rd point concerning the 9-11 event. I wasn't surprised, and felt we pretty much got what we deserved. Way back in Feb. of '91, I was in Frankfurt-Mainz airport, and couldn't help notice the armed gaurds running around with live ammo loaded in their guns (due to the terrorist activity in Europe throughout the '80's). we did't have stuff going on like that back in the States, and I quickly picked up on how complacent (and lax) we were in our security. I'm just surprised the 9-11 incident didn't happen any sooner.

[Daniel Telcontar]

The security in USA may be lax, but it is even more in Denmark then. Whenever we see a police car we think if somethink has happened, because we are not used to see them. Whenever you board a plane, the security check is quick.
The good thing is then that it means that we doesn't worry to much about crime since it is so unfamiliar.

[Kuruharan]

In the Dark Ages, or even during the Reniassance, we did not know we were ignorant.

I would say that in the context of this discussion ignorance is lack of knowledge of the lore, or whatever, that is available to the society in question. We probably still don't know that we are ignorant. We know more now than we did in the past (or at least we like to think we know more, it might not truly be the case) but there is so much more to know.

Which is just another way of saying "History is written by the winners." Who were generally the people with the money, education, and power.

Or the people who won the wars. First principles always apply.

But don't be too hasty to dismiss the oral histories, Kuru, whether they were tales told 'round a fire, or bardic odes. It was the only resource for people who for most of the ages did not have to time to devote to "learning their letters".


The problem with oral histories is that something like this would happen.

"Let me tell you a tale of the great deeds of my great-great grandfather. He was such a swell guy. All that slaying the dragon and saving the villagers stuff. By the way, since my great-(and I really mean great) grandfather was such a swell guy you should make me ruler of the village, or at least give me the cushy job of town bard so I can live in bliss and comfort for the rest of my life. You owe my great-great grandfather after all." Or something like that. The problem is that there are less means to check oral histories than there are for written. At least if they are written there is a better chance that somebody else wrote down the stories as well.

Unfortunately, those copies are usually the ones that get burned up when the Romans come barging into town and accidently set fire to your library.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Tigerlilly --

Bless you for putting this topic up on the boards. You have stumbled upon something for which I have very strong, personal feelings.

It's very strange, but when I read LotR back in the mid-sixties, one of the main things it did was to fuel a desire in me to learn more about the ancient and medieval past. I was in a factory neighborhood where no one even went to college, let alone graduate school. But I am also very stubborn and eventually managed to go on and earn a doctorate in medieval history. I even got to teach in college a few years. I loved it. The kids even liked me.

But we had to move to another town, and I had to start job huntng all over again. And things had definitely changed. It was impossible for me to find work in my chosen pofession. My husband and I both applied for jobs where there would be 300-500 applicants. Very crazy and impossible!

I eventually retrained and became a librarian. I did this because jobs existed in the field, but also because it was the one educational institution that didn't have such strict guidelines or preconceptions. If a child came in and wanted a book on mythology, no one tried to argue and say he shouldn't have it because it wasn't practical or wasn't directly related to career prepartion. I grew to love wowrking in libraries, and I'm not sad I switched.

But I am sad about what happened in colleges and universities in this country. In the 60s, students (including me!) had petititioned for the abolishng of all core courses. What this did was to cut out liberal arts and humanities courses from the curriculum, in whole or part, and history went right out the door with them. Gradually, college became more and more a place to prepare yourself solely for a "career". The idea of understanding your heritage or even learning to think was definitely secondary. The great god of practicality had reared his head and chased out so much good before him.

Today, I would argue, we still view college as primarily a place to prepare yourself to earn a lot of money in the workforce. Bilbo's ideal, and the ideal of the Elves, only hangs around on the fringes of academia. Yes, the Bilbos and Elves are still there, but it's often hard to get funding for the liberal arts except in a few choice (and often expensive!) institutions.

Even in the lower grades, history has largely been thrown out the door, replaced by a mishmash of general social studies. So , in a sense, we are getting what we deserve--students who have no sense even of their own country's heritage, let alone the general tenor and themes of western civilization or world history.

I have tried very hard to make sure my own children do not fall into this category of human beings totally ignorant of their historical and cultural heritage. And I have been so very pleasantly surprised to see many young people posting on this site who know so very much about history and literature (in my mind, these two go hand in hand). I am not naive enough to think you are in a "majority" at your schools, but the very fact you exist at all is little short of a miracle.

As far as history being focused on the great and powerful, that's what history textbooks teach---a long recitation of facts and dates that deal with the rich and powerful who are in control at the top. But this is only part of history. It is possible to go beyond this, and to find books that look at a much wider picture. I was a social historian, which means I studied classes and people who were definitely not in the top tier. My dissertation was on the gentry in te county of Essex, England in the later middle ages--human people who would have been similar in wealth and education to hobbits like Bilbo and Frodo in the shire. I had other friends who tried to dig up things about peasants (i.e. the Sam Gamgees of the world) from the manorial rolls. So it is possible to go beyond the people at the very top, but you have to look in unexpected places and be imaginative. It's not easy, but it is fun.

I think there are people out there who are still hungry for myth, legend, and history. The movie has helped some people rediscover that these things can have some value and meaning even in the 21st century. And I think Tolkien would still be proud that his books could open people up to many of the things he loved.

So I am very greatful to the role the movie has played, especially among middle school, high school, and college age people If only, there would also be change in our educational institutions. But I guess we can only say that, right now, change comes one person at a time.

As far as the hobbits go, I always thought it was part of Eru's plan that the hobbits would stay a very low key and unknown people until that moment when Gandalf would let Bilbo and Frodo know that they had been chosen to do something very important. And then they had the choice to say "yes" or "no". Well, they said yes, and we all knows where it went from there. If the hobbits had had a real "history", others might have been aware of that history,and those "others" then might have been keeping a closer eye on them. And that could have led to disastrous results.

It's interesting to me how "unknown" hobbits were to many of the other peoples of the third age--even Treebeard and some of the cultures of Men. They hadn't heard of them or thought they were the stuff of legend. And it's also ineresting that most of the Elve's songs were really historical in nature, and none of the hobbit songs were like that. In my mind, this ties into the whole theme of the hobbits needed to be a secret people, good at sneaking around quietly. In a sense, both Frodo and Bilbo were burglars, on a mission to do something very quietly--the opposite of what a typical hero would be or do. They both needed to sneak into someone else's house (Smaug, Sauron) and do somthing unexpected.

And Tigerlilly, you must work near Dearborn, Michigan. Don't you? My family home was three miles from the museum (if that's where you work). I grew up in Detroit, and went to Kalamazoo College. I love the Great Lakes!

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Raefindel]

Tigerlily, I have myself been on tours where some ignoramus said something really stupid... often my mother-in-law. I was on a cave tour where someone asked"How much of the cave is underground?" and, surprisingly, the tourguide answered"I'll have to ask my suprevisor" I think some of these are people who just didn't think before they opened their mouths.

I know I'm not the most educated parent out there, but as a parent, I feel it is my duty to not only help my children earn their education, but more importantly, to spark their interest in the subjects they are learning. If they have a question I try not to give an "I don't know" answer (that my parents would have given.) If I don't know We'll find out... together. This has made it (I believe) much more interesting for my children to learn.

This is, I believe, the attitude Bilbo had in education Frodo (and Sam).The desire and interest in their world. The desire to learn about their world. It is what set him apart from the others in the Shire.

[Kuruharan]

history and literature (in my mind, these two go hand in hand)

But do not confuse the two. They are not the same thing. The objection that I have to history being viewed as literature is that you end up viewing the texts that we have as works of art rather than as records. Once that happens they become meaningless because you spend too much time analyzing the text itself rather than what they are trying to tell you about the events they are recording. Granted, we don't know that the texts are accurate, but if people are not willing to work with what we have then why even bother. These are (at least as far as a human can tell) records of real people and events. They are not works of art that you can view and then skew to suit personal paradigms, issues, or prejudices.

This is a trend that I have personally noticed in history education, and I don't care for it much.

As far as history being focused on the great and powerful, that's what history textbooks teach---a long recitation of facts and dates that deal with the rich and powerful who are in control at the top.

For my next un-PC statement, aside from the whole money/power/leisure matter, another reason why history focuses on the rich and powerful is that they are the ones who have made the greatest difference in history. (I'm not saying that this is right or the way it should be, but it is.) The rulers and the wealthy are the ones who traditionally have had the power to enact (or inflict) great changes on society, and this is still true today. True, there is more leeway for social rising in modern times (sort of) but the fact remains that if you can accomplish something revolutionary as a result of this action your status, wealth, and/or power tend to rise until you are part of the wealthy ruling group. (What we are doing now for instance. The makers of this revolutionary technology have generally done well for themselves. And most of them will probably be better known to history than they are to us.)

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[akhtene]

Many thanks and my great admiration to people who raised this really all-important problem. It was a shock (in the most positive meaning) to find that people still care for education. Being a school teacher I heard so many opinions that we (I mean teachers) want too much from poor students who really do their best but they can't... or needn't... or even mustn't 'overload' their heads. Much of that is said by parents, some is added by educational authorities. I'm not sure what the majority of young people think, as they don't find it appropriate to share with teachers but recently it's become quite fashionable 'not to care' for anything. Oh, of course they do care for many things which concern then at the moment. As for the future... Half of my 14-year-old students couldn't even say what they were going to do after leaving school. Well, most of them said - go to university, but to study what? No answer. There is such indifferece in everything I hear. School is looked upon as something obligatory and, as a result, really silly and boring. Perhaps what I'm going to say now is a cliche, but my classmates (and I'm working in the same school which I finished) were much more hard- working and interested.

And now here comes another topic raised here - the value of historical knowledge. I feel that my country has been stripped of its history, perhaps even not for the first time. If I haven't mentioned yet, I'm from Russia. I'm not going to argue now which way of development is better or what we have lost or gained 15 years ago. But it seems to me sometimes that I used to live in an absolutely differnt country. When I was young we were tought to be proud of our Motherland. There were heroes about whom we all read and whom we wanted to be like. Now all that is not forgotten, but most facts are interprited in so many different ways, that to my mind history has become even more the matter of ideology and belief than (they say ) it used to be. And I feel that kids aren't interested in history and aren't much inspired to be. Some don't even know who won the WWII, and what it was anyway. Oral history, you say... When in a bus two (or more) old people start moaning and one says that his whole life was ruined by communists, and another argues that that was the time when people could really live... I can't recollect all the "horrors' which (they insist) I must have suffered. Of course you may say that if there is a will you can always find the necessary information and the "grain of truth' in it. That is so, no doubt. I'm just afraid that our kids have such a mixture of ideas and values in their heads.Even in our 'ancient' history some discoveries have been voiced worth yellow press.
Why have I started to put it all here? I just hope that The Lord of the Rings (sorry, jsut hate using that abbreviation) will make, or has already made some of the young people to revise their values, to get new interests (among them interest to history and to pure reading) Whatever may be said about the film, I believe it has introduced many new people to the book and to the wonderful world of Middle Earth

(created at 3.15a.m. local time. Please excuse poor language and pessimistic mood) smilies/redface.gif

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

Whoa. More people care about this topic than I ever would have expected.

On one of my History teacher's rants, an important point was brought to light: not only do human beings have a tendency to forget to look behind them and ahead of them, but we don't even look around us. We know so little about the past; and part of that can't be remedied, especially in cases of truth being distorted or only certain people recording events, and thus recording them from their own point of view (ie American vs. British or Canadian views on the War of 1812), but mostly from apathy or lack of interest. We cannot know the future, but at least we can look around us and see the present. As my teacher said, we don't even know who we are. We have forgotten our past; and without it, how can we have a future? It was sad to realize that some people don't even know important facts about their own country, their own culture or the people in it.

The education system has been a recipent of my exasperation ever since I was in it. History has been lumped together with Geography to form Social Studies, which I previously believed was an entirely different subject (the study of societies and cultures). But sometimes (and this is a rather painful truth) it is not the system that needs reform but the people in it.

How can we teach anyone anything if they won't listen? Ignorance can be credited to feelings such as apathy, stupidity, and (in my generation's case) the pressure from peers to appear cool: thus, not caring. What we need is someoen to show them that not only is it very cool to care, caring also defines our existence.

Whoa. Rather long rant, thanks for sitting here and listening to me babble.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Aosama, the Wandering Star ]

[Laiedheliel]

Not at all, Aosama, it warms my heart to hear another student that finds the educational system in such distaste. Do you live in the US?

akhtene, I desprately wish there were teachers like you at my school: maybe then I could talk to one of my teachers about something other than last night's homework without being sent back to my seat sulking from being yelled at or chastised. I am not in the majority of young people, but here is simply what I think: I know what I want, and where I want to go after school and what I am going to study. The school system where I live in America is sometimes so frustrating that I actually try to persuade my parents to move to another district. My parents have different and varied opinions on this same school system: for example, they think that I am overloaded with busy work (to which I am forced to agree), but it is not helping me learn anything new, or review anything to help me further my knowledge; instead it seems to be an excuse for my teacher to mark down another grade so she has enough points to work with at the end of the marking period. If it were homework helping me learn something new, or review something I had just learned, neither my parents or I would have a problem with it. I must say that school is looked upon as something obligatory, and that there are times that even I don't want to get out of bed in the morning, for I have a day full of the same material we covered yesterday to look forward to. No one works hard, no one appears to be interested, because, as you said, it is unfashionable. Most of the 'cool' people at my school have below a "B" average. Therefore, I am not the most popular person at my school and am left hungering for a compainion with some intelligence.

The only oral history I get around here is simply, "When I was twenty, we didn't have computers and it only cost 10 cents to go and see a reel at the movie theater." I don't exactly know how that is suppose to educate me, but I do learn one thing each time I hear it, and it is the same thing each time: The tendancy to forget history has been passed down through generations, and for a new generation to realize it's ignorant of past mistakes is almost seemingly against human nature. It tends to take something amazing to cause a person who was formally ignorant to look backwards: a love of fine literature, war, inspirational parents or teachers. Or, actual moral values, as akhtene said, that hold some weight in one's actions. Many of the ethics we have here in the States are taken for granted, like most other things, right alongside education. My values have been firmly reinforced by parents in love with literature and 'family quality time', and who are knowledgeable in many culture's histories. Without this, other children may grow up, as I said before, unknowingly ignorant; and left to fend off such 'fashionable' things as not caring and not looking more than two days into their futures. This particular revolution isn't an easy one to fight; and it must start with a personal choice by each and everyone of us.

Hurmph, I'm turning back to the educational system for a minute (*hears you all groan*). I feel I must disagree with Aosama on none but one point: the educational system needs major reform. The system needs to be based not only on what one needs to learn but what one wants to learn, and this in turn will drive students to be interested, to find amazing things out and work harder than they ever were driven to in the current system. Subjects should be spread out into different classes, and the quick learners should not be made to wait with the ones who are slower. Peer pressure is an undefeatable enemy, simply because it is human nature to care what others think. But, it seems, it is no longer in human nature to care about anything else, including the other people around us. We only care about their opinions.

I wonder, does anyone else have the same views? I am not going to sit here and say that I am remarkable in my own eyes; I am not. And I won't say that the others in my class are petty and silly, because on occasion I choose to join in on some of those petty doings and silly conversations. Again, human nature to desire companionship. Human nature is a fickle thing, and some have debated that it does not exist at all.

The point this third time (or is it fourth? O, I'm not going to count!) folks, is that do not simply blame our ignorance on the recorders of history, or the lore-masters who pass it along orally, but on human nature and unaware persons milling around on this Earth ignorant of their ignorance. We here on this topic, and some out of it who have not yet realized its existance, have only begun to realize the depth of our ignorance. The educators in my part of the system seem to be more ignorant than the rest of the world, because they believe that the current curriculum sends their students into the world prepared. I feel very poorly educated because there is so much history I do not know, and I feel especially pale next to all of you fair people. What I have is but a start to which I hope to add a great amount of knowledge.

*Again, sighs at the super freaking long post she wrote and looks at Aosama* Teehee, I babbled longer! *Addressing everyone* You guys can tell me to shut up anytime and I'll just go away...

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

But sometimes (and this is a rather painful truth) it is not the system that needs reform but the people in it.

I feel I must disagree with Aosama on none but one point: the educational system needs major reform.

Indubiably so. What I meant was that it is not always all the system's fault. Ever heard of the book "Don't Care High" by Gordon Korman? It is very funny, but mysteriously, each and every member of the school mentioned in the novel is filled with apathy and 'doesn't care'. It is shockingly reminiscent of some people in my own school.
No one wants to hear what the teacher has to say because he or she believes that he or she has heard it all before. Sometimes this is true (school is horribly repetitive, and sometimes I begin to suspect that somebody is doing it out of spite- then I give my head a shake, of course) but in all the instances in which I have experienced it, whether by sheer luck or something else, the teacher has explained it in a different way, or added something to my knowledge. I love my current History teacher (the one I mentioned ranting before) because he loves history and knows it, and once he cried out in despair in the middle of class due to the attitudes of most of the students. We need to hand on the history we have, but we need someone to do it. Our history teachers, proffessors, and librarians (akhtene, Child, for instance) are such people.
And as to your last question: No, I'm Canadian.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Aosama, the Wandering Star ]

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Wow, this is much more response than I ever expected. Everyone here has made very remarkable points on the topic. Thank you to everyone. I have really enjoyed reading each and every answer. I am glad to see that others have strong opinions on this topic as well.
I must admit that I didn't really care for history in high school (as some others have mentioned), but working at the museum I listed before and reading Lord of the Rings has really opened my eyes and made me want to learn more.
As for what was mentioned above about grades and homework. I was also bogged down with home work in high school. I also agree that it usually didn't teach you much. You learned the most from the people who were passionate about what they were teaching (who were usually the teachers that the "hip" crowd really hated). I find that same problem even here in college... My grades may not be a high as other peoples' are, but I feel that I pay attention more and learn more because I am forced to work harder (of course, I am studying acting which is a different cup of tea from academics because you are graded as compared to your fellow students - which is a downer sometimes because there are always "favorites"), but enough on that.

I also like the comments made about Lord of the Rings characters. I agree that not all of the characters were "well" educated, I was mainly referring to Frodo and his education. I did enjoy the points made about Sam's character, though.
Thank you all again!

PS - Susan, you are correct. I do live near Dearborn (for the summer, at least). I am glad you know of where I referring to.

[Laiedheliel]

Indubiably so. What I meant was that it is not always all the system's fault.

Very true. Here, the school's curriculum is set by a counsel made up of parents. If they were to leave behind the fad of not caring, we would have a better system and better attitudes within it.

Ever heard of the book "Don't Care High" by Gordon Korman? It is shockingly reminiscent of some people in my own school.

I hear ya, sister. No one, including most of the faculty and staff, cares about anything in my school. It depresses me everytime I see all of the people around me 'filled with apathy.' No, I have not heard of this book, but now I will have to pay yet another visit to the library and pick it up.

No one wants to hear what the teacher has to say because he or she believes that he or she has heard it all before.

Wow, the Canadian and American systems and students are quite alike. I have always watched this happen, and it paid off in fifth grade. My teacher would catch kids by asking questions you could only know the answer to if you had been paying close attention to him lecture as he spoke very fast. There was this one girl I really didn't like, and he did this to her multiple times...Ahh, he must have been one of my favorite teachers.

We need to hand on the history we have, but we need someone to do it. Our history teachers, proffessors, and librarians (akhtene, Child, for instance) are such people.

I agree, though sometimes it feels like so much history has been lost and is never again to be recovered, much like the Hobbits' lore from their wandering days. (You guys, this time I managed to tie in ME!) And thank you, akhtene and Child for passing on that history, and thanks to Aosama, for showing me I'm not the only high school-er turning 47 smilies/wink.gif smilies/cool.gif . Tee hee.

-but in all the instances in which I have experienced it, whether by sheer luck or something else, the teacher has explained it in a different way, or added something to my knowledge.

Lucky. smilies/tongue.gif smilies/rolleyes.gif Most teachers here just repeat themselves indefinately.

[Kuruharan]

Human nature is a fickle thing, and some have debated that it does not exist at all.


Thank you, Karl Marx.

But sometimes (and this is a rather painful truth) it is not the system that needs reform but the people in it.

And that is the fundamental reason why I don't believe that any amount of reform is going to make the least bit of difference in this problem. Any time that you have human beings you are going to have all sorts of complex and unsolvable issues because that is just the way that humans are. I've read far to much to believe that there is no such thing as human nature. People have always been inclined to be ignorant, lazy, complacent, greedy, and usually uncaring about anything else as long as they are fat, dumb, and happy. You read history and you see the same things happening over and over and over again. The attempts in the 20th Century to create a new human through ideology were failures. Partially because the ones trying to effect this change were also human who were driven by their own greed for gain and self-aggrandizement.

Of course with science...well, why don't you read Brave New World to see what that would be like. But I'm not convinced that even biological tampering would really change human nature. I hope I don't have to find out.

[NyteSky]

I basically agree with Laiedheliel and Aosama. The school system definitely needs to be changed. Ideally they should get rid of grades. Ironically grades are what keep me from learning the most. We spend so much time worrying about those that there's no time to actually learn anything! Of course if they stopped grading most people would stop learning. As it is, I just hope random bits of information get stuck in my head as I fly through the material.
In my experience (I go to a private high school) most people don't care about learning. Most people don't even care about grades unless they get grounded for flunking. Almost no one actually reads the books we study in English. The funny thing is, most of them do fine on the tests anyhow. There are classes that I had this year where I learned nothing the entire time. Sorry, this has turned into a tirade against school.
The point is, the focus of school is no longer on learning. It's just something you have to get through to get to the interesting things. It's not just history, though I didn't even have a history class this year! I don't know if it's my generation, Americans, or human nature. It's a tragedy, whatever the reason.
On the other hand, in my class at least, there are quite a few who actually enjoy learning (I count myself among them) and do quite well. My closer friends read quite a bit and two of them in particular are history buffs.
I don't know where I'm going with this. Society in general would be better with a greater understanding of history, Frodo certainly needed it. Have you ever noticed how in almost every fantasy story there's one person who has tremendous knowledge? There's Gandalf in Lord of the Rings for example. Every quest seems to need at least one, a guide basically, who knows the history and customs and where to go and how to get there. Ok, this is too long already, sorry for my babbling.

[Birdland]

The truely sad thing about this spread of apathy towards history, and perhaps education in general, is that we are living in an age when so much information is available to us.

At it's best, 12 years of a formal education can only prepare you to "learn how to learn". Most schools can only cover so much material, and hopefully will encourage your interest enough that you will seek out further knowledge on your own.

At worst, certain "details" of history may be left out a child's education altogether. (An example of how the "winners" not only write the history, but will re-write it as well.) I remember the shock I experienced at age 19 when I saw a TV movie dealing with the Japanese internment camps in the U.S. during W.W. II. These events were never mentioned in all the years that I was in school, and I had to go to my parents and ask, "Did this really happen?"

Anyway, getting back to my original theme, we now have this amazing invention, The Internet, where any subject can be researched, analyzed, and discussed, right in your own home. I am still in awe of the fact that if I read of something in the paper, or see something on TV, I can sit down and get immediate information and answers to my questions. If I want to find a book on a subject, I can search bookstores and libraries all over the world. I can speak to people who may be experiencing these events first hand. I've waited for something like this most of my adult life.

And yet, in this age when we have such incredible innovations, (Hey, want history? We have an entire cable channel devoted to it.) I sit and read that people more and more seem to want to wallow in apathy and ignorance. How can this be?

[*Varda*]

wow, obviously a lot of people really care about this subject! I really enjoy History in school, saying that, i did have a really good History teacher who made it interesting and didn't mind being asked questions which were a bit off-topic. This really made me enjoy the subject so much more, and i'm thinking about taking it at uni in a couple of years.

Unfortunately I can't really say the same for many other people. My friends are also quite interested in the subject but it seems to end there. No one seems to care about their past and where they came from anymore. My mum told me about my heritage etc. from an early age and it made me appreciate it so much more.

As many people have said, the problem doesn't lie only in our generation. Some of the teachers in my school won't allow you to even ask a question! Some parents just don't seem to care about what their children are doing in school, and it all rubs off on the children. They don't realise it's good to know about your past, or to actually be interested in what you're learning. They consider it to be one of the most 'uncool' things you can do and think you're a freak or whatever. This means too many people can't be open and interested in learning.

So it's really refreshing to go to the Barrowdowns and actually find people who care about the same things you do, and you don't have to hide what you're interested in.

[littlemanpoet]

My main problem with American education is that we who have so much take it for granted and do so little good with it.

The "problem of American education" is complex. I got a history major and then went back for an education major and learned all the theories. I developed strong opinions about it all. I really think there is a difference between the basic philosophy of education in America as compared to (especially) continental Europe. European schools have evolved out of their historic medieval roots. I really don't know much about them except what I learned about German schools when I took that language in college, but they have two tracks; a student has to qualify for college-bound education, otherwise they will be "worker-bees". Reminds me of the recent shooting which goes to show that that system is imperfect, too. But I still think it's better than the system we have in America, which has been foisted on Americans by the John Dewey school of thought. Hence, American schools are modeled after factories. The whole idea is to put out a product called a student graduate who is a capable member of society. That member of society is educated in order to meet certain expectations, such as supporting the economy, the political system, the established way of things. It is not structured for the purpose of free thinking. I personally think that home-schooling is one of the best things to happen to American education in a long time, because home-schooled students are not subjected to this product oriented mentality, and they tend to excel. Granted, those who are homeschooled have parents who received a pretty decent education themselves. If I rant any further I'll be straying into socio-political commentary so I'll cut it short.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet --

If you remember, Tolkien himself was homeschooled by his mother for a number of years. This is where he picked up his love of languages and of botany, to say nothing of his attachment to his Catholic faith.

In fact, if you stop and think about it, you'd have to say Sam Gamgee was homeschooled by Bilbo.

My closest friend in Houston is homeschooling her sons. Their family is Jewish and Hispanic, and they want to make sure to pass along both sides of their heritage. This summer the boys are in Peru with relatives and will be visiting the rain forest as an extension of their studies of biology.

I have thought seriously about this as an option, but have decided not to go that road, although I sometime wonder if I should. We have looked very, very hard to find the schools that are a right match for our two children, both of whom are very different.

Since both of them graduated from lower schools this year, they will be attending new schools next year, and I know we'll have to keep a close eye on things.

You know, there is another factor that bears on this. Even though the human lifespan has gotten longer, we have kept the "period of childhood" at the same length of time. In fact, if anything, we have shortened it. In many respects children are now considered to be adults by age 18. There is, overall, tremendous pressure on children to grow up very quickly.

We feed them a certain amount of facts and skills which we think they will need to be "productive citizens", and we push them on to the next step in the educational mill . They are discouraged from taking time to do very many "childlike" things which are generally defined to include any unorthodox use of their imaginations, role playing, etc. But the desire is still there. So commercial interests recognize that and often include watered down versions of such stuff in computer game, playstations, etc. which is, I guess, better than nothing.

The interesting thing is that in Middle-earth, childhood seems to have been longer, at least among the hobbits (age 33) and Elves (50).

I know you can have arguments about hobbit and Elf longevity, but the basic question is this. Do we push our children too far, too fast? Would we be better off to slow down a bit as Tolkien postulated in his world.

Have we so filled up children's schedules with basic facts and busy work and learning how to use our technology because we're afraid they won't be prepared for the future which is hurtling down the path at them at a very speedy rate? Would we have more time for history and imagination if we could somehow slow down the rate at which we push kids toward adulthood and independence?

I guess I'm asking if the hobbits had a better idea? And, by the way, calculating hobbit lifespan off the family trees apparently gives an average of about 93 years, which isn't so very far off from what we are inching up towards today. That means that more than one-third of hobbit life was spent as a child.......and look how many of them there were!

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[GreatWarg]

You must think, if we're talking about history, let's go back into history. Someone brought up the Dark Ages and the Renaissance.

The Dark Ages had no period of knowledge of the past. They knew not much of their culture as it was before, and almost nothing about toher cultures. But during the Renaissance however, artisans became more interested in their history and arts from the Roman and Greeks. This seems to show that interest in history has truly helped bring on better times for them. In ancient China, one could trace his history and lineage all the way up the beginning point of the dynasties, as hobbits or Elves could do in Middle-earth. This shows that Tolkien was not only using several Christian ideas, but his own knowledge of our past.

The Renaissance mostly began in FLorence, Italy, where a great thirst for learning and art grew. Their studies of the Greeks and Romans at that time opened up a whoel new world of art, science, medicine, and other highly-developed ideas. These times inspired some of the greatest artisans and scientists, such as Galileo and Michelangelo.

Tolkien, however, used his knowledge of these events, and others of course, into creating one smooth masterpiece of words.

If, however, Frodo had no notion of Elves or other histories of Middle-earth, that may well prove disastrous. Pippin and Merry learned all they knew from Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, and Bilbo, but they did not head anything, so it would seem that they really didn't need to know these things.

However, hobbits, as someone said earlier, are perhaps more like us in some ways: taking their protection for granted, until Saruman took over the Shire. Before this, most hobbits had a knack for family history, but never really knew much about the world of Men or Elves, and have never been farther than Bree. And also keep in mind that when Frodo returned to the Shire, he wasn't a hero like Sam or Merry or Pippin because the hobbits didn't want to hear anything about the far and distant lands and realms of Elves, Dwarves, or Men. All they cared about was the land of the Shire, and anything that was near enough to home, so to speak.

[GreatWarg]

Child of the 7th Age, I very much agree with you. Hisorians are calculating that by the time 2010 rolls around, that the human race will be doubling their knoledge every 70 DAYS. That would put awfully lot of pressure on the younger generations to struggle to keep up with such leaps forward in technology and advancement. That would mean that schools would be more intesified to keep up with the studies, producing less free time for children. (Whoa, I'm talking like an adult here, and I'm only 15!)

My conclusion is: Hang on, you're going for a rough ride!

[GreatWarg]

As someone had mentioned, history is doomed to repeat itself. Hmmm... that would put up a most interesting field of speculation. So, are you saying we may as well fall back into the Dark Ages, where all knowledge of our past is lost??? But I may assure that some schools focus much on the Math/Science category. At our school, they have honours classes for the eager and the knowledged to keep them from falling behind to lower levels of study. Unfortunately, we do not have this for History.Quoting from a poet from the Renaissance times: "The love of history drives away the Dark, the interest in it brings back the light." This was, of course, reffering to the period of the Dark Age and the Black Death. However, afterwards, on a brighter note, periods of learning and advancement came along.

Unfortunately, as I think more of this topic, that if we are forgetting our own history, is it not then, that we are repeating history? Will we perhaps fall back into Dark Ages and weep and mourn for our loss? Then wait years, perhaps hundreds of years, before a wise man finds a picture of our history and works to bring it back? Will that happen to the human race?

(Sorry if I'm not quite so perky at the ending... whoa, I never thought I could think of history like this! And I'm quite young. Don't give up on us yet Birdland!)

[Birdland]

In many respects children are now considered to be adults by age 18. There is, overall, tremendous pressure on children to grow up very quickly.
Child, I have not been a mother, but understand all to well a mother's feeling that children "grow up to quickly". But there is an argument that today's children may be restrained by society into an extended artificial "childhood" as well, warehoused in schools, with no opportunity to contribute to society, or accept any type of responsibilities. Add to that the media-induced ideas of what being grown-up is (doing whatever you want), and a type of "hip" pseudo-sophistication and world-weariness.

Hobbits may have grown slowly, but I'm sure that all their children had what we would consider very grown-up responsibilites to shoulder. Sam was probably doing work with his father from the time he was old enough to handle a hoe.

I recently watched a program where modern families lived for 6 months in a working frontier settlement. Without the modern distractions of our culture, the older children seemed to develop a more "child-like" outlook on life, singing, playing games, exploring their environment. Yet at the same time they had to do the very real work of adults, haying, tending cows, chopping wood. If they did not shoulder these responsibilites, the very survival of the family would have been threatened.

And you know what? The kids themselves admitted to being happier, better people because of it. When these teens returned to modern society, they started to lapse into the sullen, discontented adolescents that seem to be all to common these days. But now they knew WHY they were discontented.

Another tangent that I could go off on is education and modern societies devaluation and belittling of what used to be known as the "skilled trades". I see too many of this generation indoctrinated into believing that the purpose of a "good education" is so that we can all go on to college and become financial analysts, CEOs, and other types of business gurus. The thought that you might work with your hands is a cause for shame, and I sign that you are, at best, an underachiever, and at worst, stupid.

I myself have worked in trade most of my life. The few times I have worked in a white collar environment, I found I was unhappy, and, quite frankly, inept. Unfortunately, with the destruction of trade unions, and the devaluation of these types of jobs, "working with your hands" is not an option for many these days. Not unless you want to starve.

Whoo, talk about your tangents! smilies/biggrin.gif

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Kuruharan]

(hopping up and down excitedly)

Ooo, Ooo, Ooo! Opportunity for me to go off on a really big tangent!

The Dark Ages had no period of knowledge of the past.

You have to be specific about where. In the Byzantine Empire the knowledge of the past was retained, and to a degree expanded. Only in Western Europe was there a great deal of cultural loss. But this loss was not total, monasteries kept much knowledge stored away through this period.

As a matter of fact, the Renaissance started as a result of cultural transferance from Byzantium to Florence. (It's a really interesting story too, but I'll spare you.)

So, are you saying we may as well fall back into the Dark Ages, where all knowledge of our past is lost???

Yes, that possiblity exists, at least to the degree that there may be another Dark Age. I doubt that all knowledge would be lost, as I said it was not before. However, there is a chance that a world wide Dark Age could occur.

But I still think it's better than the system we have in America, which has been foisted on Americans by the John Dewey school of thought. Hence, American schools are modeled after factories. The whole idea is to put out a product called a student graduate who is a capable member of society.

Or is it an attempt to give everyone an opportunity. Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with you, but the criticism would be that the European system is discriminatory. I don't think that any changes in that direction would float well in America.

There is, overall, tremendous pressure on children to grow up very quickly.


Spoken like a true parent. ;)

Do we push our children too far, too fast? Would we be better off to slow down a bit as Tolkien postulated in his world.


But unfortunately we don't live in Tolkien's world. Or more specifically we don't have his economic system. This is an industrial society. The next generation has to be brought up quickly to fill their slot in society. By the time that the 33 year old children are just entering the working world their parents are going to be retiring out of it. That makes it difficult for an industrial society to have that large a group of individuals not working and a smaller group working, because the people not working still have to be supported by the people who are.

and look how many of them there were!


Exactly, all those non-producers that have to be fed and clothed.

But, on the other hand, we use more drugs to battle stress and depression than any other society. We have school shootings. We have rampent crime in the major cities. We have massive numbers of teens committing suicide. So we do have problems, or at least something is not working right.

Back to the acceleration of childhood, but that may be another reason why Tolkien did not like the modern world.

[piosenniel]

Even though the human lifespan has gotten longer, we have kept the "period of childhood" at the same length of time. In fact, if anything, we have shortened it. In many respects children are now considered to be adults by age 18. There is, overall, tremendous pressure on children to grow up very quickly.

I do agree with this statement - with respect to the study of history, I have always found it easier to understand, appreciate, and incorporate history into my world view as I have gotten older. With a stronger, longer development of my own understanding of how I fit into present history, it is easier to appreciate the vibrant importance what often appeared to me as so many dead facts. I have always thought the 30's should be the start of the real advance into adulthood.

Speaking purely from personal experience, I have to admit that my appreciation for the study of history in any form was nil during my younger yesrs. It was lists of facts and chronicles of wars and ruling powers, or so it appeared to me. I do recall one teacher in high school who rounded out American history with tales of small events and happenings taking place during the great march through the presidencies. She was able to personalize this facet of history in a way which made it much more accessible to my small experience of developing personal history.

[zifnab]

Very interesting thread indeed. In my experiences for school and learning. You get out what you put in. I wish I had put more in. Lets face it, that not everybody has the 'drive' to study and learn. To be more knowledgeable. Our history is different then Ea but it is similar too. Of course the beginning of Man is shady depending on what culture and/or relgion you are. The origin of Arda is simple, and well known to must. And inhabitants of Arda seem to be 'more easily to believe' in things, then we are. We challange every thought/belief/relgion/answer.

I never thought that too many Hobbits were well learned in ancient History. Bilbo(Frodo) and Farmer Maggot spring to mind. But the majority seemed content to their simple life. Is that wrong? Must we all thrive to learn? I don't know. Heck if their own family trees didn't confuse them, then maybe the Kings of Numenor wouldn't be that difficult. smilies/wink.gif

Hobbits as rather "American" in their attitudes and interests. --- They have little or no interest in the going-ons of anything outside of The Shire, - Birdland

I thought that was a main reason why the 'States' are disliked. For sticking our nose in other people's business.

I always thought it was part of Eru's plan that the hobbits would stay a very low key and unknown people until that moment when Gandalf would let Bilbo and Frodo know that they had been chosen to do something very important. - Child of the 7th Age

Interesting Child, like Gandalf says, 'I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it.'. But the ring also looks out for itself, it could have fallen off Bilbo's and Frodo's hand, become lost. The ring itseld can decide the actions and thoughts of its wearer. But it stayed with him, maybe for the reason it knew Frodo's destination. His master, or as you say maybe Eru had a part in that? Maybe because hobbits are made of tougher stuff?

Sorry, I know I have wondered off the path here.

[Nevtalathiel]

I thought that was a main reason why the 'States' are disliked. For sticking our nose in other people's business

I think the main reason America is disliked in this country (the UK), certainly among the teens, is that American culture seems to be trying to take over, and that in the past (tenuous histiry link) America has been seen to do what is best for her, not what is best for other countries, in international conflicts. I guess this could be seen as sticking her nose in, but I think it's more the fact that she stuck her nos ein for her own benefit, rather than to find the best solution to the problem.

Back to the main theme of this thread, I am fortunate enough to go to a private school, where all the pupils are capable and the teachers are enthusiastic about their subjects and know what they are talking about. The parents have worked very hard to send their kids to the school, and I know that they are trying to provide the best they can for their children, but there is still apathy and an unwillingness to learn. Strangely, the pupils who appreciate the school most are the ones whose parents cannot afford the fees and whose fees are paid by the government. They understand the gift they have been given and they work the hardest to get the best they can out of it.

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

Strangely, the pupils who appreciate the school most are the ones whose parents cannot afford the fees and whose fees are paid by the government. They understand the gift they have been given and they work the hardest to get the best they can out of it.
How true, sadly. The people who appreciate what they have don't have it, while those who do take it for granted. We have such a wide range of knowledge, including history, available at our fingertips - but we ignore it.
The human race has indeed advanced. We are so far advanced that we don't feel the need to go any further. When most people my age are asked to learn, the common reaction is, "Why?". It seems that the reaction of the people I know on the Downs is more "Why not?".

[ElanorGamgee]

I think a big problem with attitudes toward education, at least in the United States, is that society has become increasingly hedonistic. People tend to put pleasure and comfort above all else. Studying is not exactly exciting and entertaining, so many simply do not bother with it at all, or only do the bare minimum so that they can go and have "play time." We spend more and more money on entertainment; look at all the movies, music, gadgets, and events available more than any other time in history to make life easier and more enjoyable. The problem is that people have made entertainment among the top priorities in their lives. In the past, those who had much leisure time and money were the ones who had the best education. Currently the average American has more free time than ever and plenty of money, but much time and money is squandered on entertainment. I believe that to whom much is given, much is expected, and that Americans, who have so much compared to a great deal of the world, should take advantage of the opportunities to get a proper education. Sadly, this just doesn't happen. I agree with the poster who said that American schools are like factories; they bring us in, get us through, and turn us out into the world as fast and with as little pain as possible so that we can get jobs, make sufficient money, and afford means of entertainment whenever we're not bothered with responsibilities. There is so much more to life than this. Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with having fun, but people are starting to live from one thrill to the next.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: ElanorGamgee ]

[akhtene]

There's nothing inherently wrong with having fun, but people are starting to live from one thrill to the next.
I suppose that can explain the modern kids' attitude to scholing and finding their place in life. Of course the society demands much from them nowadays, but how do they know it? I'm afraid while children they get a light-minded, care-free impression of the grown-up world. Such a lot of them want to grow up, but what for? Most grown-ups try to shelter them from the problems of the world. Teachers are asked to give lessons "in game form" and accept kids just the way they are. Those who don't are taken for boring moralizers.
"Dance while you are young", "Live while you can" -just some of the sayings. Show-business with its self-advertising does nothing but indoctrinates that life, especially at young age, is pure joy. It's cool to dance till morning, it's cool to play silly and cruel jokes on everyone around, it's cool to be ignorant. Celebrities talking about about themselves mention little work, mostly opportunities they have to enjoy life. And advertising, which sticks to every mind - it never shows kids studying. It either offers to eat or drink something which will make you the smartest, the toughest, the healthiest... Grown-ups know it's all rubbish, but kids aren't as experienced. They believe everything they say or hear, but unfortunately the closer the sourse is to them, the less impact it has.
Or the advertisers choose school just as a setting for all sorts of pranks, amusement and misbehavior. Young people are very sencitive to fashion. In my opinion studying has been made totally 'unfashionable'
Somebody mentioned that mostly kids who can't afford education crave it. Yes, that's what I've been talking about. those who are not sheltered from grown-ups' problems think and worry about their own future. But most kids, who can say to their parents:"You know nothing about life" honestly believe that life is mostly music, dances, friends, sex, booze... Parents' and teachers' job is hard nowadays, as they have to convince not just every single ignoramus, but fight against a well-organised machine called show-business (is advertising included into it?). I don't believe that untill the society indicates firmlywhat it wants from its younger members, those grown-ups who care for everyone's future will be losing their battle.
Not to end up on such a gloomy note, there is quite a number of kids who understand their responsibilities, but they are more of an exeption, especially in urban areas with their temptations and examples to follow.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: akhtene ]

[Birdland]

Arrrrgghhh! Want to talk about advertising indoctrinating kids? I just read an article on the CBS/AOL web site. A marketing research firm just came up with the brilliant idea to take school kids on field trips - not to the zoo, not to a museum - but to the mall!

"It will help them learn to be better consumers and future employees." stated one teacher.

Hope they at least take them to the local Barnes and Noble book store while they're at it.

Oh, on topic...on topic...Gee, I'm sure glad Hobbiton didn't have a mall.

[Nevtalathiel]

"It will help them learn to be better consumers and future employees."

What planet does this teacher come from if they think this idea is in any way aimed at benefiting the children? How can anyone be so gullible as to believe this idea is not a way of brain-washing the children into being mindless consumers? I just hope the childrens' parents are less stupid than their teachers.

[zifnab]

The problem is that people have made entertainment among the top priorities in their lives. - ElanorGamgee

I agree a bit with this. I tend not to sterotype a culture and/or an organization. To be honest I consider the Barrowdowns forum and chatroom to be my entertainment.


And advertising, which sticks to every mind - it never shows kids studying. - akhtene

I see college commercials on T.V, billboards, and mail flyers. I understand what you mean akhtene, but its out there, just covered in jibber-jabber.

A marketing research firm just came up with the brilliant idea to take school kids on field trips - not to the zoo, not to a museum - but to the mall! - Birdland

Thats just plain scary. People have their whole life to be a consumer, I think it is a rather easy task to perform. You buy what you need and want.

[ElanorGamgee]

A marketing research firm just came up with the brilliant idea to take school kids on field trips - not to the zoo, not to a museum - but to the mall!

Do they honestly think that kids don't spend plenty of time in the mall without their coercion? That's really sad.

[littlemanpoet]

Lots of good anecdotes on this thread. They all point to the same thing: we are all (sadly) "Children of the Seventh Age", and what a sad Age it is. The Fourth Age may have seen the rise of humans and the loss of magic, but the Seventh Age has seen the rise of the Machine and the loss of humanity even among humans. We have lost touch with working the land - part of what I think made those teens stop being sullen - we're no longer connected to the natural world. We have turned our children into products: productive citizens. We indoctrinate our children to be proficient on all our machines so that they can keep the wheels of our uselessly spinning society, spinning on - in the meantime they lose their childhood with the kinds of responsibilities and play natural to it, and receive in its place a stunted adulthood with crazy expectations built into it and no chance of being fulfilled by them because humans cannot be fulfilled by living for machines. In other words, I really think Tolkien served us well as a prophet. Too bad there's no solution other than "machino-clasm". Throw them out! smilies/mad.gif

Sorry. I'm a little out of sorts because I'm currently doing the work of three people for this entire week as I try to learn a new mechanized inventory system. 12 hours per day. smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif

[mark12_30]

Latecomer's comment:

"In a sense, both Frodo and Bilbo were burglars, on a mission to do something very quietly--the opposite of what a typical hero would be or do."

Sharon, there you go again, brilliantly stating what might have been obvious to you, but I sure overlooked it... I LOVE it.

[mark12_30]

littleman--

Certainly humans can't genuinely live for machines... but if we saw them as a tool, and refocused on what we're supposed to be living for (Mark 12:30-31, if you have the scriptures handy...) then they'd be neither good nor bad, I think. I look at a computer the same way I look at a pencil; it has a use, is not an end in itself, and can be applied to either good or bad. But Iluvatar looks at the heart, and (here's where I agree with you) growing up with machines, exclusively, is not exactly the best or easiest way to develop a heart that I think Iluvatar would be pleased with.

Television, Nintendo, or Windows XP is not exactly the ideal method of building character, humility, perseverance, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, or self-control.

If we saw them (Television, Nintendo, or Windows XP) as just a source of information, just a game, just a "pencil", (rather than babysitters, passtimes, friends) they'd have a lot less control over us. But speaking as somebody who has had their TV-cable disconnected for six years now and doesn't miss it, sometimes it IS just easier to pull the plug.

Grace and peace...

[greyhavener]

Something I've noticed about some currently taught history curriculums is the lack of emphasis on the heroes and villians of history. Broad, general events and the political, sociological, economic, and geographical forces which drove those events make up the bulk of the history curriculum. Perhaps this is a result of current political correctness, historical revisionists, or pressure from educational administration and test developers to cover so much material in so little time, but the lives of individuals are downplayed. I think it is those lives, those personalities that truly capture the attention of students and lead them to love history and learn from it.

[Kuruharan]

Something I've noticed about some currently taught history curriculums is the lack of emphasis on the heroes and villians of history.

This is because the prevailing view is that the individual is of little importance in history (and probably of little value for that matter). What they believe to be important are "broad, general events and the political, sociological, economic, and geographical forces which drove those events." The individuals are basically irrelevant because the situation created the individual that it needed. The "force" finds the individual it needs. If the person who historically did the deed was not there, then the "force" would have found somebody else who would have done the same thing.

Then you get to the little matter of how they don't really believe in heros or villians.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

To greyhavener's last post...
I agree, about the way history is taught.
It seems like all they do is throw names and dates at you and you are only supposed to memorize them. They forget the significance of what it was like to acutally live back then. It is important to learn names of people, but it doesn't mean much if you do not understand the society in which they were living.
I must say that I have learned more about history through acting classes than through history classes. Now what does that say about all of the history classes I ever took.
I think they try to cram too much into one semester. If topics were more focused then people would learn more thoroughly what they need to know.

In some ways home schooled children are a little better off (well, perhaps). All of my homeschooled friends are quite brilliant, such as Frodo was.
I think that another important factor is role-models. Frodo had Bilbo as a role model (and Bilbo is a pretty darn good one). Sam really looked up to the Elves (at least, what he had learned about them).
I think that today kid's look to pop culture icons to be their role models because a lot of parents aren't being good ones (I am sure that all of your parents here are excellent though!). I am not saying that there are no good pop culture icons, it's just that a lot of kids don't recognize the ones that they should.

[Kuruharan]

And people have different aptitudes and interests. Not everyone is hardwired to enjoy history, like I'm not hardwired to enjoy or be able to do math. People are different.

[akhtene]

Not everyone is hardwired to enjoy history, like I'm not hardwired to enjoy or be able to do math.
I agree 100%. But while a simple calculator can help summing up the bills, looking up the dates in a textbook won't solve any life problem. History is not just a pile of dates and names, I don't even think that the way people lived 2 - 3 centuries ago is the most useful knowledge history can give (Of course, it's also quite important to know) I strongly believe that the main emphasis (?) should be placed on personalities, characters who created the history. Nowadays our kids learn at most 'what happened when and where' but seldom try to answer the questions: "Why it happened?" and "What kind of person was he/she who made it happen?" The first question teaches to think, to find reasons and consequences. As for the second one, it should give us examples to follow or never to follow. I'm afraid we are starting to lose (to put it mildly) the moral values that have been developing throughout the history. One is driven to believe that any means is justified, as history as a school subject tends to be interested in results, but not in process. From my experience, literature is trying harder in this sphere.

I've read somewhere that such a worrying state of historical knowledge among the young people leads more and more of them to taking up fantasy. It gives them sort of understandable, exciting historical knowkedge
to fill up the gaps in their own background (who cares that it's not real) and also the models for their everyday life. The tree without roots can't stand firmly, and sometimes the roots have to be simply drawn on a piece of paper.

[Kuruharan]

What kind of person was he/she who made it happen?

But that was what I was saying earlier. The prevailing ethos (at least in American historical circles, and I would suspect European as well) is that the individual did not make it happen. The choices that individual people make are not important because the overall flow of history will find the person to make the choices and do the deeds. One person will serve as good as the next. That's why there is little emphasis on the individual.

Not that I agree with this viewpoint, but that is the prevailing one at this moment.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[littlemanpoet]

Part of the reason a high school history course, or a math course, or whatever, is so boring for people who don't have a strong interest in them, is because the factory model of education, to which I referred above, categorizes knowledge into specific subject matter in order to rationalize the system so that it's easier to control. The reason you learned more history while acting is because you were approaching history in an interdisciplinary manner. Knowledge is not meant to be sliced up into bite-sized categories. This is also why playing games is such a successful way to learn just about anything. It's interdisciplinary. There shouldn't even be a term, "interdisciplinary". History should be learned in the context of language and geography and drama and music and math and so on. Geometry should be learned in the context of studying the ancient Greeks. Of course, that would be too hard to grade. So it won't get done - unless you're homeschooled.

The beauty of good fiction and fantasy, such as LotR, is that it presents the world whole rather than in pieces and categories. I honestly believe that people who learn this way, through imagination, as did Einstein, are better off than those who learn subject by subject by subject.

[greyhavener]

Call me a romantic, but I think learning about the lives that inspire history, the deeply held convictions that moved those lives to action, and the art, literature, music, and invention that came as a response of those times breathes life into history. Look at ancient histories real and imagined. The Silmarillion is really about lives. The Old Testament is about lives. Homer wrote about lives. Events resulted from the character strengths and flaws of individuals.

History as currently taught is divided into periods to reflect philosophical and technological changes, then further split geographically. If you've ever seen the TV series or read the book "Connections" it's about how inventions changed and inspired humanities and lifestyles. I personally think history, literature, and science should somehow be dovetailed to give students an idea of the chain an idea takes that makes changes in society. Ideas inspire religion which inspires art and music which inspires literature which inspires higher education which inspires politics which inspires industry and science which inspires mass media, entertainment and education. Sometimes the order of the chain is different, but nothing happens in a vacuum. Events and ideas are interconnected and originate with individuals. Perhaps the trend toward eliminating personal responsibility and moral absolutes contributes to this lack of examination of individual lives.

Most history curriculums are designed to cover what's on the standardized test and not offend anyone. As there is more and more to cover, depth is eliminated for breadth. Individual lives are ignored in history books to make room for more information and more diversity. Textbook manufacturers and curriculum planners are charged with creating products designed to be politically correct and very generally cover everything everywhere.

Anyone who wants to develop a true sense of history is going to have to do some independent learning.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[Nevtalathiel]

unless you're homeschooled

I'd be interested to find out what other people's views are on home-schooling, especially people who've been home-schooled, or who've home-schooled their kids.

[greyhavener]

On homeschooling. I know four families who are dear friends who homeschool or have in the past.
1) In one case it has worked out quite well. The children are college students who are well educated, well spoken, and well adjusted.
2) In another case the children know alot about what the parent thought was important and nothing about what he didn't, are very opinionated (almost exclusively the opinions of the parent who homeschooled them) and are socially inept. They are very distrustful and judgemental and very very smart. I worry about how they will relate to others when they are on their own.
3)In another case the parents, who know the family described previously, decided to stop home schooling at jr. high and put their children into a private school in order to help them develop social skills. These kids were behind the school academically in some areas and ahead in other. The parents are working to see that their kids don't become products of the society but understand it and can function in it and relate to others.
4)Still another family started out sending their kids through public school until fifth grade, then began homeschooling. Finding they needed more structure, they've joined a homeschool group that meets three times a week working under a Socratic model.

I think homeschooling's success is dependent upon the motives and background of the parent.

[Gandalf_theGrey]

* applauds the eloquence of the participants in this discussion *

Finding myself pressed for time, I'm afraid all I have to contribute at the moment is the following quote by Michael D. O'Brien from his novel _Plague Journal_:

"I know now that Tolkien taught them better than all my pedantic, despairing
diatribes against the follies of this century. I read the trilogy to them
again last year. Tolkien had the charm. He could manifest the thrilling
drama of reality through his "sub-creation", as he called it. The kids were
soon rehooked on this bracing vision and eventually returned to their own
world with clearer eyes and with hearts full of true things. They never did
like school much after that. They had learned that we are not cells in a
vast organism or numbers in a collective. Not that they had the words to
express this, but I observed how they had the truth of it deep down; you
could tell by their questions and their revised likes and dislikes. They
were human persons in a community of persons now, and if most members of
that community had lost their sense of personhood and had opted for herd
law, this in no way negated Bam and Zizzy's right to the real thing."

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Thank you for that quote, Gandalf. I enjoyed it smilies/smile.gif
Also, I agree with your comments about literature and art, greyhaver. Well said.

[littlemanpoet]

I believe that the key to learning history, or anything really, is connection. Relationships. Even learning by experience fits into this, because experience itself can be the connection by which we learn something. An example of connections is that between archaeological finds in the MidEast, Homer's Iliad, the Bible, and Egyptian historical records. Archaeological finds turn up Trojan-like pottery having been in Palestine just around 1200 B.C. and thereafter. Homer's Iliad relates the defeat of Troy by the Greeks; archaeological digs at the historic site of Troy reveal a destroyed city circa 1200 B.c. There were warriors from Cyprus in the army of Kind David of Israel. Up until David, the Philistines knew the technology of iron forging and kept it away from the Israelites. The Trojans had iron technology. The Egyptian records speak of Sea Peoples who tried and failed to invade Egypt but settled on the shores of Palestine.

Here's the connection. The Philistines of the Bible had the same culture as the Trojans. They were at least related to them and may have BEEN them. The victory of the Greeks sent the Trojans and their allies fleeing. They fled to Crete, Cyprus, and down the coast of Palestine. Some of them attacked Egypt, which failed. They settled in Palestine and founded cities such as Gaza, Ekron, and others along the shore of the Mediterranean. The name Palestine comes from the name Philistine. So Homer's Iliad is based in history in ways I had not known before. Connections.

Tolkien understood connections. His legendarium is filled with historical connection. We love the history of Middle Earth because we can see how so many events tied into the War of the Ring.

So find a way to make a connection between what you already know and new information and you'll have a much better chance of retaining the knowledge.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Clearly history is neither dead nor ignored, judging by this thread. Anyway, here's what I think:

People like things to be simple: they like heroes and villains; beginnings and endings (preferably happy) and, above all, no challenge to their view of how the world works.
History offers none of these things without revision, which is why you'll find massive inaccuracies in most historical films, which have to appeal to a mass audience: the heroes and villains are usually just people, many of whom had less of an impact than one might think; the story begins before the records do and ends in the future and more often than not the morally bankrupt come off best.
As for challenging none of our beliefs: the civilisations of the past present thousands of alternatives to the way we live: religion, politics, even ethics are always changing and nothing, but nothing, is simple or clear-cut. This is why history becomes myth, which has all of the things that history doesn't, and also helps to bond a culture closer together, just like literature and music; also, just like literature and music, myth is fluid and bends with the wind of opinion. The facts, on the other hand, remain exactly the same, however uncomfortable they may be. "If ignorance is bliss", as the saying goes, "'tis folly to be wise."

Of course, it isn't usually a conscious decision that keeps people in ignorance: most people are just too lazy to find out about things that won't earn them more money, impress the opposite sex or advance their careers. Most of them, like Betjeman's clerks of Slough, "don't look up to see the stars / But belch instead". Sad but true. Personally the only thing I have against such ignorance is its tendency to create an idealised (ie fictional) version of the past that tells us only what we want to hear and, far from teaching us any lessons, only reinforces decisions that have already been made, however idiotic they may be.

Just to bring us back to some semblance of being on topic; far from steering away from this tendency, Tolkien follows a similar impulse in creating a fictional world and setting it in the past. The very people who say that they don't enjoy The Lord of the Rings because it isn't based on reality often blithely believe in a totally fictional version of the past that's less convincing than the Professor's fiction. Who, I feel compelled to ask, is the bigger fool?

Tempus is fugiting quite quickly, so I must dash.

[Kuruharan]

littlemanpoet:

I LOVE ancient history! Get me started talking about this kind of thing and I could go on for months without stopping for breath.

You're right about the connections interwoven into the stories being another reason that Tolkien's world has such depth. The things in the story all relate to each other in some way.

Squatter:

History offers none of these things without revision, which is why you'll find massive inaccuracies in most historical films, which have to appeal to a mass audience.

I think that there is also a mixture of
1) Wanting to make the whole thing more "dramatic"
and
2) Wanting to write the story themselves.

To make a connection to (and expand a bit ;) )your section on "fictionalized history", the movies also often advance the cause of the fictionalized history to make their mass appeal. One of my favorite hobby horses in the "historical" movies category is The Last of the Mohicans with Daniel Day-Lewis. That movie was a butchering of Cooper's novel, which was a butchering of what actually happened.

The movie altered the facts (rather implausibly to anyone who knows anything about the true situation at Fort William-Henry during the seige) so that they could bring in the whole "The British were a bunch of arrogant snots" angle that plays so well. Not to say that there were no British officers that had arrogant, condecending attitudes toward the colonials (sorry Squatter ;) ), but the movie made up a ridiculous back story to showcase this rather than use historical fact. I believe the reason why is they felt their backstory was more "dramatic" and it would fit in with people's preconceived notions, thus broadening the popular appeal. (And provided the opportunity to kill off sympathetic characters and show dead bodies.)

One thing they did keep from the book was the Marquis de Montcalm being responsible for the massacre that followed the surrender. This was one of the things that they could have safely axed (pun intended) because it is EXTREMELY unlikely that he was a party to it, and I could give a list of reasons that's so long it would probably overload the server.

*Ahem*...*cough* *cough*...Anyway where were we?

and more often than not the morally bankrupt come off best.

I'd qualify this by saying that they came off best for most of their lives until the end. I could go on and on with a list of morally bankrupt historical characters who were important, successful, and are well known now, but who ultimately came to bad ends. (More often than not because somebody used their own tricks against them.) Of course one lesson to be taken from this is that if you want to win you have to cheat, but the other lesson is that sooner or later someone will come along who cheats better than you and you end up dying a very nassty, messsy death, my preciousss.

The first lesson is the one that people who are into such things usually pay attention to, but the other is there to be observed as well. (Not that despicable characters don't live to ripe old ages and die in peace, but this is actually rarer than might be supposed.)

[akhtene]

littltmanpoet wrote:
I believe that the key to learning history, or anything really, is connection. Relationships. Even learning by experience fits into this, because experience itself can be the connection by which we learn something.

I very much appreciate this idea because learning just for learning ‘s sake without really finding relations between our glorious (or not so) past with present, without setting values and behavior models, without seeing any perspective may not be so helpful, apart from being just a mind exercise and the way of satisfying one’s curiosity

Much has been said here about the historical knowledge and lore being of immense help and support to the Ring-bearer and the Fellowship on their Quest. But there is another character in the book, “the most inquisitive and curious-minded in the family”, “interested in roots and beginnings” who nevertheless was subdued and ruined by the evil power of the Ring. I mean Smeagol, the loathsome Gollum. Why then was the knowledge of no help to him?
I’d guess that his interest in “great secrets …which have not been discovered since the beginning” was purely ‘academic’. He learned no lessons, saw no perspective, “…he ceased to look up at the hilltops, or the leaves on trees, or the flowers opening in the air”. Another reason is that he made his discoveries alone and there was nobody from the very start to tell him right from wrong. And dark and evil things may seem more appealing, especially to an inexperienced mind.
Thus learning, history learning especially, should help establishing connections not only between various facts, but also between people on the model teacher (a person, a book, an idea) – pupil (the one who is willing to absorb the knowledge and apply it).

[littlemanpoet]

An excellent point on Smeagol, akhtene. Sorry if I spelled your name wrong... If I recall correctly, Smeagol already had that warped interest in hidden secrets even before he killed Deagol for possession of the Ring, right? If so, that would mean that he was already headed in the wrong direction and the Ring "found" a useful and willing tool for its own (im)personal aims. And, of course, the Ring hastened the corruption of Smeagol's mind in terms of digging after dark secrets, and aloneness. So yes, relationships between humans (or elves, hobbits, etc. smilies/wink.gif ), are a crucial aspect of valuable learning - of history or whatever. I think Tolkien's caution against "hoarding" comes into play here, too.

[Bêthberry]

*listens to the many interesting posts on this topic*

Thank you, Tigerlily Gamgee, for raising this topic. I am tempted to say much, but will restrain my enthusiasm to just one question, which might arise because of cultural differences. Coming from the Old Forest (ie, Canada), I have an historical perspective different from that of many Americans.

Here's an historical reference which I have seen twice in the last week here at Barrow-Downs:

The (Edwardian) hobbits of the Shire, reflecting a late 19th century sensibility, valued community, family, knowledge, oh, and food.

Now, to me, 'Edwardian' refers to the opulence and self-satisfaction which were cultural keynotes of the reign of Edward VII, king of England from 1901-1910. A '19th century sensibility' would refer to the reign of Queen Victoria, from 1837 - 1901, a reign which saw the Industrial Revolution , um, revolutionize life in England, moving production of goods and services out of the home and guilds and small business into large factories. So I have great difficulty seeing The Shire described by either of those historical periods. Must be because I am a subject smilies/wink.gif of Elizabeth II.

*curtsies politely to all*

Bethberry

PS. I have always understood that little interchange between Ioreth and Aragorn over athelas/kingsfoil to represent a difference between ancient male learnedness (read, Greek and Latin) and the womanly culture of oral lore (read, English). After all, it is Ioreth who remembers the old saying that the hands of the King are the hands of a Healer, and Gandalf rightly acknowledges her wisdom. (chapter ref, "The Houses of Healing")

[Kuruharan]

So yes, relationships between humans (or elves, hobbits, etc.), are a crucial aspect of valuable learning - of history or whatever. I think Tolkien's caution against "hoarding" comes into play here, too.

But what about a character like Tom Bombadil who was (partially) there to acquire knowledge for knowledge's sake? He seems to have little inclination to share that knowledge with anyone. He talks to Farmer Maggot (and perhaps a few other individuals "out in the world") but does he really reveal anything out of what must surely be a vast store of knowledge? Probably not.

[Nevtalathiel]

I'd like to refer back to a point which was raised earlier, if I may, about history being recorded by the rich, educated and conquerors. I was reading Ninteen Eighty-Four and I found a passage which I think really highlighted the importance of learning history and the dangers posed when the history recorded is a corrupted view. I know this is not directly related to Tolkien, but I think it's an interesting point and should result in a good discussion smilies/smile.gif

But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. "Who controls the past," ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: whi controls the present controls the past."

[littlemanpoet]

Tom Bombadil, eh? I would say that this brings us into a discussion of TB's nature, which, I believe, has been tackled on other threads; therefore I will leave it alone and refer you to the learned and erudite opinions on other threads.

Oh Old Forest dweller, smilies/wink.gif that was my reference to 'Edwardian', which is information I learned from Child of the 7th Age off of the 'Frodo's Sacrifice' thread (I think). The context for calling the period Edwardian is that Tolkien was born and raised during that period, and the particular Edwardian-ness Child was referring to, I think, was the West Midlands variety that did not partake of the stuffed-upedness to which you refer, much less the rampant industrialization. The West Midlands were free from that until after World War II, if I remember my Humphrey Carpenter authorized biography correctly. Thanks for catching me in my contextual goof, though. smilies/tongue.gif

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

PS. I have always understood that little interchange between Ioreth and Aragorn over athelas/kingsfoil to represent a difference between ancient male learnedness (read, Greek and Latin) and the womanly culture of oral lore (read, English). After all, it is Ioreth who remembers the old saying that the hands of the King are the hands of a Healer, and Gandalf rightly acknowledges her wisdom. (chapter ref, "The Houses of Healing")

I'm not sure about any conscious associations of gender with this conflict, at least not in this scene: it's folklore versus erudition, with the ubiquitous Gandalf bridging the gap (I expect that Tolkien was taking a swipe at academics who belittle folk stories as "old wives' tales"). I also notice that the protagonists of both sides of the argument are made to look foolish beside the old wizard, who knows more about both versions of botany than either of them. The scene between Ioreth and the Warden is also a great way to break the ice after all the high drama that leads to the Houses of Healing.

Incidentally, no offence taken about the officer comment: those concerned haven't been above ground in a long time.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Bêthberry]

*curtsies deeply and graciously with a pleasant hello to littlemanpoet and Squatter of Amon Rudh*

Yes indeed, littlemanpoet, it was the thread about different historical epochs represented in the movie where I saw 'Edwardian' used. I think this shows another problem with historical lables: they are not watertight and often not applicable to entire cultures. Carpenter's descriptions of Sarehole during Tolkien's childhood remind me very much of George Eliot's descriptions of the West Midlands. It is still a rural land that has been overlooked by the major historical movement which was used to define the period. (BTW, that bit about the Victorians does not pertain to Yorkshiremen in the 1840s.) I would tend to think, therefore, that the historical lable for the time frame does not do justice to the experience Tolkien had or imagines in his work. Just MHO.

Squatter of Amon Rudh, what suggested the issue of gendered knowledge is the loquaciousness of Ioreth, her suggestion that the Herb Master (male) would be more familiar with formal names, and Gandalf's obvious respect for her despite her talkative nature, where others might ridicule her for her old wives' ways. It could, however, easily be a marker of dialect or social order. It is a small point but nonetheless indicative, I think, of Tolkiens' great attention to language. Just MHO.

Regards from the Old Forest,
Bethberry

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Kuruharan]

Tom Bombadil, eh? I would say that this brings us into a discussion of TB's nature, which, I believe, has been tackled on other threads; therefore I will leave it alone and refer you to the learned and erudite opinions on other threads.

Tsk! You're ducking my highly murky point! ;)

And thanks go to the Squatter for his forbearance. :)

[Leto]

"Historians exercise great power and some of them know it. They recreate the past, changing it to fit their own interpretations. Thus, they change the future as well."
-Leto II, His Voice, from Dar-es-Balat

"Those who would repeat the past must control the teaching of history."
-Bene Gesserit Coda

"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
-Zensunni koan

When people say that history should focus as much, or more on the people, the personalities, and relationships that contributed to events...the 'human' side of things, as opposed to just the events and changes we've observed...they are forgetting that we don't KNOW the 'human side'. Unless we were there, party to the events...we haven't the slightest idea what those people were really like, what really motivated them, or what sort of relationships they had. We have at best second hand reports that are full of personal or popular opinion. We all know that popular opinion is rarely the 'truth'. There is little that we can approach as 'fact', apart from the dates of events, names of people, and the overall social and economic trends which accompanied them.

"We witness a passing phase of eternity. Important things happen but some people never notice. Accidents intervene. You are not present at episodes. You depend on reports. And people shutter their minds. What good are reports? History in a news account? Preselected at an editorial conference, digested and excreted by prejudice? Accounts you need seldom come from those who make history. Diaries, memoirs and autobiographies are subjective forms of special pleading. Archives are crammed with such suspect stuff."
-Darwi Odrade

Mythology is important for that reason. It is not 'history' exactly...'history' is past. Mythology is 'living history'...the history contained in our blood and our souls...it is the 'feelings' we have inherited from our pasts. This cannot be taught as fact...it is subjective, different for everyone. It is no less important, or perhaps even more important, than history...but don't get the two confused.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Leto ]

[Kuruharan]

Well, yes, but as I observed earlier, if you are not willing to work with what we have than there is no point anyway.

[Bill Ferny]

Laiedheliel wrote:

Many of the parents in my district (I do not speak for anyone in particular, and do not speak for anyone outside of my school district) are under-educated, fathers working and mothers playing the fifties housewife role. I know some of my friends' parents attended college, but a shocking amount did not and now work at labor-class jobs or not at all, and have little knowledge as to what their children are actually doing and being exposed to. This trait their children have inherited, and have not yet come to the dreadful realization that times have changed and that an education is an essential tool to unlocking one's future in this country.

This should be understood in terms of what Kuruharan rightly wrote:

Ignorance of the past is not just a modern "problem." This is a problem that has always been around since the dawn of recorded history. The vast majority of people in all cultures over time have always had a rather flimsy grasp of their past.

The parent’s role in education is not one of providing their children with all the knowledge that the world has to offer. If this were true, then a prerequisite of parenting would be at least a dozen PhDs in the liberal arts and sciences. A man with an eighth grade education, who works in a steel mill in West Virginia, can still be a good father. I know this because I’ve met more than one person fitting this description.

It all comes down to some rather simple things: sharing, honesty, responsibility, kindness, good hygiene, hard work, perseverance, curiosity and inquisitiveness, respect of self and others, piety, a sense of humor, decorum and courtesy. “Everything you needed to know you learned in kindergarten” is false. All these things we learned, or did not learn, from our parents.

These things were actually taught much more thoroughly when the parents were the primary educators, not of science and technology, but hand crafts. Children spent time with their parents, and learned to respect their parents as masters of a craft. This is Tolkien’s Shire, in my estimation. Bilbo’s and Frodo’s relationship, though more scholarly in nature, is much like this. The pupil who respects his parent as someone with something to offer. This, I fear, is what is lacking in my American culture, as I’ve ranted about elsewhere.

Of course, the world has changed significantly, and technology has replaced the hand crafts. However, it’s important that parents have hobbies that they can share with their children. Something like father Tolkien telling his children some of the most wonderful bed time stories ever. Sharon mentions home schooling as a viable option, and the concept does have the weight of historical precedent. At any rate, spending time with parents is how we learn about our family. It is just as important to know one’s family history, about the lives of their parents and grandparents, as it is to know the history of one’s country or culture. This kind of historical knowledge can’t be taught at any school, and it, like academic history, can inspire people to heroic action. Those who know nothing of their ancestors, start life in poverty, and my heart goes out to them.

As someone who has taught both at the secondary level and now the college level, I would caution others not to place too much emphasis on the academic world. Thankfully, academe is not going to be the savior of the world. Not everyone is going to be a professor, doctor, philosopher, theologian, historian, or scientist. Our dignity is not about how much we know, but how we live with what we know. History will remember men and women who thought and did, not men and women who just studied.


In the Dark Ages, or even during the Renisance (now I know I spelled that one wrong), we did not know we were ignorant.

On the contrary, Laiedheliel and Kuruharan, a realization that one does not know is the primary catalyst to know. Men of the “Dark Ages” were in awe of a natural world that presented them with wondrous mystery and frightening power. This inspired people such as Bonaventure, Bénézet and the Frères Pontifes, Peter Abelard, Villard de Honnecourt, Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Stupor Mundi Frederick II, Geoffrey Chauncer, Marco Polo and Roger Bacon, not to mention the countless unnamed men and women who tamed water with the waterwheel, cotton, flax and wool with the loom, the land with horse driven plow. These people knew they did not know. The good scientist, philosopher, and academic knows that there is much to this world we don’t know. Such is the striving of the human heart.

Sharon writes:

Today, I would argue, we still view college as primarily a place to prepare yourself to earn a lot of money in the workforce. Bilbo's ideal, and the ideal of the Elves, only hangs around on the fringes of academia. Yes, the Bilbos and Elves are still there, but it's often hard to get funding for the liberal arts except in a few choice (and often expensive!) institutions.

I often find myself at odds on this issue with more than a few colleagues of a conservative bent. A commonly accepted justification for higher education is that it “teaches the leaders of the future.” This is, in my opinion, an example of good old university arrogance. Littlemanpoet touches thoughtfully on the John Dewey utilitarianism that has plagued the university. Many students believe that if it doesn’t have to do with quantum physics, then it doesn’t have to do with them. Then the same conservatives wonder why their students care more about frat parties, football games, and the strip than their lectures. Professors should bare in mind that real geniuses and child prodigies don’t have to listen to their lectures.

One can see the same arrogance here at the B’Downs. Just because you have read and enjoyed an inspiring novel, and have pseudo-philosophical discussions on this forum does not mean you are any better than the mechanic down the street that doesn’t know Tolkien from Hopkins. For all the discussion in this thread, there are those who lament the loss of history, and yet in the same thread show incredible ignorance of history (if you have made a comment about the “Dark Ages,” rest assured I’m referring to you). This is the pot calling the kettle black. This forum, like a university education, does not guarantee any amount of intelligence, wisdom, or knowledge.

I strive that my students may gain an appreciation of the world around them, not so much that they pick up banal skills for success. As far as skills for success go, I learned more from my family, both past and present, and the Army, than school or the University. I’m not teaching, nor do I want to teach, America’s elite. I just want to teach. The tides are changing, though, thanks in part to a growing interest in folklore; especially of note is the popularity of the Foxfire Books. From what he has said and written, it is obvious that Tolkien was this kind of professor, a humble man of letters with the wisdom to know that his letters came, in the first place, from the common man.

I've read far to much to believe that there is no such thing as human nature. People have always been inclined to be ignorant, lazy, complacent, greedy, and usually uncaring about anything else as long as they are fat, dumb, and happy.

I’ve read and seen too much to believe such demagoguery. Human nature is more wondrous and beautiful than it is ugly and corrupt.

By the grace of God, I’m a history teacher… not because history is absolutely essential to understanding our individual place in the cosmos, not because history teaches us to be human beings, not because history informs the leaders of tomorrow, not because history is the first of all sciences. I’m a history teacher because I love history, and I firmly believe that love is contagious.

[Kuruharan]

Lo! Thread est resurrectum!

Men of the "Dark Ages" were in awe of a natural world that presented them with wondrous mystery and frightening power. This inspired people such as Bonaventure, Bénézet and the Frères Pontifes, Peter Abelard, Villard de Honnecourt, Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Stupor Mundi Frederick II, Geoffrey Chauncer, Marco Polo and Roger Bacon, not to mention the countless unnamed men and women who tamed water with the waterwheel, cotton, flax and wool with the loom, the land with horse driven plow. These people knew they did not know. The good scientist, philosopher, and academic knows that there is much to this world we don’t know. Such is the striving of the human heart.


Ah, how true.
Although I would not classify all those individuals as belonging to the Dark Ages.

I’ve read and seen too much to believe such demagoguery. Human nature is more wondrous and beautiful than it is ugly and corrupt.


Obviously, since I made the original statement in question, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Just looking at things on a small scale, you can see around you every day literally hundreds of examples of people's pettiness, greediness, spitefulness, vengefulness, maliciousness, lasciviousness, and on and on. And these are just the people in your immediate vicinity at work/school/etc. Seeing this is far more common than seeing anybody do anything out of a truly generous impulse, without hoping to gain something out of it.

And this is without taking into account what interjecting violence and power do to the equation.

history teaches us to be human beings...I’m a history teacher because I love history, and I firmly believe that love is contagious.


We are talking about the same human race, aren't we?

First time in my life I've ever been accused of demagoguery. ;)

[Bill Ferny]

Resurrected threads, you have to love them. Actually I read this thread months ago, and wrote portions of my post back then. I was cleaning some of the junk out of Word when I came across a copy of my reply. Actually, a lot has happened in my life since then (a dissertation defense, a move, and a job change), so it’s kind of like a resurrection for me as well.

The term “Dark Ages” is what is in question. It no longer refers to an actual historical period, but to our “dark” or scanty knowledge of the years roughly from AD 500 to roughly AD 900 or 1000 in western Europe. Even this is being changed by recent archeology, and a growing realization of the interconnectedness of other cultures, not the least of which are the Arab, Byzantine, and, more subtly, Chinese cultures. 20th century scholarship increasingly demonstrates the need for medievalists to analyze the diffusion of ideas and technology from the east (well documented in their own right) during this time. In other words, the term “Dark Ages” is too Euro-centric to reflect the direction of modern medieval studies. The term is one of those unfortunate carryovers from the days of Gibbon.

At any rate, the people of the sixth or seventh centuries were just as curious about the natural world, and were just as self-critical, as we are today.

The optimist vs. the pessimist; the eternal struggle. I definitely see the glass half full. I’m not so naïve as to say there are no serious problems in our world or with many modern attitudes. However, from many years of working night and part time jobs in public service including a patient representative/advocate and social worker, and from being a seminarian studying to be a priest, I’ve had the opportunity to meet many different people, to actually step into their homes and private lives, and deal with them during times of suffering, crisis and joy. These first hand experiences proved to me the validity of Christian optimism: all things are fundamentally good.

On the surface, we all seem to be living shoebox lives, safely shut behind locked doors, situated squarely in front of the TV. To a degree, this is an accurate view. However, the human person simply is not that one dimensional. The people in those houses are people with loves and hates, joys and sorrows, dreams and values. Like people of all times, only a very few will change the world with these longings of the human spirit. But the world will be changed by the few, it always is.

What do you consider a “truly generous impulse”? Are you setting the standard too high? No act of generosity goes with out reward. So does that make generosity, itself, ultimately selfish?

We are talking about the same human race, aren't we?

I’m not sure I know what you mean by this. The study of history’s worth in making a person a better person is totally up to the individual. Once again, it’s not what you know, but how you live with what you know.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Well met, Bill Ferny.
Ahhh, what a lovely resurrection!

You have told me some things about "The Dark Ages" that I was unaware of, and I thank you for that.
I agree with what you say about people living in a shoebox. We study human behavior a lot with acting because we have to play roles as real people, and not as the sterotypes that apperance and living styles set on them. So, we learn about people and how they react, and how they are affected. It's can be very joyous and very painful work to act.
But overall, I think that it is a person's choice to take in what they want. People who don't want to learn , no matter where they are, will not learn. And those who want to learn, no matter where they are, will learn. Some of the most brilliant historical figures are those who learned on their own because they wan't to, because they were interested.
The human species is very much like a cornered animal in some ways... we have the capability to accomplish to much, but many of us must be cornered with no way out before we act on what we can do.
And, yes, generosity does usually spawn out of the deep desire for some award. I know because I have caught myself doing this on many occasions (mostly to my parents! smilies/smile.gif ), but there have also been times when I have expected nothing because I don't expect what I am doing to be noticed.
I guess it just depends on a lot of factors.

Well, that was a lot of babbling on my part... I hope that it made some sense.

[Kuruharan]

The term "Dark Ages" is what is in question. It no longer refers to an actual historical period, but to our "dark" or scanty knowledge of the years roughly from AD 500 to roughly AD 900 or 1000 in western Europe. Even this is being changed by recent archeology, and a growing realization of the interconnectedness of other cultures, not the least of which are the Arab, Byzantine, and, more subtly, Chinese cultures. 20th century scholarship increasingly demonstrates the need for medievalists to analyze the diffusion of ideas and technology from the east (well documented in their own right) during this time. In other words, the term "Dark Ages" is too Euro-centric to reflect the direction of modern medieval studies. The term is one of those unfortunate carryovers from the days of Gibbon.

Yes, it is quite true. As a matter, of fact I referenced this in one of my earlier posts (obliquely it is true, I know that I mentioned the Byzantines [Rhomaioi as I prefer to call them]).

However, referring to the historical period as a whole, I think that the term will probably continue to stick in some sense, at least concerning the study of European history.

It is also called the "Early Medieval Period." For the sake of clarity I will refer to it as such in the future. (Even though this is almost a more nebulous term. ;) )

I definitely see the glass half full.

I certainly wish I were you.

These first hand experiences proved to me the validity of Christian optimism: all things are fundamentally good.

I fear that I take a different view of the source of Christian optimism. I was always under the impression that the source of Christian optimism was the resurrection of Christ that promised a way of ultimate escape out of the mess in which we find ourselves in this world, and worse to come. I don’t recall ever seeing anything that says that all things are good. I do remember reading that all things can work to the good, but that does not say all things are good.

There are the seeds of an interesting discussion there, but I fear that if we continue in that vein much longer the thread will be closed down. I’d love to discuss this further in a more private arena if you would be so inclined.

Before I continue I would also like to say that I did not wish to say that generosity and positive impulses do not exist in humanity. I just do not believe that they are the primary and dominant impulses.

But the world will be changed by the few, it always is.

Yes, but this does not mean that they will change it for the better.

For instance, take the 20th Century (please!)

There were four men of the 20th Century who probably had the greatest impact, judged by the number of lives they affected (or afflicted).

They were Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Ghandi. Of those four only Ghandi was a "nice" guy. The rest were cruel butchers, and yet look at the changes that they wrought in the world.

There were also some other lights like Martin Luther King, but those above four had the greatest impact on the world.

What do you consider a "truly generous impulse"?

That is a reasonable question.

I would answer that a truly generous impulse is doing good because good is something that has value in and of itself.

(Hmm…I think I read something like that in Tolkien’s Letters somewhere, come to think of it. Although, I think that he was talking about Frodo’s pity for Gollum at the time.)

Thus, the reward, whether it exists or not, is irrelevant. You do good because it is good.

So does that make generosity, itself, ultimately selfish?

No.

However, as Tolkien would say, the "Morgoth Element" will almost always come into play, even at times when we are wanting to do right. It is just part of being human.

This has gotten rather abstract all of a sudden. ;)

[Bill Ferny]

I don’t recall ever seeing anything that says that all things are good.

“God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.” Gen 1:31.

I don’t think this is as off topic as it can be interpreted. There are plenty of threads dealing with Tolkien and religion, Tolkien and the bible, and Tolkien and Christianity. Christian optimism always existed in the Christian Church, but was developed to its fullest extent by the medieval scholastics. The notion that all things are created good and are part of an economy of salvation, a linear path of history, did much to usher in the scientific and technological age. Catholicism has always stubbornly held onto this notion, putting her at odds with the “sinners in the hands of an angry god” crowd. As a Catholic, Tolkien would have been thoroughly indoctrinated by the notion that God created all things good, and despite the fallen condition of man, man remains fundamentally good and on a path toward divination. Such optimism is the corner stone of Lord of the Rings… apparently insignificant people doing extraordinary things, characters finding within themselves the strength and courage to overcome incredible odds. Evil in Middle Earth is explained along the same lines, albeit in the negative sense: the fall of good creatures into evil (i.e. Melkor and Sauron) and corrupting a good creation by the misuse of sub-creative powers. The "Morgoth Element" is an unfortunate condition, but not the true nature of reality.

For all these negative influences, I’m sure I can come up with just as many 20th century people who have had a positive influence. It’s a circular argument, and depends on your worldview. On the practical level, optimism has certainly made me a more congenial person. At the same time, the world is what it is. Any attempts to apply an elixir that somehow purifies the world and makes it into a perfect utopia is a waste of time, be it education, social justice, or some rule of law. Not even Jesus Christ claimed to do that (not yet, at least). Once again, though, my optimism tells me we are part of a greater design and destined for greater things. All I can do is attempt to teach my children those simple things that will give them a chance to be good people and maybe change the world in a positive way.

Pessimists do have an important role to play, especially in identifying the ills that need to be righted. However, even pessimists attest to the optimistic view that all things are fundamentally good. If everything was basically base, rude, evil, and irreparably corrupted, why identifying the ills in the first place?

I would answer that a truly generous impulse is doing good because good is something that has value in and of itself.

I wholeheartedly agree. I often lament the loss of “generosity” as a social virtue in our modern world.

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Bill Ferny:

Hail and well met. * bows an affable greeting, offers you a bit of Southern Star, lights a conversational bowl of pipeweed himself *

With pleasure I've come across this renewed thread after a long absence. You address so many worthy topics ... for tonight I'll choose just one.

Soothly, your post of April 26, 2003 10:15 PM can be answered by an entire book called "Beyond Humanism" by John Julian Ryan, published by Sheed and Ward in 1950.

The author very much agrees with your take on education being a preparation for life as a whole rather than for life in terms of mere paycheck-earning-and-spending ability, as seen in the following quotes:

... we must rid ourselves of bookishness and become once more realistic -- in the sense in which a saint is realistic.

Ryan then goes on to suggest that we shape our teaching around points including the following:

8) That, although ideas are real, they are meant primarily to serve as lenses, enabling us to see the reality of things; hence, they are not so much to be sought and enjoyed for their own sakes as they are to be sought for the focussing of our minds on whole things, that we may not only see these, but may see into them to their nature and through them as specimens of His infinite wisdom and love, to God Himself;

9) That any education is therefore unrealistic, disintegrative, and diabolical which trains a student to study and formulate the apppearances of things as if these appearances had no substantial basis, unity or meaning, and as if the principles governing them were the true and final objects of study, all whole substances being merely mysterious, accidental combinations of these principles, not really meant, not historically meant, by God; that any education, indeed, is tragic which trains him for living only one side of life, the animal, and concentrates his attention on living intensely only certain parts of life (the moments of highest sentimental pleasure, however intellectual) merely coercing him into living as cooperatively as he can without losing his individuality; for nothing could be more unreal than training one part of the student -- the faculties needed for scientific investigation and voluptuous enjoyment -- to deal with one section of Nature, one set of aspects at a time, in order to live a life as a wilful part of the cosmos, and to enjoy, even so, only those parts of his existence in which he is thrilling most intensely to one isolated experience;

The craftmasters of the Shire as you point out are indeed just the sort of teacher that Ryan presents as an ideal and wishes there were more of. I'd add to that, the loremasters and artisans of the Elves, who as one Elvish leader told Pippin, "put the thought of all that we love into all that we make."

Myself, I was fortunate to have a father who introduced me to various hobbies. In particular, to the wonders of the stars by teaching me astronomy, and to the wonders of magical presentation (close-up, stage, mentalism, and everything in between) by personal instruction, until eventually I joined the International Brotherhood of Magicians.

More to come soon.

I look forward to discussing these and other points with you in more depth.

Gandalf the Grey

[Bill Ferny]

Tigerlily, with your post falling last on the previous page, I didn’t notice it until a few minutes ago. That’s unfortunate because you bring up a number of provocative points. Mel Gibson gave an interview about his role in Signs, which was apparently a haunting role for him to play. If I can find the interview on the web, I’ll PM it to you.

we have the capability to accomplish so much, but many of us must be cornered with no way out before we act on what we can do.

I vaguely remember this as aspect of the innovative/creative personality: someone who feels cornered by the world in which he or she lives. I think this notion was in the Revolutionary Aesthetic written by I don’t remember, but I’m sure it was someone of notoriety.

Gandalf, I’m not familiar with John Julian Ryan. I’m sure he’ll be in the library, though. The book sounds fascinating.

…for nothing could be more unreal than training one part of the student…to deal with one section of Nature…in order to live a life as a wilful part of the cosmos, and to enjoy…only those parts of his existence in which he is thrilling most intensely to one isolated experience…

That’s some pretty heavy stuff. I better wait until this summer when I have a bit more time read, and re-read, and re-re-read. It’s a bit more complex than 14th century English land economy.

[Kuruharan]

"God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good." Gen 1:31.

Well, as you say, that was before the Fall. My statement was regarding circumstances afterwards.

The notion that all things are created good and are part of an economy of salvation, a linear path of history, did much to usher in the scientific and technological age.

I would agree that all things were created good (or at least originally created). However, I believe that the misuse or corruption of things can led to all sorts of stuff (very technical term) that is inherently bad or evil. This is not to say that good cannot be made to come out of the bad. However, it is to say that this "stuff" (think wars, greed, and all manner of suffering, that kind of "stuff") has no inherently good qualities, in and of themselves.

Catholicism has always stubbornly held onto this notion, putting her at odds with the "sinners in the hands of an angry god" crowd.

Ah, well, that is probably one of the places where Catholicism and I split ways, although I do not belong to strongly in the "sinners in the hands of an angry God" crowd.

man remains fundamentally good and on a path toward divination.

I’m not sure that Tolkien believed this at all. Overall the tone of much of his writing about people tends (to my ear at least) to be rather pessimistic, at least so far as human beings themselves are concerned.

I must apologize at this point, I don’t happen to be in possession of Letters at the moment, so I can’t cite particulars. I will try to get it back again as soon as I can.

Nevertheless, there is a reference from that book that comes to mind. (At least I think that it was from Letters.)

When he is writing on the subject of the benefits and ills of the chivalric view of women he makes a comment something along the lines of "the chivalric view tends to elevate women too much, to the point that it is forgotten that they too are human and their souls are in peril." That sort of remark tends to make me believe that Tolkien did not think that people were fundamentally good. It sounds like he thought that they were in trouble and in need of redemption.

However, I’m open to other interpretations and passages on his viewpoint. My knowledge of his views is by no means exhaustive. I tend to only read those things that deal directly with Middle Earth and ignore other "stuff." ;)

Such optimism is the corner stone of Lord of the Rings…

Please allow me to disagree (again). I don’t believe that such optimism that is in Lord of the Rings derives from inherent qualities inside the "human beings" (remembering that Tolkien said that the Elves had not "Fallen" in the same sense that man had).

Take, for example, the Destruction of the Ring. While Frodo’s pity was an important ingredient, it only opened the door for an event that was nothing less than divine intervention. That was where the true triumph in the story came in, from outside ourselves.

I’m sure I can come up with just as many 20th century people who have had a positive influence.

But I doubt that they had so great an influence as any of the others that I named. Those nuts killed millions and still shape our world today even after they are gone.

However, even pessimists attest to the optimistic view that all things are fundamentally good.

Not necessarily. It could just be that things are so obviously wrong of themselves.

If everything was basically base, rude, evil, and irreparably corrupted, why identifying the ills in the first place?

As an outlet of frustration. However, this does not mean that things are fundamentally good and just in need of a little fixing. It could just be a search of making the bad things better, but tinker all you will and they will still remain bad (another source of frustration).

[Morwen Tindomerel]

Still Shape our world?

Let's see: last time I looked the Soviet Union had gone flooey and Stalinism was dead even before that. Mao's China has not only turned capitalist but done its best to undo the damage he inflicted and Hitler and his thousand year Reich have been dead and buried for nearly sixty years.

That these Bad men had tremendous and damaging impact on Human history is undeniable but it is the forces that were called up to oppose them that have lasted. It is the reaction *against* their evil that shaped the twentieth century.

[Kuruharan]

Still Shape our world?

Yes.

last time I looked the Soviet Union had gone flooey

Per se, yes it has. However...(and this is really the more important part of what I have to say here)...

Stalinism was dead even before that

The Russia that exists now still rests on much of the foundation that Stalin built on the bones of the millions of his victims.

And currently Russia is in such bad economic shape that I would not be surprised to see them go back to something resembling the NEP that they had back in the early days of the Soviet Union. Putin is an ex-KGB man you know.

And Stalin is still popular with many of the descendants of the people that he brutalized all those years ago. He was even popular while he was alive. Which goes to show two things. One, people can be pretty strange, and two that man did a heck of a job building a personality cult around himself.

This may also show that people like being brutalized, which was a point made by Dostoevsky, but we'll cover this again later if need be.

Hitler and his thousand year Reich have been dead and buried for nearly sixty years.


And live on as people's favorite whipping boys. Anytime anybody wants to denounce anything they tie it (usually pretty implausibly) to Fascism or Nazism.

And then there is how the state of Israel came about partially as a result of the Holocaust, which is another one of their deplorable actions that still resonates to this day.

Mao's China has not only turned capitalist but done its best to undo the damage he inflicted

There is a considerable amount of chrome that the Chinese government has built up around themselves to make the rest of the world believe that they have turned over a new leaf (my complements to their propaganda ministry, although gullibility probably has something to do with it). That is not to say that there are not changes happening in China, there are. However, their government can be (and is) still absolutely vicious toward any form of dissent or resistance. They still at this moment have one of the highest piles of human rights violations in the world, and that pile continues to grow.

That these Bad men had tremendous and damaging impact on Human history is undeniable but it is the forces that were called up to oppose them that have lasted. It is the reaction *against* their evil that shaped the twentieth century.

I think that what you are mainly referring to is World War II.

I hate to mention it but Stalin (who was, by body count, worse than Hitler) had more to do with defeating Hitler than anybody else who fought against Nazi Germany. (Sorry US and UK). It was the Soviets who turned around the war at Stalingrad. It was the Soviets who consistently faced something between 80%-90% of the German army most of the time. It was the Soviets under Stalin who "liberated" (ha-ha) the most territory from German occupation (including much of their own). And it was the Soviets, or more specifically Stalin, who reaped the lion's share of the spoils of the war. Although on the other hand they were so thoroughly ravaged by the Germans (and by Stalin, and by a few decades of unrelenting turmoil and suffering before the war) that in the end things still looked a little rough for them.

(And before anyone gets all huffy about my little WW II schpiel, I'm not trying to say that the US and UK were not important, they were. The war probably could not have been won by the Allies if any one of the three main powers had been missing.)

And then following that came the Cold War.

I suppose that could be looked at as starting off as a "reaction" against Stalin. But on the other hand it could be equally looked upon as Stalin trying to gain as much capital off of "his" victory as he possibly could.

Then came Khrushchev, who was sort of a de-Stalinizer (to a point), who also almost started a nuclear war.

Then came Brezhnev, who was sort of a re-Stalinizer, and on and on we go. (But notice how everything was still bouncing off of Stalin.)

But suffice it to say that these men still resonate to this day, like it or not. The world is the way that it is today because of the things that those men did.

*He now looks frantically around to find some way to tie this back to Tolkien...*

[Bêthberry]

If I may, Kuruharan, the letter you allude to in which Tolkien says that the woman, in the courtly love tradition, is "another fallen human-being with a soul in peril" is Letter # 43, written to his son Michael, 6-8 March 1941. Tolkien also says that, even when "harmonized with religion" the courtly love tradition causes men and women to forget that they are "companions in shipwreck." p. 49 in my paperback HarperCollins edition, l995.

[Bill Ferny]

I haven’t time to reply in full. However, I do require some clarification.

Well, as you say, that was before the Fall. My statement was regarding circumstances afterwards.

Kuruharan, are you suggesting that a human act can undue an act of God? I’m not bringing into question the state of a fallen world, but the essence of creation, the very nature of existence. To whatever degree something exists, to the same degree it is good. Good is a transcendental; it is interchangeable with being. This is simple Aristotelian metaphysics. It is also simple Thomistic metaphysics, thus the Catholic/Tolkien connection.

Tolkien’s spurious view of chivalry (I say spurious because chivalry does not necessarily equal courtly romance as he seems to take for granted in the above example), is beside the point. That Tolkien believed in original sin is obvious throughout his writings, no less, I’m sure in his letters. I’ve read enough examples on this forum to be convinced. None-the-less, the Catholic notion of the “shipwreck” of the human condition does not negate the essential goodness of the human person. Once again, no human act can undue an act of God. If there is nothing worth saving about sinful humanity, why save it?

However, arguing Tolkien’s theology is shaky ground, as he was neither a theologian or philosopher. I admit the only grounds for making the above claims is that Tolkien was an educated and devout Catholic. I don’t think a Catholic Oxford professor would be unfamiliar with Saint Thomas Aquinas, nor do I think a devout Catholic would be of a mind to diverge radically from a system of thought that has been the basis for Catholic doctrine since the Council of Trent.

While Frodo’s pity was an important ingredient, it only opened the door for an event that was nothing less than divine intervention.

If I gave the impression that Christian optimism is the same as Pelagianism, I apologize. Even though all of creation is essentially good, in as much as it exists to some degree, the sin of man, according to Catholic theology, is beyond the power of man to heal. Thus, divine intervention, or as Tolkien would call it, a eucatastrophic moment, is not a surprising addition to his mythology.

At any rate, you bring up other points of interest, but unfortunately I haven’t the time to address them with the sufficiency they deserve.

[Kuruharan]

Bethberry:

You certainly may. Thank you very much.

I should be Lettered in the next day or so.

And shipwreck is also rather suggestive.

Bill:

You got me on my timing there. ;)

I must also be brief but I did want to make one observation.

are you suggesting that a human act can undue an act of God?

No, not exactly. However, I do believe that when Free Will enters the picture human beings have the capacity to pervert the good and turn it into something that is bad.

None-the-less, the Catholic notion of the "shipwreck" of the human condition does not negate the essential goodness of the human person.

I'm not sure that I follow you there.

Could you explain in greater depth to make sure I'm understanding properly. The way that reads to me sounds like there is something wrong in the essentials of human beings.

If there is nothing worth saving about sinful humanity, why save it?

I would say love of the Creator for the misguided Created.

Looking forward to continued discussion.