Historical Value

[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! [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

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. [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

[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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
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. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), 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 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] 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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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, [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] 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. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[ 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! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ), 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.