Particularly in this era of post-factual politics, it's important to have a Niall Ferguson acting as a rumble strip to remind us that we're in danger of plunging into the ditch.
9:50 Niall's top 20 1. Any period of British History 2. The Reformation 3. The Scientific Revolution 4. The Enlightement 5. The American Revolution 6. The French Revolution 7. The US Constitution 8. The Industrial Revolution 9. The American Civil War 10. German Unification 11. WW I 12. The Russian Revolution 13. The Great Depression 14. The Rise of Fascism 15. The Third Reich 16. WW II 17. Decolonisation 18. The Cold War 19. Israel 20. European Integration
This talk should have millions of views, I´m wondering about the filters that google uses to avoid an "uncomfortable truth" . From Chile we are aware of this, we also care about the freedom of speech , the defense of ideas and history.
I don't always agree with Niall Ferguson's interpretations, but he is a real, and extremely good, historian. If we fail to understand history we will repeat its mistakes.This should worry people who care about history and Western civilisation.
The trouble with History as an Undergraduate subject is that it doesn't make much sense unless it takes in the broad sweep of history across the ages and continents, enlightened by an acquaintanceship with, economics, politics and philosophy.
And you have just enumerated the best reasons for college education. No one reading on their own will tie in all of these subjects into their studies/readings, and thereby will miss many key influencing elements.
West Winds I completely disagree. the liberal arts curriculum today is so watered down thanks to leftists in academia, students get a narrow and politically correct point of view from their courses without real critical examination. this is why I love Niall Ferguson, his books represent historical scholarship at it's best, without the PC BS.
I completely agree with Nial Ferguson. Having finished a History degree with honours last year, I must say that the discipline is in turmoil, especially at the level of postgraduate study. Many of the courses on offer are extremely esoteric and seemingly unimportant. Moreover, how the students are taught to think history is small and obscure rather than being large picture or of change over time - pick what interests you, as they tell us. And students do. Just not through an historical lense, mindyou. Students pick thesis topics that could barely be categorised as academic, let alone historical. Instead, topics inclduded: a legal incidence of gay abuse, the biography of a german newspaper editor, the history of tourism of a national park, representations of minority women in film during the 1980s, the history of the wives of pacifist men during ww2. The history of porn, video games, drugs, and female representation during the cold war were further topics of study during my final year of history. No wonder enrollments in that year were at an all time low. When writing my own paper on the reformation I was laughed at - 'who cares about that topic, it's boring' as I'm told. If only we had Nial Ferguson to sort out our department. Following this cultural turn in history, especially the focus on minorities and women, the gender imbalance has in class enrollments has been ever widening. Of the 17 students in the clas, 7 were men, and of those who actually completed their degree, only 4 men managed to finish the programme whilst all of the women succeeded in doing so. In short, not only is cultural, racial and gender history turning people - particualry men - away from history in droves, it is also destroying the credibility of the study of history as a whole.
This is precisely my experience as well. I'll be finishing my B.A. on "half-speed" next year (thank God I live in a country that allows me that kind of flexibility), but I have been studying another, much more labour market friendly degree in parallell. There is not really words to describe the politicization and self imposed irrelevance of many modern history departments. Also, the trend seems to be toward feminization as you so rightly point out.
I thought historians didn't like "Hamilton" because (leaving out the racial switches, costumes and music) it had significant historical inaccuracies? If that's true, it made people think about American history - but didn't educate them.
It's so ironic that the West would disenfranchise indigenous people, women, and blacks... and hold them under attack for centuries, and now, through the pathological voice of Hip-Hop, "the disenfranchised" rule the day. Western society has itself to blame for centuries of failure to take an honest look at itself. It's caused severe blowback that necessitates a forced self-evaluation, NOW. The youth of today are so sickened and embarrassed by the callous cruelty and barbarism of Western history, they refuse to learn about it. The guilt is so heavy for some white kids, they say it's "triggering" for them, and they just aren't interested in the history of Western Civilization.
If you read any books by Niall Ferguson you can't but notice how politicized his own books are. What he doesn't mention is that most of the classes on ethnography, women's, labor studies, etc. are electives students take after or alongside the more traditional history courses. History is not diminished by the addition of new voices and topics, it is expanded.
Why pay for history when it's free on line? Why pay $40,000 a year to learn about history when it's free on line? Niall Ferguson's history is free, on line. College history is over priced.
Excellent point! Why should our citizens need to pay $25,000 to $50,000 per year when the Internet blows that concept up. The Ivy League colleges are the doorway to The Elitist power structure. They need to control the knowledge and information.
literally just made up a standard by which to judge history departments and then applies it and acts surprised to find that it is not met pure sophistry
There is a deep theoretical rationale for historiography's focus on the common, everyday person rather than the diplomat or aristocrat, it is called democracy.
ok and there aren't any documents that are coherent that focus on farmers or bus drivers, are there? How can I write a book about taxi cab drivers when they *don't leave behind coherent documents*
Ryan Ewald You're right about those kinds of events, but your point raises a question: What is the fundamental task(s) of studying History? If you're answer to that question is "to examine certain events and decisions and their consequences, so that they might inform our future decision making" then yes of course you're going to focus on those particular decisions eg Gorbachev abandoning the Brezhnev doctrine and talk about how that ended The Cold War. But perhaps there is another important question of History: What was life in the past actually like to live in? Then the 'common man' history is indispensable, precisely because you can't always judge what life was like for a citizen of the USSR based off examining a few policies of the party members (even if they did have a lot of control over personal lives in that time). There's too much to customs and religious gathering, and employment and education and artwork and general attitudes held by people. Most of our lives are not spent in these isolated historical moments. Most of the time people are working and raising families and other boring stuff. I'm not saying that studying the history of elites is useless. It clearly isn't. My point is that a good historian needs to remember both those aspects of history and (maybe) see how they can interact with each other during said special events.
Democracy means every one has a voice but dumbing down history so that the masses all have an uneducated opinion is rediculous. Everyone has the choice to be educated on topics that matter, if they chose not to be it’s their decision to be uneducated on topics that matter
The problem with high school and university history courses, and it's something recent historians like Jurgen Osterhammel and others have figured out, is that it's far too Eurocentric. The Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, the American and French Revolutions are not interesting to people. If history isn't global, that's to say, if the Jesuit State in Paraguay of the 18th and 19th century, or the Haitian Revolution isn't covered to the extent that the restoration in France or German Reunification or the the revolutions of 1848, then It's not going to interest me. History needs to be global and all encompassing - incorporating both politics and philosophy, as well as economics in order for it be worth it.
Global history is important, and should absolutely be studied. But as a western liberal country founded on liberal principles, it is fundamental that universities teach the "Eurocentric" topics you list. The West should be proud of its intellectual heritage and should continue to build on it. Importantly, the values of equality, liberty, and individual determinism that emerge from these Enlightenment ideas apply to everyone who wants to adhere to them, regardless of background. So the central virtue and idea of the west needs careful curation and celebration, because it is those values that will enable a diverse country to work together.
Oh no! Not my Jesuit state! I must collect this esoteric knowledge! Obviously Paraguay is just as important as germany. I mean it's not as though as if one nation is more influential or more relevant to study in terms of global history. The war of the triple alliance is just as important as the world wars. No in order to understand you must discriminate between those topics more relevant to overall understanding and those less so. You claim to want the opposite. You demand to flip the table and go antique shopping and demand that the entire discipline go with you. You sir, are an intellectual hipster
Completely disagree. If anything it’s not euro centric enough. Prior to 1914 97 percent of the planet was directly or indirectly under some form of European colonial control. If you dont understand the events and driving forces which created that than understanding the world today is impossible. Learning Indonesian medieval history is not equal to Medieval English history, why? Because the British were the dominant world player in creating states and legal customs for 25 percent of the globe. If anything we are in danger of become so pc in our need to teach about the whole world cultures that we are not diving deep enough into the history and cultures of the states which more or less built the current world order. To your examples, the Haitian revolution was a significant regional event in world history, but comparing that to the 1848 events in Europe and Germany or even more so the reformation and renaissance in terms of its effects on world history is comical, let alone the Paraguay example. Teaching history isn’t about interest it’s about teaching why things are the way they are in the world order
