However, the world of ancient times was in a position in which his potential – or mutant gene, if you like was not likely to be being able to express itself. Knowing is the power. The fervor that he displayed, which was so exciting initially it was wiped out without a ripple. It helps us to dispel falsifications, such as those propagated by leaders.

Yes, I realize that external disturbances are not the same as instability in an unorganized system However, I believe the analogy is still relevant. Learning about history will not only teach learners about past events. it requires students to consider their thoughts, to analyze large quantities of information , and to interpret conflicting views. *You will realize that I’m not denying the significance of men who are great. History requires a thorough study of papers. However, I believe their impact has diminished over time, not due to the fact that human civilization is at a stability, but due to diverse reasons. In my classes in history students look at primary source documents and secondary works written by historians and examine their bias. Thank you for sharing your thoughts here.

Through the analysis of rhetorical strategies, we determine not just which elements are included but also which important aspects are not in the text. Concerning Spartacus Regarding Spartacus: I haven’t read anything about him specifically however I’ve read about him in general context numerous times, and I don’t agree with your opinion. This helps students be aware of silences in the history and the rationale behind these silences. I believe that the "mutant gene" (as you described it) manifested itself beautifully. We can witness the effectiveness of this approach through the most important lecture that was given to Sorbonne students in 1882.

He just didn’t have enough (experienced/trained) troops. In the lecture, French historian Ernest Renan described the essential components in the French nation as having a common desire to live as a unit against the German notion of shared "blood" and the German language. And neither did he have the right time. Although the speech, delivered after the end during the Franco-Prussian War, condemned Germany for its repressive annexation of the German-dialect and German-speaking provinces Alsace and Lorraine but nowhere in the speech do word German nor Germany appear. Roman civilization-economy, manpower, and morale-was still quite sturdy at that particular time. This omission was in part an attempt at reducing and diminishing the legitimacy of German power. If Spartacus had done the same thing a few decades later, in the turbulent times prior to Augustus" his death, who knows what might have transpired.

Renan’s speech Renan declared that the common language should not be considered a part of national identity, in order to be more critical of the Germans. That, in essence is what I am trying to say. Yet, he tried to be both sides without mentioning that, at the time, France was itself imposing the French school curriculum in order to eradicate local dialects and encourage the unity of the nation. Spartacus was a player in some of the time and locations where equilibrium was high as well as a significant disruption was quickly absorbed into the status of the game. The analysis of this kind allows students to comprehend the biases that underlie Renan’s ideas, and to evaluate the credibility of his assertions and place his writing in the period of his day. I believe that the majority of societies, for the majority of time, in all aspect, remain quite stable.

Students studying history also look at how historians’ biases affect them themselves to understand the ways historians construct narratives of the past. There are instances where just a small nudge at the right moment can result in huge and unpredictably repercussions in the distant future, even if at the time , nothing appears to change. This fact that the narratives they create can be contradictory doesn’t suggest that all truth is necessarily true or that the universal truth doesn’t exist. This is a fantastic source for "what would have happened" historical speculation, such as what could have happened in the present in the event that George Washington had had a son. Certain facts are certain–we have evidence from eyewitnesses and documents to support them.

It’s also a typical behavior of dynamic systems that are complex. We have evidence that at about six million Jews suffered death during the Holocaust (recent research indicates that it was more). The book /Chaos/ written Written by James Gleick is a good layman’s guide to non-linear system behavior. In cases where contradicting stories are presented, historians need to evaluate evidence from different sources, including documents in archives and elsewhere, as as the accounts of the time to back up their claims. I’m sure you’ve made my ride little more exciting ? I often read the comments online to find your responses but I don’t think I’ve responded before.

Actually, historians looking at the same events can reach different conclusions. However, they do so based upon their understanding of the evidence on present, following a rigorous examination. Learning History is a waste of time. These skills acquired in a course in history can be easily applied to our current world. The study of history is a waste of time since it keeps us from being focused on the issues of the present. There is no guarantee that we’ll arrive at the same conclusions but we could at the very least consider the evidence on the basis of an agreed-upon understanding of how to come to the truth. We live in the moment.

A lack of understanding of the past, different cultures, as well as the lack of critical thinking skills allow others to influence us. They think about and plan over the coming years. It is not unpractical the study of history and other cultures and languages equips students with the necessary tools to become informed, active and involved globally-minded citizens.