Do you think postmodernism has corrupted the study of history, namely Western...

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrstnwrtr
  • Start date Start date
C

chrstnwrtr

Guest
...Civilization? After listening to a podcast featuring the famous classics professor Victor Davis Hanson, I felt compelled to ask this question.

His argument is that postmodernistic education has watered down the traditional education of history.

According to Mr. Hanson (with my paraphrasing), back in the 1970s, history education became politically correct with the whole "white guilt" thing and came up with several other different subjects such as women's studies, African-American studies, Asian studies, etc. and the focus moved away from what was traditionally the history of Western Civilization.

Not to say that women's history, African-American history, or Asian history is insignificant. It's just that the teaching of the history of Western Civilization has been "politically corrected," so to speak.

Hanson's argument further states that while we have the stereotypical "white, Christian male" guilt (for oppression, colonization, etc), we should also look to the "white male" as the basis of Western Civilization and its history.

I apologize in advance if I miss any of Mr. Hanson's points and theories.

So what do you think?

Here's his website if you need more info. http://www.victorhanson.com/
Hanson's viewpoint also states that students would be better off learning critical thinking skills by reading the classics (i.e. Plato, Socrates, etc) and that schools should start teaching such ideas.
 
I would rather say that the traditional white male approach is the watered down version.

The traditional "White European Male" version of history is just that, the history of the white European male. It pays no attention to women, to other cultures or to other races except in the context of the WEM. Everyone else is conveniently forgotten or reduced, even when they have submitted important contributions to humanity and civilization, and their evolution. Those contributions have either been ignored in history books or basically stolen and attributed to white men.

How is trying to learn more about *everyone* as opposed to only learning about one type of people watering things down? It's the exact opposite. It's making our knowledge and understanding of the world richer and more flavourful and it gives us a deeper understanding of the human condition. And that's what I've always thought was the point of history in the first place.

History is not about one group of people, it's about everyone. *Everyone*, every group or country or race has a history. Why should we focus on just one group at the expense of others?
 
Back
Top