answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

There are a lot of dates to remember. It is also depressing to hear all of the bad things that went on.

User Avatar

Wiki User

βˆ™ 10y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
User Avatar

Ssebulime Isaiah

Lvl 1
βˆ™ 1y ago
Good
User Avatar

Engineer Shafik Plan...

Lvl 1
βˆ™ 3mo ago
Thanks bro
User Avatar

Manyal Kong

Lvl 1
βˆ™ 3mo ago
π‘»π’‰π’‚π’π’Œπ’”
User Avatar

LÊ CHÚC AN

Lvl 1
βˆ™ 3mo ago
Helpful enough
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

βˆ™ 13y ago

it is flawed and fragmentary because of a couple of things

-artifacts give clues about history but don't include all the information, assumptions are made

-biases take different sides of history and make it sound different depending on who its coming from

-translation is nearly impossible. it changes ancient texts over time which can change history

We have to remember that, "History is written by the victors"

This answer is:
User Avatar
User Avatar

Vashon Keovilai

Lvl 1
βˆ™ 2mo ago
It depends on the sources, so yeah that can be on some things but not all.

User Avatar

Vashon Keovilai

Lvl 3
βˆ™ 2mo ago

There are actually no disadvantages to learning history, if your source is a trustworthy source. History can help us understand our lives better and help not make the mistakes other people made in the past. Although all the other people say that it takes a lot of reading, it is because that much text tells you this was an important thing in life worth putting on record. It also can help you find the origins of things in our day-to-day life, such as paper, the wheel, democracy, religion, ect. but some sources can be misleading, so be careful and compare to other sources and see if your source is credible.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

βˆ™ 15y ago

The biggest problem facing historians is their own inherent subjectivity, combine that with the level of bias any given historian may have and "history" becomes less a dispassionate account of past events and more political posturing. History, it has been said is written by the conquerors. Of course, Jesus said the meek shall inherit the Earth and in this modern world it would appear that history has been obsessed with revisionist accounts where historical figures once heralded as heroic now vilified as oppressors and the victims, nameless, faceless in their mass they are the masses who were victimized by evil exploiters and plunderers.

It is not just a phenomena of historians but many pseudosciences that subjectivity and current bias play heavily in the formulation of their ideas. In the beginning of the psychiatric movement the steam engine had just been invented and developed and early descriptions of the mind parallel the mechanics of a steam engine where there is the conscious mind and the subconscious mind which requires some form of release from an individual mind or the whole mind will blow. The subconscious mind described as a steam engine that builds up pressure that at some point must be released. Today psychiatrist and psychologist like to compare the mind to a computer. Historians are the same and the historical figures reviled today may find more compassionate historians in a later time. History is viewed in the same way we view today and as such affects how we understand the lessons of history.

The most distressing problem facing historians is ethics. Historians have the ability to distort historical facts in a way that shapes public policy today. Even scarier are those historians who will offer themselves as historical experts to political issues of today. Arthur Schlessinger Jr. was one of the most respected historians of his day, yet during the impeachment hearings of William Jefferson Clinton he wrote an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times illustrating how the impeachment of Clinton was a partisan effort and the founders of our Constitution never intended for the impeachment process to be used in a partisan manner and cited the lack of effort to impeach Aaron Burr who as Vice President killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. This assertion by Sclessinger was either a knowing lie or this historian has been highly overrated.

Aaron Burr did not suffer the indignities of an impeachment process because at the time of his indictment in New York for dueling and killing Hamilton, Burr was presiding over an impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. Samuel Chase was an intemperate Justice and belittled lawyers often, particularly Jeffersonian lawyers. Thomas Jefferson, then President of the United States was on a mission to reign in the independence of the Court created by the controversial ruling of Marbury v. Madison. The ruling of this case created the ability of the court to strike down legislation not compatible with the Constitution. This seminal Court ruling incensed Jefferson and he engaged in Machiavellian like tactics to correct what he viewed to be a horrible turn of events. He managed to push forth the impeachment hearings of Justice Chase, who had signed the Constitution, served in the Continental Congress and was a true patriot. He was being impeached by partisan politics, just the same as Clinton.

This willful lie or coincidental ignorance was used to influence the attitudes of voters on the validity of impeaching Clinton. This historians books are used in public schools and yet he distorted historical facts to push forth his own political agenda. This is a very serious problem.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

βˆ™ 13y ago

- You have to read stuff. Lots of stuff.

- Sometimes the sources are in a language you don't know.

- If what you are looking for is on the internet, you have to be able to distinguish reliable information from poor information based on various criteria. Stuff written on "answers.com" and other wiki-like sites is notoriously unreliable for issues that are at all controversial. They are good for shopping advice or technical matters, but not good for complex issues that involve people, morality, politics, etc.

- Sometimes what you are looking for isn't on the internet, so you have to get off your behind and go to the library or the archive.

- Sometimes the sources are hidden in an archive and you have to find them first.

- You have to think abstractly and order the information. Otherwise it is all just random facts. Facts are easy, but boring. Interpretation is the interesting part, but difficult.

- History is like religion in that ignorance is only part of the problem you have to overcome. You also have to realize that a lot of what you think you know is simply not true. It was taught to you by the media, by teachers, politicians and parents who simply don't know, but have a comfortable version of reality that they instinctively or purposely pass on.

- History is a "human science" in that the person investigating it - you, the historian - is very much like the thing being investigated, the people in history. You are both people. That has advantages and disadvantages.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Cedricktopper

Lvl 3
βˆ™ 1d ago

Because if we did not learn history we will not learn the history of our own past .

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What are the disadvantages of learning history?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What are the disadvantages of math?

Zelch, None. There are no disadvantages to learning math.


What are the disadvantages of informal learning?

Disadvantages of informal learning include lack of structure, potential for misinformation or inaccuracies, and limited opportunities for validation or recognition of learning achievements.


What are the advantages and disadvantages of blackboard learning system?

advantages and disadvantages of blackboard


What are the advantages and disadvantages of rote learning?

I believe that rote learning has to take place in one form or another for any kind of learning to happen. So there cannot be any kind of disadvantages of rote learning


Advantages and disadvantages of Learning Organization?

frsa


Advantages and disadvantages of time machine?

Advantages: Allows for exploring different time periods, correcting past mistakes, and learning from historical events. Disadvantages: Potential for creating paradoxes, altering the course of history in unintended ways, and ethical dilemmas concerning changing the past.


Why a school trip has disadvantages?

A school trip has more advantages than disadvantages because it is usually a learning experience.


What are structure-oriented and functional-oriented learning?

product orientated disadvantages


How is bias a problem in learning about history?

it can be bias because when learning history some people have diffrent opinions and answers to questions can be different.


Disadvantages of cooperative learning?

Some disadvantages of cooperative learning is that it is a burden in making the students responsible for each others learning. It would determine one persons motivation on how they would learn, and high stakes create increased chances for conflict and therefore need for conflict resolution skills.


What is the hobby of Reading and Learning History called?

Reading and History hobbies.


What are the disadvantages of a Kohanga reo?

There are NO disadvantages at all - how can a child and their whanau be disadvantaged by learning how to speak, act and be Maori? They will learn to participate and contribute to their child/rens learning whilst learning how to govern and manage the kohanga reo. Whanau are held accountable for ALL their actions. Kohanga Reo was the FIRST organisation/movement that insisted on a smokefree environment for our mokopuna. So once again, there are NO disadvantages at all.