Home About LEARN Services and publications Contact us Help Site map Français
Learn Logo
Does History Have a Future? A Webography

Introduction

by
Professor Jon G. Bradley
Faculty of Education/McGill University


The place and purpose of history, as a separate and distinct discipline incorporated within the school curriculum, has always been problematic. Traditionally open to criticisms of bias and selectivity, the teaching of history has also, unfortunately, been burdened with its own pedagogical history which has too often been characterized by its recipients as boring and irrelevant. Philosophically, these are, of course, two very different issues. One must not confuse the place of history in the curricular lexicon with the methods or techniques that may have been used or not used to teach the discipline.

Writing a separate report ('History in Canadian Secondary Schools') for The Committee of Seven of the American Historical Association just after the turn of the last century (1906), University of Toronto history professor George M. Wrong noted that:

"In Canada it has hardly yet been realized that the truths of history are subtle, and may easily be missed, and that, to teach it, there must be added to a thoughtful study of the facts a vigorous and disciplined imagination, and the power of arranging complex material effectively. Because the teaching was usually bad, pupils came to regard history as a dreary and painful study (page 235, my emphasis)."

While there have been many attempts to offer cogent explanations to justify the place of that unique subject called history within the elementary and secondary school curriculums and to illustrate the importance of this intimate endeavour to a democratic society, American historian Henry Steele Commager (1965) offered a most persuasive argument when he noted:

"For a people to be without history, or to be ignorant of its history, is as for a man to be without memory - condemned forever to make the same discoveries that have been made in the past, invent the same techniques, wrestle with the same problems, commit the same errors; and condemned, too, to forfeit the rich pleasures of recollection. Indeed, just as it is difficult to imagine history without civilization, so it is difficult to imagine civilization without history (page 2, my emphasis)."

Christopher Culpin and Desmond Morton bring imagination, story, experience, and reflection to this on-going and timely debate. Each tackles the core question of "Does history have a future?" with energy, insight, and passion. Drawing upon two vast, yet different, literature bases, teaching histories, school situations and historical traditions, these erudite advocates present interlocking and complementary views of the future of that ubiquitous of all school disciplines: history.

Neither is presumptuous enough to offer 'the' solution, and each argues that such simple and politically correct remedies fly in the face of contemporary reality. Additionally, they argue that such simplicity does an injustice to the richness, depth, and intimacy that surrounds the teaching and learning of history. Calling upon teachers in general and those with a passion for history in particular, each of these proponents offers an enlightened, measured, and engaging view of a particular piece of the historical landscape.



References:

Commager, Henry Steele. (1965). The Nature and the Study of History. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.


Wrong, George M. (1906). History in Canadian Secondary Schools. In The Committee of Seven. The Study of History in Schools: Report to the American Historical Association. New York: Macmillan, pages 231 - 238.