|
Web Exclusives: More letters from alumni
about Knowing history, yes; but whose? I found Alex Rawson '01's On the Campus column (May 16) "Condemned to Repeat It" to be a narrow-minded diatribe aimed at the wrong problem. I am sure that Mr. Rawson is correct in stating that many college students -- even Princeton students -- don't know as much history as they should. But he misses the point entirely when he states "global understanding should build on rather than replace national identity." To whose national identity is Mr. Rawson referring? His own as an American? What about the identities of over 400 of his fellow Princetonians who aren't from this country? While Mr. Rawson laments the fact that "most embarrassingly, five students ... could not identify John Adams as the second president of the U.S." I would be surprised if he could name the second president / sovereign / prefect / prime minister of more than a handful of countries other than his own. Should this ignorance disqualify Mr. Rawson from admission to Oxford, McGill, or the University of Kinshasa? I would hope not. Yes, history is important, and yes, most Princetonians probably do not know enough of it. But knowing the minutiae of which chief justice presided over Marbury vs. Madison, which U.S. president was second and which was third, and which army general was present at Yorktown, is not the history that Princetonians need to know. The history we need to understand is about the British and French Mandates in the Middle East that formed the basis for the half-century of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. We need to analyze the U.S.'s shift from an agrarian to an industrial to a service economy, and the effects of that shift on urban and rural poverty. We need to learn about the tragedies of the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge, and the Stalinist mass murders so that we are not, in fact, condemned to repeat them. But memorize which Supreme Court justices presided over which cases? I don't think so. I hope Mr. Rawson will open his eyes and look at his fellow students from all over the world. Then perhaps he will realize the need for an understanding of history that goes beyond what you must know to win at Trivial Pursuit. Ben Edelman '93 Respond
to this letter Although the methodology of Alex Rawson's survey (On the Campus, May 16) was a little suspect, I think the main point stands: Ignorance of history is still at a pretty high level among those who are (or will be) among the most highly educated. Every few years, someone does a survey like this and there is a big hue and cry. (In Canada, my home country, a similar story was published during my last year of high school.) Of course, all of this might be an improvement over the past: I should like to see the results of a similar poll taken in the 1950s, if it existed, before I would forecast the downfall of American democracy. Although it's awfully important to have a global perspective, the fact remains that Princeton is a university in the United States, hopefully educating some of the USA's future leaders. If those persons don't have a certain base level of knowledge about its history, the country's institutions do suffer. In attempting to provide breadth, sometimes we sacrifice depth. I think that a certain deeper understanding of history should be the province of an informed and active citizen. Also, although we celebrate the international character of our student body, we must face the fact that over 90 percent of undergraduates are American citizens. Furthermore, given that the rest of the students have chosen to study at an American institution, they might benefit from a grounding in American history. I might also add that Rawson suggested that this additional education happen at Princeton, not before. An additional requirement, though perhaps tiresome to a few students, would not actually prevent anyone from studying here. I don't think it's merely
a game of Trivial Pursuit (invented by a pair of Canadians, incidentally)
to ask students about the history of the development of the Constitution
or other major events. (Given the recent prominence of the Supreme
Court's decisions, it might be useful to know why it is able
to strike down laws...) In an era of declining political participation,
such knowledge might actually be of assistance in allowing citizens
to create or continue a civil discourse. Is it so terrible to be
knowledgeable about the history of one's own country? Benjamin Sharma '03 Respond
to this letter Go back to our online Letter Box Table of Contents |
