gunnyg
11-08-02, 09:27 AM
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 23:08:48 -0800 (PST) From: Karlye Shilts <spaintoparis@yahoo.com>
In response to Mr. Grimsley's post of 11.4.02, I would like to suggest a panel that would indeed serve military historians as well as anyone teaching history at the college level.
Not only have military history courses fallen out of favor in university catalogs, the discussion of military history in any form has become almost taboo. Many courses on Western Civ or Modern Europe have dropped most mention of warfare.
I myself remember taking a course at my undergratuate school, the Modern World from 1815. We discussed in detail the causes and aftermath of the World Wars, but never spoke a word about the wars themselves.
Though I realize this is an extreme case, I do not believe it is anomalous. I find myself speaking to undergraduates and graduate students from various schools about the interwar years and the rise of fascism finding that they know almost nothing about the Great War other than the death of Ferdinand and the Treaty of Versailles. This excludes, of course, students of military history.
I find this most disturbing, for of the four schools I have been at in the last seven years, only the British university had students that understood anything about warfare. American students seem to realize that war has an impact on society and politics, and therefore must be studied in order to understand these aspects of history a bit better, but their lack of knowledge about warfare in general is appalling. I do not suggest that we must demand that students become well versed in military history before they receive a B.A., but I do think that there is an unfortunate void in their education that must at least be partially filled.
How can one explain to a student about France during the interwar years without describing the Great War? To simply tell them that France suffered millions of casualties and had most of the north destroyed is not enough, though that is what most of them are getting. It is insufficient. I do not know of any studies that compare how military history is taught in the U.S. and abroad, but from my own experience, we are shortchanging our students.
Perhaps a panel that examines how military history is taught, should be taught, and the benefits and drawbacks of each. Of course, we should not attack the organizations that would welcome our panel or any scholars or group of scholars, but we should remain firm in what we believe to be true. I would be interested to hear any comments on this post, either in this forum or privately. R.L. Shilts University of Northern Colorado ************************************************** **** ************************************************** ****
In response to Mr. Grimsley's post of 11.4.02, I would like to suggest a panel that would indeed serve military historians as well as anyone teaching history at the college level.
Not only have military history courses fallen out of favor in university catalogs, the discussion of military history in any form has become almost taboo. Many courses on Western Civ or Modern Europe have dropped most mention of warfare.
I myself remember taking a course at my undergratuate school, the Modern World from 1815. We discussed in detail the causes and aftermath of the World Wars, but never spoke a word about the wars themselves.
Though I realize this is an extreme case, I do not believe it is anomalous. I find myself speaking to undergraduates and graduate students from various schools about the interwar years and the rise of fascism finding that they know almost nothing about the Great War other than the death of Ferdinand and the Treaty of Versailles. This excludes, of course, students of military history.
I find this most disturbing, for of the four schools I have been at in the last seven years, only the British university had students that understood anything about warfare. American students seem to realize that war has an impact on society and politics, and therefore must be studied in order to understand these aspects of history a bit better, but their lack of knowledge about warfare in general is appalling. I do not suggest that we must demand that students become well versed in military history before they receive a B.A., but I do think that there is an unfortunate void in their education that must at least be partially filled.
How can one explain to a student about France during the interwar years without describing the Great War? To simply tell them that France suffered millions of casualties and had most of the north destroyed is not enough, though that is what most of them are getting. It is insufficient. I do not know of any studies that compare how military history is taught in the U.S. and abroad, but from my own experience, we are shortchanging our students.
Perhaps a panel that examines how military history is taught, should be taught, and the benefits and drawbacks of each. Of course, we should not attack the organizations that would welcome our panel or any scholars or group of scholars, but we should remain firm in what we believe to be true. I would be interested to hear any comments on this post, either in this forum or privately. R.L. Shilts University of Northern Colorado ************************************************** **** ************************************************** ****