Is history just a load of old words?

[learnandsay]

Does it matter if they learn about an exploding William the Conqueror's corpse, or Charles II the Party Prince or Edward II getting unregal things shoved in unregal places? ala Horrible Histories

Isn't the point that they get told the story. It doesn't really matter how long the story is, how fast paced or undetailed it is or what's in it particularly. The point is that they hear it and enjoy hearing it. (It's all a bunch of lies and half truths anyway.)

History is a set of lies agreed upon. Napoleon Bonaparte
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. Karl Marx

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it. Winston Churchill

But isn't a large part of this knowledge optional? I think most people would like to know at least something about our traditional holidays and national symbols, (even if it's only what they're called.) But the anoraky elements of history lose followers at a fairly rapid pace. I once lived near Barnet. Everybody wanted to be in the play about the battle. But how many of those people could you round up to walk the supposed route of the battle itself? Three.

What is your point, L&S? Do you mean you don't care how history is taught or which history is taught as long as it's engaging?

I think it depends on how old the children are. Before you're eleven time probably isn't all that important to you unless it's the time when the sweet shop closes. Up until then history probably has to be engaging. But from an impractical point of view it would be useful if children before then could be taught about cavemen, Beaker People, Saxons, Romans and so on. Not necessarily what they ate and how they washed, but who they were. It'll help later on when we have to discuss AM and PM.