[throwanem]

"Begin"? The prior century is replete with horrific examples of societies, spanning - perhaps defining - the modern ideological spectrum, which behaved in precisely such fashion.

I agree that the study of history is the best method yet found for recognizing the errors which produced those enormities, in order to avoid repeating them. But I'm not sure how effective undergrad history courses, or even history specializations, are likely to be in equipping their students with the tools for such study. Granted I've never taken such a course myself and so cannot speak with authority on even one example of the type - but I have found it not at all unusual for people who do have such education to be surprised in even so elementary and recent a matter as the American origin of the eugenic idea. Quite aside from being in my opinion a necessary antidote to the idea that the United States are somehow blessed with a permanent immunity to such enormities as we here discuss, such ignorance, on the part of so many supposedly educated in history and - if you're to be taken at your word - historical analysis, does not inspire enormous confidence in the value of such education.

[josinalvo]

> I agree that the study of history is [a] method [...] for recognizing the errors which produced those enormities, in order to avoid repeating them.

Why? Do we have any evidence for that it helps at all?

Here's what I find weird: when one is talking about learning history, usually the "pro" side cites the importance of the subject, and the "no" side, the methodological "flaws". It seems that this discussion is a bit pathological: Everyone agrees that if a certain avenue of study can reduce the probability of genocide, it should be undertaken. The question is that maybe (probably) these avenues of study do nothing of the sort.

Of course, we can disagree about that. But how would we settle/improve our knowledge of the question?

[fjsolwmv]

Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it.

[dougmwne]

I'll offer a specific example of historical context. The University of Virginia offers an undergraduate level Coursera course on modern history.[1]

That course's treatment of the causes and importance of the industrial revolution suggests that access to cheap energy is the key difference between an agrarian and high technology civilization. That idea and that particular history professor's connections to Washington (he was executive director of the 9/11 commission) helps to explain a forever war in the Middle East and climate change denial.

[1]https://www.coursera.org/learn/modern-world

[throwanem]

That looks to be an excellent treatment of the subject. Are many undergrad courses, or even just Coursera courses, similar in quality, or is this one exceptional?

[ellius]

Anecdotally, as a history undergrad and grad student, almost all collegiate history courses are like that if they’re any good at all. You do occasionally get low-level surveys that seem more like laundry lists of names and dates, but overwhelmingly in my experience courses will focus on the question of why. You’re studying the interplay of people, ideas, economies, technology, et al to understand how and why a particular thing happened.