History learned in school Vs history learned in museums

[SuperSabin]

What do you think is the best way to learn about history? what you read out of school books or what you're exposed to in the museums and battlefields all over the place and why do you think so? I believe you can learn about history in general much better in person from going to different museums.

Why I think that way is because, in different museums, they hold information to different points in history you wouldn't get from reading the school books and from what your teachers/professors tell you. It gives the learner a more up-front experience about what happened during that point in time, you get to view whatever artifacts were found leftover from those periods and they're explained in detail how they were used and what they were used for. There are also videos you can watch and trails to explore which gives you even more information on the related historical subjects.

[kupo]

traveling to museums and historic locations to learn history is the way to go. usually the information there isn't too biased and is more interesting; i.e. a lot of time, at historic locations, there are stories told from ordinary people about what was going on about said event/location.
going to throw in a personal example here - when i was in elementary i went to a montessori school (if you dont know what that is...google it) and we were always encouraged to do "going outs" to places to learn about them rather than just reading them from a textbook. going out to different historic places gave it a more personal, hands on (at times) learning experience which is more valuable than reading the same chapter in a history book as every other student in the U.S.

now that being said, i also live in texas where the board of education approved a curriculum not too long ago to allow texas history textbooks to press the republican philosophy in a more positive manner. if you want to learn real history, get off your butt and go where the history is!

[Alpha]

It entirely depends on what type of historical information one is going for. If you want the raw, primary historical information, then head to the actual places, and speak with the actual people. If you're more interested in how this supposed 'reality' has been viewed and explained, then you're interested in historiography, and need to read the literature, listen to someone 'knowledgeable', etc. I believe museums bridge the two, but, unfortunately, they are often just a little gimmicky.

[Sinister]

It all hinges on the particular bent of your brain. I have to say that I learned history best when I had a history teacher that wasn't a douche. A history teacher that goes about it the right way can make all the difference in the world, or so I've seen. The majority of people that I've met who've come to loathe history have been people who were under the tutelage of a sadistic fiend who sucked all the fun out of history.

My teacher taught history like someone would teach story time. He taught it in a series of excited and epic stories that would detail some battles/wars or pivoting points in time. I've always had a fondness for history because of this and because of this, the largest part of my knowledge of history is self-acquired, through reading books, going to museums, watching specials and seeking out knowledge.

So really, a little of both, I suppose.

-Sin

[Aerif]

I think there are a few benefits from visiting historical sites in order to learn their history, however I feel that the information provided by a teacher is going to be more informative than the information provided by a museum or historical site.

This is mainly because places like museum actually provide very little written information about their exhibits, usually only what they can manage to fit onto an information sign or plaque. Whereas a teacher will have access to textbooks and their own knowledge, which will probably give more information than any physical evidence.

Though that's not to say these places are useless, they often provide information that teachers may not have covered or invoke an emotional response that a teacher in a classroom would never be able to achieve.

This can vary though, I've visited Banockburn, Stirling Bridge and Edinburgh castle for their roles in the Scottish wars of independence (William Wallace) and have recieved no emotional response from my ancestors beating off the English invaders. But at the London War Museum (at least I think that's what it's called), there was an exhibit on concentration camps that had a collection of shoes that were taken from Jewish prisoners by the Nazis. That certainely invoked emotion.

So, teachers>museum, but I'd imagine places of HUGE significance (like Auschwitz)>teachers.

[winterborn86]

I only ever learnt history from school books, but I would have loved to vist historical places or museums. I've picked up a few things from t.v and films too.

[Jin]

What do you think is the best way to learn about history? what you read out of school books or what you're exposed to in the museums and battlefields all over the place and why do you think so?

What do you mean by school books? Do you mean analytical monographs that one would encounter in a high level undergraduate or graduate level university course or textbooks that present history as a series of facts? If you're referring to the latter, then my answer is neither. Both the aforementioned and museums/other forms of public history are awful ways to "learn" history.

I don't want to complicate this by asking the inevitable yet unanswerable "what is history" question, but it's hard to avoid. There is no good or bad history in a black and white sense, but rather, there are histories that are reflective and those that are not. Reflective histories are self referential; they see themselves as interpretations and as such are mindful of their limitations, their biases and their relation to the rest of the relevant historiography. This kind of history is more a dialogue between academics than a means by which to "teach" history. Many readers of popular history (museums, documentaries, certain authors, etc) would often look at this history not as history at all, but rather as philosophy. In a sense, it is: it's a reflective look at the philosophy behind the history of a given topic and history in general. These works are the best way to "learn" history as they make clear what history is: history (as an academic discipline) is not what happened in the past, but rather, a collection of interpretations of what happened in the past.

Text book and popular history, on the other hand, present history as fact. This is probably the worst way to "learn" history as one becomes bound by whichever author/idea happened to be the most vocal. This history does not reflect upon itself and therefore does not engage with, nor is cognizant, of its affiliations, its biases and, worst of all, its position as an interpretation. And yes, I am absolutely a postmodernist and have my own biases when it comes to this. It is certainly acceptable (though I disagree) to believe that one can "know" history as 100% fact, but if one's history does not even reflect on the idea, it is a shallow venture at best.

Museums and displays are the absolute worst places to get a balanced view of history. They are meant either to make money, prop up an idea (nationalism, a minority, a government, etc) or both. Regarding going to the source to take in history first hand, it is indeed important, but museums and national areas do not provide first hand information. They provide information as they desire to present it.

I always do this, but it's late, so I feel the need: please forgive any nonsensical passages in this post. It's late and I'm tired. This may not even make sense. Fingers crossed.