What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

History Vs. Pop Culture

Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

Just making light of the quote vs images.

It's an interesting debate. Ultimately I think pop culture defines us exponentially more as we increase technologically. With more and more sources of information, and more people searching for the entertainment versus the accuracy of events, I only see that continuing. Facts have become very blurred, because the news itself is often now fictionalized and exaggerated when compared to historical standards of reporting.
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

KC8NIY said:
Just making light of the quote vs images.

It's an interesting debate. Ultimately I think pop culture defines us exponentially more as we increase technologically. With more and more sources of information, and more people searching for the entertainment versus the accuracy of events, I only see that continuing. Facts have become very blurred, because the news itself is often now fictionalized and exaggerated when compared to historical standards of reporting.
Click to expand...

To expand, many countries' histories have been fuzzied for years (see the previous mention of the Cold War). But like you said, it's grown exponentially.

Also, look at "simple" things. Example: the streamlining designs of the mid-1900s, the drab colors of the 70's (burnt orange shag carpet, olive green stoves and fridges), etc.

Heck, even the car. You saw gas-guzzling muscle cars in the late 60's and early 70's, only to give way to the econo-cars during the gas crisis later in the 70's. We repeated that one in the last 10-15 years. Funny, isn't it?

These things provide depth to the political and economic climates of the times, and it becomes more a "nostalgia" sort of thing than a learning tool.

Can you imagine the Ford Excursion in 1978? Or hybrid cars (assuming that the technology actually existed) in 1967 or so?
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

The problem is that if you want to use pop culture as a "clearer" window into what was going on in a society at a given time - well, someone still has to be looking through the window, and that person is likely going to be a historian.

Who else would bother to do the research to see what could be learned about, say, the period of the Napoleonic Wars, by studying the popular literature, media and music at the time?

Studying pop culture in order to study a culture falls squarely within the realm of history - I would simply consider it a sub-branch of history.
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

Bob Gray said:
Agreed. Certainly pop history can at least create a shallow awareness of events in history, which can, and probably in certain cases does, create further interest in viewers who haven't paid attention to the subject before. That is a positive. But, I'd bet that's a small minority of cases, with most people who watched, say, Pearl Harbor, not going on to go to their public library or wherever and delve into the subject in a lot more detail.
Click to expand...
I gave an interesting assignment to my freshman students, to write a two-page paper on the history of World War II using no sources whatsoever besides one's own knowledge of the subject. The responses varied widely in quality - some could not even come up with two double-spaced pages - but my favorite began like this:

"I don't know much about World War II, but thanks to Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett in the movie Pearl Harbor I think I can remember the most important parts."

As the semester nears its end, I plan to give these papers back to the students, who by then should be able to make some serious revisions!
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

Brenthoven said:
2 in fifty years or so.

How many times in the past year has it happened with today's 24/7 news sites? ;)
Click to expand...

I picked these two because they are far apart and fairly glaring examples that, while the internet has given everyone a megaphone, even when there were only a few megaphones available things were wrong regularly.
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

West Texas Wolverine said:
I gave an interesting assignment to my freshman students, to write a two-page paper on the history of World War II using no sources whatsoever besides one's own knowledge of the subject. The responses varied widely in quality - some could not even come up with two double-spaced pages - but my favorite began like this:

"I don't know much about World War II, but thanks to Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett in the movie Pearl Harbor I think I can remember the most important parts."

As the semester nears its end, I plan to give these papers back to the students, who by then should be able to make some serious revisions!
Click to expand...

That's great! And thank you for being a history teacher.
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

The History Channel has really gone downhill. Yet another reason we're considering dumping satellite TV (along with the $15 increase in the last year with no programming changes).
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

The movies have distorted "history" for as long as they've been around and the most recent generations are not the only ones to be exposed to distorted versions of the truth, and I'd argue in many respects have far more of an opportunity to seek out the truth than those that existed before electronic media became available. Exactly how did 18th century Johnny on the prairie have a truer understanging of world history and current events than 21st century Suzy in the suburbs?
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

Slap Shot said:
The movies have distorted "history" for as long as they've been around and the most recent generations are not the only ones to be exposed to distorted versions of the truth, and I'd argue in many respects have far more of an opportunity to seek out the truth than those that existed before electronic media became available. Exactly how did 18th century Johnny on the prairie have a truer understanging of world history and current events than 21st century Suzy in the suburbs?
Click to expand...

Access to more information doesn't necessarily equate with use of said information. It's the whole falacy some people buy into that if we could just educate people about every problem and issue, that things would magically be better and people would make the right choices. Unfortunately the world isn't so simple and rational. While we, now, have more information available than ever, has that made for more rationale national discourse or decision-making. I'd have to say just the opposite.

While Johnny didn't have nearly the information available, he also didn't have the distractions and had a situation that valued education more. I'd say in a lot of ways he was more educated and knowledgeable than kids nowadays are.
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

Bob Gray said:
While Johnny didn't have nearly the information available, he also didn't have the distractions and had a situation that valued education more. I'd say in a lot of ways he was more educated and knowledgeable than kids nowadays are.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the threat of coyotes, pneumonia, and the poor house were distracting.

We are exactly as happy, righteous, busy, introspective, deliberative, ironic, responsible, and savvy as our forebears -- no more, no less. Nothing ever changes. All else is the vanity of the current (which also never changes).
 
Last edited:
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

Kepler said:
I'm sure the threat of coyotes, pneumonia, and the poor house were distracting.

We are exactly as happy, righteous, busy, introspective, deliberative, ironic, responsible, and savvy as our forebears -- no more, no less. Nothing ever changes. All else is the vanity of the current (which also never changes).
Click to expand...
People at their core are still just people. But outward circumstances change enormously, and outward circumstances are a big influence on what people are like, so I don't agree that we're all just the same through all history. An easy example. Our grandparents generation that lived through the Great Depression has been notoriously thrifty. Everybody has stories about that. I ask you whether you consider recent generations to be that thrifty? History is full of such examples. Early Romans were extremely warlike, but by the end of Rome, they couldn't be bothered to raise an army and just tried to buy off invaders.
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

Bob Gray said:
Our grandparents generation that lived through the Great Depression has been notoriously thrifty. Everybody has stories about that. I ask you whether you consider recent generations to be that thrifty?
Click to expand...

But thrift is just a secondary characteristic. The real quality -- the one that matters -- is a deeper matter of character, and that's what I believe never changes. It varies between individuals, but the percentages stay the same (1:8:1). The cooking conditions change, but the ingredient is always Man. That's why (well, one of the reasons why) "the Greatest Generation" is a crock. TGGers met extraordinary challenges -- their "greatness" insofar as it exists at all is attributable to the test, not the test taker. Drop the Li'l Wayne Generation into the Siege of Stalingrad and you'll have the same amazing stories of perseverance and sacrifice, or, if you don't, that's only because they're soft from years of playing video games instead of milking frozen cows.

If the TGGers had had video games, they'd have been just as lame as Gen X.

The emphasis needs to be on setting the right conditions. The people will take care of themselves, for good or ill. The Spartans didn't know much, but they knew that.

It's valid to compare person x and y who have the same conditions and turn out differently -- that's a character difference. But comparing generations or nations is not valid -- aggregate comparisons are meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

Thrift is a secondary characteristic? Well, given the way America spends, maybe it's a third level characteristic.

Character isn't a given. Character is developed, or not. And depending on societal circumstances and other factors, more character may be developed, or not.
 
Re: History Vs. Pop Culture

Slap Shot said:
The movies have distorted "history" for as long as they've been around and the most recent generations are not the only ones to be exposed to distorted versions of the truth, and I'd argue in many respects have far more of an opportunity to seek out the truth than those that existed before electronic media became available. Exactly how did 18th century Johnny on the prairie have a truer understanging of world history and current events than 21st century Suzy in the suburbs?
Click to expand...

There's also much more false information out there that people believe, and use to form opinions/behaviors, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top