There are a lot of answers to your question, and I do personally find "learning from the past" at least somewhat satisfactory. Still, I think my favorite answer to this question came from my undergraduate adviser, a very wise medievalist. Paraphrasing what she said:

If you think that learning from other people is a worthwhile endeavor, then you should realize that most people are dead now, and you must turn to history to consult them.

To me, history isn't necessarily about improving military decisions, or making better political choices. (Though it can inform those things.) It's about understanding who we are and where we came from, and learning from other people about who they were and what they cared about. Learning other ways of doing things can open up new avenues of thought that wouldn't have otherwise occurred to us. It can help us understand and respect other ways of doing things, and to value our own culture and beliefs. And to me, that's worthwhile.

There is a quote, written almost a thousand years ago by Byzantine Princess Anna Komnene, which gives one of the best reasons for why history is important. It reads as follows:

Time in its irresistible and ceaseless flow carries along on its flood all created things and drowns them in the depths of obscurity, no matter if they be quite unworthy of mention, or most noteworthy and important, and thus, as the tragedian says: "he brings from the darkness all things to birth, and thus all things born are enveloped in the night."

But the tale of history forms a mighty defense against the stream of time, and to some extent checks its irresistible flow, and, of all things done in it, as much as history has taken over, it secures and binds together these things, and does not allow them to slip away into the abyss of oblivion.

Consider this: Would you be content to live your life knowing that everything that you have accomplished will be forgotten upon your death? To know that what your entire society has accomplished in this day and age, will not be remembered or appreciated just mere decades from now? To live knowing that from the unknown number of years of human development that allowed for your existence - the history of your ancestors - will forever remain a great blank slate because nobody bothered to write stuff down?

In this world, you don't know where your family came from. You don't know why your town or city has one name or another. You don't know why you should be proud of your country, why you serve it, or what kind of legacy it brings to the world stage. You don't even know how or why any of the technology that you use exists. That is the world without history - an eternal abyss of ignorance and doubt.

We study history because it gives context and meaning to our lives. To know that somewhere down the road, a future personage might look back and want to know about who you were or what your world was like - perhaps to gain a better understanding of their world, or to change it for the better. In the same way, you, the current "future personage" may look back upon a past historical figure and be inspired to learn about their world and be interested in their life. Worlds that have flowed along down the stream of time can still be recreated in vivid detail through the mind's eye. Because of this, these worlds may live on in the common memory.

History also provides to humanity continuity - a means of transcending death - so long as there are those who would learn of it. In this way, though certain characters will eventually pass on, the grand story will never die.

Let me pose some questions to you:

1. Why do you speak English, and not Tagalog?
2. How did Germany end up with its current borders?
3. Can you explain how our current system of government developed?
4. How did I, as a white Anglo, end up living in southern California?

History provides the context for literally every current event in the world today. You say you're a diplomatic/military relations major... well how do you resolve this crisis in Crimea without understanding the complex historical connection between Russia, Ukraine, and the Crimean Peninsula? How can you effectively deal with U.S. race relations without at least a minimal understanding of the history of slavery and dislocation of natives?

History is the context for the present. Without understanding how we got where we are today, there would be no way to resolve the current conflicts in a satisfactory way. Why is Putin adamant that the Crimea remain with Russia? Because for twenty years since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has crept right up to the Russian border, and he'll be damn sure that Sevastopol is never home to a U.S. aircraft carrier group. How could I put that into context without being familiar with recent U.S./Russian history? I couldn't.

Without history, we are essentially opening a novel to the very last page, and trying to understand how we got here with no context. Studying history provides that context.

It sounds like your mind is already made up. But it also seems that you're not actually asking "Why do we study history," but rather "why should I study history?" If it is not something you are interested in then maybe you are in the wrong major. No one can justify your studies for you, only you can do that. Most of your other questions have already been addressed elsewhere in this thread. If they are convincing then great, if not then maybe history is not for you.

I am making this post with the hope that I can be shown that what I am and have been studying is worthwhile.

If you are that dead set on finding extrinsic value to your work, you may find history not to be suitable. There are certainly answers (that I will get into), but the most compelling answer to me has always been that I personally find it very satisfying, interesting and fulfilling. More on this at the end. I guess I'd ask you why you want(ed) to study history in the first place? Or maybe an even more fundamental question: What is important to you to know/learn about?

I am in my third year of college as a history major with a military/diplomatic concentration. I dropped out of the school's history honors program after a semester because neither my professor nor my classmates could satisfactorily answer my question as to why we study history.

Were you enjoying the honors program?

"To learn from the past". ---I would argue that what the army learns from the Iraq War is not "learning from history" but adaptation. The Army going into Iraq well prepared because its generals had spent hours studying Roman Campaigns against Eastern Empires would be "learning from history".

Why does "learning from the past" need to necessarily happen on a large scale? I learn from the past literally every day when it comes to living my own life, understanding the world around me, and so on.

Furthermore I do not think we learn from history at all. If we truly learned from past mistakes we'd be close to utopia after observing millennia of death and suffering "To understand why events and movements happened"

Why do you think that? Why is that your definition of "truly learning from the past?" It seems to me this is based on a very progressive notion of human history to begin with, which doesn't seem to be the case. Ironically, I suppose, studying history in this case can help us understand why this point doesn't make a lot o of sense.

Understanding why something happened is not a means to an end. Why is it important to understand why something happened? Even if you do find an answer you will keep falling back on other 'why's, never finding a concrete starting point.

Welcome to the universe. Learning to be comfortable dealing with/in uncertainty is one of the important things that comes from being an academic, whether you are studying history, anthropology or even something like biology or physics. Learning to be comfortable with that is, again, another strong argument for why studying history is worthwhile (although you can learn this lesson from studying other things as well).

If history is so important why doesn't Barrack Obama have a cabinet of historians using their wealth of knowledge of the past to advise him?

...

Is there any true reality when writing history and can an event or time ever be reconstructed with accuracy? 5 people living through the same time will have 5 different views and perspectives on what happened.

Those 5 different views and perspectives are all PART of history, perhaps the most interesting part depending on who you ask. I don't really know any historians at all who think that "reconstructing" the past with perfect accuracy is what they are trying to do.

I've heard we study history to understand the human condition/ humanity. This is a very vague answer, can anyone with this view expand on it? Why is it important to understand past cultures and peoples when we don't even fully comprehend the time we live in now?

Have you ever read a novel written in the 19th century that made you understand the human condition better? I know I certainly have. Hell, as someone who studies Russia I've got a handful of life changing novels on my tablet right now.

How about understanding the industrial revolution and the political ideologies that came out of? Even if you care only about the present you surely couldn't have a good understanding of it without that, just as a single trivial example.

Furthermore I'd argue that "fully comprehending the time we live in now" necessarily includes understanding the past, because that is where we came from. "The time we live in now" isn't a magic time cut off from the rest of history, it isn't an inherent or natural state of things. We live in a contingent time that we arrived at through a contingent history.

Is history perhaps not about events and causes but ideas and discoveries which are produced?

Well, it's about both, and a great deal more. History is certainly not just about creating a list of events chained together chronologically.

Is history important just so we can mark progress we've made by comparing our society and world to ones of the past so we know that we're advancing?

Well, first of all, advancing by what measure or in what area? But regardless, no, I do not think history is about this.

If all history was erased before the year 1900, would we be any worse off?

I'd certainly be worse off. Would "we" be worse off in what sense(s)? Who is we? What are the measures for worse off?

My current view is that history largely exists for entertainment purposes- "literature based on reality"

If that's what you get out of it, that's fine. It seems like a relatively superficial understanding of history, but it's not my business to tell you.

If I am being honest, you seem to reject the notion that things have value outside of the material based on the way you are asking each of these questions. If that is so, academia might not be for you. Why do we study literature? Why do we study the arts in general? Why do we study political philosophy or philosophy in general? If you don't care that much about the fundamental question of "How should I live?" then none of these topics will be will be of much interest to you. But a lot of people DO find that question compelling, and I would argue that even setting aside any and all other justifications you want to discussion, that one alone is reason enough to continue studying all these subjects.

Many good answers here. I would like to add that historians guard the collective memory, so no one can hijack it. Dictators tend to change history by adding and removing elements. It is the duty of historians make people familiar with the past so no one can take advantage of their history.

Also, history can help us understand the present. Why doesn't Norway want to be in the EU, yet Sweden, Denmark and Finland do? It may have something to do with Norway having been ruled by both Sweden and Denmark, and the Norwegians just wanting to be fully independent for a while. If you understand these sentiments it's easier to accept them. By writing down awful stuff that happened you can also help a society deal with it's collective trauma.

Thirdly: history is a good addition to psychology for understanding human consciousness. Human consciousness has developed alongside historical awareness. So the course of history can tell us something about the human mind. The emergence of the first religions can be explained by people not recognising their thoughts as their own.

Historism is a good example of a change in human conciousness. In the 19th century historians (Ranke and others) became convinced that the course of history is a story in itself. This implied that everyone (especially politicians) has a duty to fulfill their role in the narrative of history. You can explain the start of WW1 by looking at the political events prior to the war. But what if there's more to it than that? What if people were just sick of being stuck in a narrative and just wanted to do the most random act to get rid of it? This is the stuff that makes history interesting and important to me.

Why are you majoring in history? How does dropping your honors classes help you?

-Learning from the past doesn't mean no one in a group you are making decisions with ever makes mistakes. How can you have definitive proof that no one has ever learned from the past?

-There aren't really different perspectives on whether or not historical events took place. The reasons why they took place and who was at fault, yes, but I hope your history classes aren't being taught from such an emotional standpoint that you are confused as to things that factually happened. Most people agree that Germany annexed Poland, Istanbul used to be called Constantinople, etc. I've never met anyone who disputed facts such as these, have you? If so, they are just plain wrong.

-Presidents such as Barack Obama (with one "r") absolutely do pick a cabinet of people who use "their wealth of knowledge of the past to advise him." Their title isn't limited to "Historian" because they also have other specializations and often come from multiple academic disciplines. "History" would be too broad of an area for all of the cabinet members, but the Secretary of State knows the history of political science, the Attorney General knows the history of law, the Secretary of the Treasury knows the history of economics, the Secretary of Defense knows the history of the military/diplomacy, etc.

If history is so important why doesn't Barrack Obama have a cabinet of historians using their wealth of knowledge of the past to advise him?

For one, the government is full of historians as policy specialists and consultants. The profession tends to go through swelling periods of demand for certain kinds of historians based on policy demands and state politics. For example, Russian historians were in high demand for decades and fell off after 1991, while historians of Islam or the Middle-east became more demanded after 2001. Russia is likely another hot topic again now given the current events in Ukraine.

Moreover, this is nothing of new. In imperial China, the study of history was crucial to good governance. Studying history and the literary tradition was an essential part of the examination process for prospective government officials, along with practical demands to analyze hypothetical government policy issues. Chinese emperors depended greatly on history as a source of wisdom. Qianlong, for example, always started his day reading history over breakfast. Soviet leaders too found the constant analysis of history to be crucial for policy formation.

The list could continue, but the point here is that history is so important that political leaders of all sorts from many different periods have considered its study to be crucial to good statecraft. As others have said, this also accounts for state and ideological efforts to control the content of history, because ultimately history of a people or a movement or a state defines the identity of that thing.

It puts the present into a context. It's important to know the context of our ideas, why they are formed and shaped that way, what other ideas they evolved from. That allows to be mindful of where we stand and move forward in a way that is truly forward, and not backward in a way we know didn't work before.

If living in the present is like being plopped into the middle of the ocean, then learning history is like being handed a map and compass.

Without history, the present would make no sense what so ever. Just last weeks "history" is what we base our thoughts of today upon. Consider Russia's claim to the crimean peninsula, would it make any sense without the 1850's crimean war and the geopolitics of the last century? If we did not consult history in a case such as this, would the war not already have escalated to a full-blown war between major european states? Without knowing how that would end up, and considering the possibility of our current technology, compared to the techlevels of the 40's, we know that such an event would be more horrific than anything we could imagine.

I thought a common explanation for studying history was so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

As a law student it would be impossible to understand the current laws that govern the way we live without understanding the reasons why they came about.

A lot of our rules are not intuitive or obvious. We know nowadays that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" but that was learned the long and hard way. If we don't remember the factual scenarios that lead to this truth then we can't property understand why we abide by it. If we're not sure why we do it we might be persuaded to get rid of it. And then we'd have to learn it the hard way all over again. Screw that! Better to write it down the first time so we don't forget. But there's no point in writing it if nobody reads it. That's where you come in.

I'm not a historian, and there are tons of good answers on here, so I won't even try to rehash them. What I am going to say is a lot more subjective than this sub allows for, so I understand if the mods need to remove it.

I think all the practical reasons are all very excellent reasons, but as a layman I will tell you the real reason I like history. Even if history had no practical benefits as you allege, for this reason alone I would still be interested in it. Curiosity.

What is wrong with simple curiosity? I like to know how things got to be this way. I couldn't imagine looking at an aqueduct or a castle or an old stone wall and not wondering who put it there. I feel like my experience of this world is enriched by knowing more about history. When I go for a hike near my town I feel like I have a better experience because I know that the trail I am on was originally a trading path used by Indians, the stand of apple trees over there is the last remnant of a 19th century logging camp, and the state park I'm stopping at was a CCC project during the depression. For me that kind of stuff ads a whole other dimension to the experience.

Some people like to know more about their world, and I am so thankful that there are people like the commentators on this forum who spend their lives trying to find stuff out. This is the story of our species we are talking about. These cultures are our family. Even if you are right and there are no practical benefits (which I absolutely do not believe to be true), it wouldn't change my interest one bit. If you lack curiosity, I guess that is fine. I can't make you feel curiosity if you don't have it, but I just want you to understand that on top of all the more "real" benefits of studying history, some of us just enjoy knowing this stuff, and I don't think that is something to be dismissed out of hand.

For a moment I have to mention one of your unsatisfactory answers. And I'm sorry but it'll have a reason. But it is to help us learn from the past. You mentioned in the army . How it's more of an adaptation than learning. But in some way it is learning from history.

Around 500 bc Sun Tzu published the art of war. Which been a stable in most nations military structures today on a global scale. And one of the things he said was "know your enemy". So as most nations started moving forward. Or adapting to newer times and using newer technology and weapons.

Naturally other nations if had the means moved forward and adapted as well. So not to be caught off guard by our enemies. And yes I do believe with us as people. Always wanting to learn and adapt to survive. We would have learned it ourselves. But it took some one looking back and saying. Sun Tzu had the right idea and moving forward we need.

To use this as a part of our learning materials to adapt. I personally think we need to know where we came from. To understand how we got to where we are right now. And it's more than just a be grateful because back then. They didn't have half of what we did. But more of a there is history in everything.

Because look how far modern medicine is. It used to be a time where if you had a uncontrollable outburst. Or a illness or anything of that nature you was considered crazy. Or controlled by the devil and neither got you any where to proper healing. And it took a long time before some one stepped in.

And took a look at previous practices and said that's not working . Maybe we need to go about this another way. And we did and still are today so it is helpful to learn.from what history has taught us so we can adapt. And continue to grow.sorry if I'm rambling I'm really kind of out of it. I just hope it makes some kind sense .

Edit :a embarrassing mix up thank you snafu_coaxer_2013 .

I'll just throw my 2 cents in here. You mentioned the Iraq war and how "learning from history" would have been the American generals studying the campaigns of great armies that had come before. To a certain extent that is true, but learning from history can also be understanding the history and culture of a place like Iraq. Studying the campaigns of Hannibal probably wouldn't have done much good for the army, however understanding the history of the country would have done wonders. For instance knowing that Iraq was made up of a Shi'a majority under the rule of a Sunni regime, and knowing the history of conflict between those two factions, could have helped the army better prepare for the sectarian violence that occurred in the wake of Saddam's fall. You don't always need to look at history as an example of what to do, it's better to look at history to help you understand the world and why things are the way that they are. As for your point on history being erased before 1900. We would probably be better off if everyone forgot why they hated everyone else, but so long as they do hate each other it's best for us to be able to understand why. Sorry if that last bit counts as humor and for any grammar mistakes.

This isn't exactly a direct answer to the question, so it might get modded, but I don't think it's helpful for you take such a utilitarian view of things. Most people enter a field of study because they have a predilection toward it: it speaks to their interests or to their talents. Its importance to society should be a secondary consideration. If your lack of interest in a field is such that you must convince yourself of its crucial importance to mankind in order to motivate yourself to continue it, then perhaps you ought to consider whether it's something you should continue.

From a personal perpective, my opinion of the value of history (and its relationship to the "human condition") can be summed up by Aldous Huxley in his book The Devils of Loudon:

The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consists in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different. In the personages of other times and alien creatures we recognize our all too human selves and yet are aware, as we do so, that the frame of reference within which we do our living has changed, since their day, out of all recognition, that propositions which seemed axiomatic then are now untenable and that what we regard as the most self-evident postulates could not, at an earlier period, find entrance into even the most boldly speculative mind. But however great, however important for thought and technology, for social organization and behavior, the differences between then and now are always peripheral. At the centre remains a fundamental identity. In so far as they are incarnated minds, subject to physical decay and death, capable of pain and pleasure, driven by craving and abhorrence and oscillating between the desire for self-assertion and the desire for self-transcendence, human beings are faced, at every time and place, with the same problems, are confronted by the same temptations and are permitted by the Order of Things to make the same choice between unregeneracy and enlightenment. The context changes, but the gist and the meaning are invariable.

Let me take a quote from someone who "straddled" the line of Philosophy and History. I will change out a single word. I think you'll find it doesn't affect the spirit of the quotation at all, and it many in fact even "strike a chord" within you,

The [Historians] have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. -Karl Marx

Scrolling through these answers, I don't imagine that your concerns have been answered. This is isn't to diss the fine denizens of r/AskHistorians. They've all given more than satisfactory answers as to what kinds of understanding History can give you, but sort of answers don't address what appears to be the root cause of your concerns.

Your first concern seems to be an a concern of methodology: to what extent can History "get it right?" This question has already been tackled here. A far more tenacious question to ask (and what seems like your second, more fundamental concern) is: What is the value to understanding in the first place?

To some extent, asking this is question is like playing devil's advocate for a vegetable. Why the hell wouldn't you want to know whats going on around you? But if we take that extreme aside, I think we get closer to where your concerns lie.

It's the classic existentialist's dilemma: the boot is the world and you're the ant. What good is it to learn about the boot that is crushing you?

Perhaps I'm offbase. But if I'm not, then it seems, my friend, you have do the jig of adulthood and find a way (whatever speaks to you) to posit yourself out of this sort-of-nihilism.

First, I think it is important to consider the assumptions of your question. It assumes that (1) things that we care about should have specific utility and that (2) we should be able to explain the utility of things we want to do.

Coming from a literature background and yet working in a biological research institute, I often encounter scientists chiding those who study the Humanities because the scientists see no utility in it. The Humanities have been under attack for the last decade or so, and politicians and world leaders constantly stress the importance of science and math education. The value and application of science and math are easy to see: they contribute to technology that makes us safer (hopefully) and healthier. News agencies latch onto this easily-communicated message and perpetuate it further.

However, just like any other topic, the value of something is nuanced and can never be completely understood. The Humanities especially, and history specifically, fall into this area. There is a certain leap of faith that must be taken to study history because its applications and utility are not immediately clear. Historians don't cure diseases. But think about all of the things that history gives to a person living in today's world - the humility, the perspective, the knowledge of how things go against what people have wanted and how things go well for others.

Additionally, when you think about the study of history (the study of what has happened), it is obvious that there is great value in it. No matter how much you demand that this value be explained, it would be impossible: just as you cannot determine the midpoint of an infinite line, you cannot explain the precise value of something that has no distinct limit to the ways in which its value could come to fruition.

Having specific reasons for what we do is good, yes, but one must also acknowledge that many of the things we do have no good reason but should be done nonetheless. Simply doing them makes them worthwhile. They have wonderful placebo effects. For me, religion is an example of this.

Ambarenya argues in this thread that history makes our lives feel meaningful because others in the future will remember it, that otherwise our actions would "slip into the abyss of oblivion". This argument doesn't hold water for me because we know that everything is going to end someday anyway: heat death, entropy.

I myself am interested in history because it is, simply, interesting.

1. It's fascinating
2. To learn from the past -although it's debatable whether we put that knowledge to it's best possible use
3. To make an informed, educated guess as to where we're going (however, see '#2')
4. Because, as humans, we are innately curious. We really can't help ourselves.
5. So that we'll be prepared as much as possible when the Klingons attack again!

I see your point though. Sometimes it can seem like a waste of time studying events from the past that we have no sway over right now. Sometimes, history can seem like and endless series of wars, bloodshed, and tragedies.

BUT, there are many fantastic stories about courageous individuals who had the balls to do something outrageously counterintuitive, and made massive leaps beyond what we think we know. A great example of that is Edward Jenner. Look him up. Even if it seems that we don't learn from the past, and are doomed to repeat it, there are many, many amazing individuals from the past that still inspire us greatly today.

We do not learn from the past, because every historiographical account is a fiction in sofar it does not constitute a 1:1 representation of the past as it "actually was." We can never know the past truthfully. Not only do we lack the sources to reconstruct it, but historical truth itself is relative because it is ultimately (past) social reality. Add to this the different circumstances of the past, we will never find a "ready and packaged" lesson for present consumption. Any lesson we can learn from the past, is projected onto it from the present day. It is the inescapable presentism of history.

That said, the study of history is still useful because it adds contrast and context to the presence. Culture (or rather: society) is intrinsically historical, because everything we do is grounded in the past. This can range from the very mundane (the reason why older European cities are horrible to drive through, because they were never planned with cars in mind) to the more grandiose (the experience of WW2 inspired a new interpretation of the rights of Man). Tracing the development of the ideas and considerations behind past actions gives contrast to our actions in the present.

Shortly phrased as an aphorism: Those who have never seen the past are blind in the present.

As someone who studies politics rather than history (although they are closely intertwined) the answer I would give is that history is context for civilization. It provides definition and meaning to a world in a perpetual state of existential crisis. Without it human society is hollow, a directionless and nihilistic entity.

In the same way that a society cannot reach the stars without first dreaming of them, it also cannot fully realize itself without looking into the past.

Your assertions about the military's approach to history expose a fundamental ignorance of how history is used in the military. Military history -- yes, even that dating back to antiquity -- is an important part of the curriculum for training an officer in, at least, the US Navy. In fact, I challenge you to find a NROTC or NOCS curriculum that doesn't include a military history course.

Your idea that history has no end-goal and thus no value is completely absurd. The end goal is understanding, and the value is understanding.

I've got to say as a casual reader of this sub, one of my favourite things so far has been the shocking realisation that human beings have been basically the same animal for most of recorded history. We've always been just as crude, as interested in trivial little every day details, and just as diverse once you peak between the cracks of the typical old romanticised stories about royals and other high class people. As human beings, we are all basically part of one big organism, so I personally do see value in studying various kinds of people to learn more about myself. However, it is not my intended career path, and it absolutely does not have to be yours. I don't think something like history does have an objective and specific value. We need certain people in humanity to be interested in history as it does inform the modern experience, but you might just not be one of those people who is particularly intrigued by it to the point that you want to be a historian or something, just like me, and there's nothing wrong with that. So, what does history mean to you? What does it bring to your life? If you don't think a career in history would do you much good, or you find dwelling on the past can be draining or boring, then there would be nothing wrong with looking into something else. You sound like a smart and thoughtful person who cares about the contribution you make to society. I wish you the best and hope you discover the answers you're looking for.

I'm not a historian. I'm an aviation electrician in the Navy and a huge history fan (including US Naval history). Without history, I have no context on why I'm doing the job I'm doing. Why I don't get paid overtime or why I can be called in at any moment to perform my job details. When someone looks at my job and they don't understand history, it looks ridiculous. In fact, I feel that is a huge fault in our military right now....a lack of context. I have shipmates who complain about being outside in the cold for 15 minutes.

I see my job as a continuation of something that is existent in almost every culture in the world and history. I really feel kinda honored to share traditions that are thousands of years old in terms of basic goals, philosophies, tactics, structure, etc. Because I know some of the long story of humanity's militaries, I can put things like being cold in context. I know that a strong military is not made of people who complain about the cold, but rather simply execute orders. I don't think a military that would fight in WW2 or against an invading goth army would bat an eye at being cold or overworked.

Without history, you have no context of what things could be like, or what humanity is capable of and what you need to prepare for. Without context, you're only concerned with the present situation, which is a distorted bubble.

From a purely academic point of view, the benefits of history are myriad. It trains you purely to be a decision-maker--in forming a historical argument what you are basically doing is making your mind up on a certain issue according to the available data. That's a massively valuable skill to have. History trains you to process information--before you can analyse it, you need to separate out the relevant data from the irrelevant. It also trains you to present the judgements you have made in a clear, precise, succinct way that others may use. There's no better way to learn to manage information than to study history--and history provides us with the context in which to utilise such information to our benefit. If history serves as an engaging way to teach people such invaluable skills, surely it's extremely useful?

History is Important. One of the most important building blocks of human progress is our History, helping us advance to where we find ourselves today: sending unmanned rovers to our neighboring red planet in search for signs of extraterrestrial life... and being able to save millions of lives with weather tracking devices and early weather warning systems... and even being able to video chat with someone on the other side of the world (or in space) - with only our phones!

However, if you’re expected to memorize every single detail of such a focused category in history that it ceases to become interesting to you… or ceases to show long-term value… then certainly there’s room for improvement on how history is being taught to us, and also just what it means to be a ‘historian’.

Hopefully through your schooling you have been learning how to analyze, interpret, question, source, check, cite, and reiterate your findings. This is what you might be hopefully learning without even being aware of it… but if you are aware of it, even better! Having a topic that you are interested in is critical… but a lot of us are swept into a category of history (that might be someone else’s favorite subject…) before we even really know why we’re studying it. This is ok if you know that once you are done with earning your degree (and proving that you can finish things) that you can move onto any category of history you wish, which leaves it all pretty open for you. This may need to be pursued as a side project (book, articles… something) if you are unable to tie it into your profession at first, but hopefully you can in some way eventually.

The skills you learn working for your degree will be what help you gain employment or start your own venture. By learning how to analyze, interpret, question, source, check, cite, and reiterate your findings, you will have training in being able to amplify other people’s causes, or even your own voice in many different ways, especially now with the ease of internet and social media platforms.

Then again, I wasn’t a history major in college - but the ones I know now are Lawyers, Politicians, Journalists, CEO’s, Teachers, and yes… even the occasional band member and pizza-flinger. Edit: add returns at paragraphs.

I, for one, am a music historian. Studying the lives of composers and music of the past can help us better understand political situations, financial situations, and what was musically expected in the past. This information can help performers today play the music more accurately to what the composer expected to hear.

It also can give us insight as to who the composer was. Many people play Mozart as if he was an innocent genius tragically lost at a young age. He was a man whore who died of an std. Actually... a lot of composers had stds. And slept around. And did drugs. This can really change how you interpret a piece in performance.

Humans are storytelling creatures. This is our greatest talent, and our greatest weakness. When we look at a scary, complicated world out there, we reach for simple stories like a drowning man would a life preserver. History reminds us there are other stories to tell about ourselves. And that the same events can be told through many different stories. It helps us look at the stories we're telling today through a different lens.

That is why we study history.

A lot of people are attacking this question from a different answer, so I will say this:

Military strategy is a built upon field that has been developing over time. It is it's own microcosm of history. I guaran-damn-tee you our highest ranking generals have studied ancient military history.

I agree that we haven't learned from the past as well as we could have, but at the same time, we have made tremendous advancements in the way we treat people based on the continual witnessing of suffering. We have learned from history many medical things as well. Don't brush your teeth after pooping without washing your hands. Don't eat raw meat. Don't stick your hand in the fire. We absolutely learn from history, and it more or less is making us a better world to live in.

You ask "why is it important to understand why something happens?". let's take the black plague for example. If we didn't know why that happened, we would be less careful about making sure an outbreak like that doesn't happen again. If we study how Hitler so quickly took over Germany, it gives us indicators of other asshole dictators behaviors so we can make sure nothing like that happens again.

I think you are getting my point. You are sounding like a tired, cranky Junior who is past the easy classes and not yet to the really interesting ones. Keep your head up and you will see that most of your questions are easily answered.

I want to thank everyone who took out the time to thumb out a response.

Even if I didn't respond directly I've read every comment in the thread; it has given me a lot to think about and many different perspectives.

Much of your action is shaped by your community and society. Your thoughts, processes, and choices are all affected by this. Recognizing that there are many societies and cultures, and thus perspectives, is essential to understanding and appreciating history.

These people didn't just act and do things differently, they thought and saw things differently, and I think by studying that we can go deeper in our own understanding of the human condition.

As a history student I have wondered this often myself, what really is the value of our understanding of history? Personally I enjoy the imagination and discovery involved, but I have started to consider this more widely. In some ways it seems quite similar to the goals of scientists, to better our understanding of the World, although rather than mathematics based theories at its core historians must interpret sociological data. This builds our understanding of cause and reaction throughout time, why is a nations boundary in a certain place for example; in depth historic analysis can give us insight into our society today, so I suppose really historians are sociologists on a large scale (although im sure they would disagree). Lastly if you find it entertaining, then why not make the best of it, there's nothing wrong with a bit of populist history. This is just my late night ramblings but I hope you may find this helpful.