>Completely true, but how does one ever change that from becoming a never-ending cycle?
We don't. I made a (rather loud) point of teaching my students that the medieval popes were not all-powerful, and nor were kings. The students dutifully took notes. And when I got their essays, they inevitably states that the Church told people what to think and then killed them if they disagreed.
This bothered me for quite a long time.
Eventually I figured this: people don't need historians. For most of the time humans have walked this planet they've not had historians. They just made up stuff. Legends.
Legends supported and illustrated the things people *want* to believe about the world. That's powerful. Legends shape an entire narrative. Legends are easily re-cast in various formats.
History, otoh, is an academic discipline. It requires a certain rigor of thought. Not much of one, mind you, just enough to ask for multiple sources, an eye for critical thinking, and an ability to communicate clearly so that the discussion can continue. Turns out, these abilities are rare. So whatever history has to teach for the most part bounces off, especially where it contradicts established legend, but also where legend provides no pre-existing context, so the historical information falls alone in an empty land.
It turns out, history is *not* for everyone, any more than calculus is. It's a specialty. The old saw, that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it, is not much more than rust. And that's okay. 'Twas ever thus. If we do not learn the consequences of Henry IV at Canossa, does that mean we're condemned to kneel in the snow?
I for one don't care for history shaming. I only care when someone claims to know their history when they plainly do not, and wish to inflict their misunderstandings on others. Looking at you, Braveheart. <grin>
