WRITTEN TASK How can dividing history into periods be useful and how can it be misleading?

[familyjewels]

"According to the historian G.M Trevelyan (1876-1962), ‘unlike dates, periods are not facts. They are retrospective conceptions that we form about past events, useful to focus discussion, but very often leading historical thought astray’

[How can dividing history into periods be useful and how can it be misleading?]"

Our teacher told us to use the TOK textbook, but I didn't wrote down the pages... and none of my classmates know this either, so I need some guidance please..

All help and advice will be appreciated

Thanks.

Edited April 25, 2014 by familyjewels

[daniak97]

Hello, I don't know exactly how to answer this, but I think it could be misleading because history is continuous and dividing it into periods creates the illusion that it's not.

[Rogue]

I'd say that dividing history into periods is useful because it provides context for events that happen in these periods. Periodization allows us to categorize historical events and distinguish groups of correlated events from each other.

A possible problem to discuss might be that we are simplifying, or 'dumbing down,' the concept of time when we do this. One might say that time is something that we as humans do not have the capacity to fully understand (eg. we cannot comprehend eternity/infinity), and so we often use methods such as periodization to simplify it for our own understanding.

Well, at least my ToK teachers would enjoy going off on a tangent about time itself, but if you think your own ToK teacher wouldn't appreciate it, then it's probably best to ignore my take on the topic

[familyjewels]

Hello, I don't know exactly how to answer this, but I think it could be misleading because history is continuous and dividing it into periods creates the illusion that it's not.

Don't worry, my TOK/History teacher really accepts all kinds of points of view, he's really tolerant, and at the moment, I'm taking topics of History in TOK class (wasn't my choice.. ) and I have to cope with it. Thank you for your answer

[familyjewels]

I'd say that dividing history into periods is useful because it provides context for events that happen in these periods. Periodization allows us to categorize historical events and distinguish groups of correlated events from each other.

A possible problem to discuss might be that we are simplifying, or 'dumbing down,' the concept of time when we do this. One might say that time is something that we as humans do not have the capacity to fully understand (eg. we cannot comprehend eternity/infinity), and so we often use methods such as periodization to simplify it for our own understanding.

Well, at least my ToK teachers would enjoy going off on a tangent about time itself, but if you think your own ToK teacher wouldn't appreciate it, then it's probably best to ignore my take on the topic

This is actually a great answer I also agree with it too, and don't sweat it, as I said again, my TOK teacher is liberal and unbiased towards all kinds of opinions. Thank you so much!

Edited April 25, 2014 by familyjewels

[Thrashmaster]

I've always thought it interesting that, the further back you go, the longer the periods of time are. For example, we talk of how a political system in ancient times, or a dynasty in China, lasted for, say, 400 years. That's a whole lot of time! Think about how many generations went by in that time. Think about how many schools have thought have been created in the last 400 years. How can we assign stages of the rise and fall of the Roman empire in such broad terms?!

As you get closer to modern day, the periods get shorter and shorter. Look at art history. You have the Venus of Willendorf, and then a few 10,000s of years later, you have another piece of art, and then a few thousand, and then a few hundred, and then you have Greek art, Roman Art, Byzantine, Medieval, and then you have too many to name start showing up after that.

I think classifying periods is dangerous, because surely there was more to that Chinese dynasty in those 400 years or during impressionism. Yet, we often make things sounds so absolute.

[familyjewels]

I've always thought it interesting that, the further back you go, the longer the periods of time are. For example, we talk of how a political system in ancient times, or a dynasty in China, lasted for, say, 400 years. That's a whole lot of time! Think about how many generations went by in that time. Think about how many schools have thought have been created in the last 400 years. How can we assign stages of the rise and fall of the Roman empire in such broad terms?!

As you get closer to modern day, the periods get shorter and shorter. Look at art history. You have the Venus of Willendorf, and then a few 10,000s of years later, you have another piece of art, and then a few thousand, and then a few hundred, and then you have Greek art, Roman Art, Byzantine, Medieval, and then you have too many to name start showing up after that.

I think classifying periods is dangerous, because surely there was more to that Chinese dynasty in those 400 years or during impressionism. Yet, we often make things sounds so absolute.

A very bright and up-to-the-point answer, thank you so much!!

[bigbluesun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNLdblFQqsw

I advise you to watch this wonderful video by vsauce. It's about how we divide time to periods and how we perceive them as one after the other -- when the reality is they are overlapping more often than not.

[familyjewels]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNLdblFQqsw

I advise you to watch this wonderful video by vsauce. It's about how we divide time to periods and how we perceive them as one after the other -- when the reality is they are overlapping more often than not.

Very interesting video, I'll probably use it for future oral presentations, thanks