While going through grad school we talked a lot about this idea of "can we ever really know history" because we can't generalize because there are so many different experiences. At the same time, there are also few sources for average people the further back we go, is it really representative of the past if we're getting such a small slice of information? Some historians use creative data to try and reconstruct the past, such as looking at census or tax data. One example was that we have this idea that everyone in the Wild West had guns, but when you look at the tax data, that doesn't pan out because states would tax guns and very few people actually were paying that tax. Of course, there's the question of tax fraud, but then again, it does give us some kind of window to challenge what we think of the past. However, with so much uncertainty, it left me just wondering, is it worth teaching history anymore?
If we can't be certain of anything, why bother teaching things? If we can't generalize, even when it does tell us about the majority of experiences though not all, then what's the point of learning anything? It ultimately seemed to align with my feelings about disruptive companies, like uber and such. I don't like it. Sure some things might need a bit of a shake-up, but also it results in some significant losses. For example, the taxi market might have issues, but Uber does not solve those problems, and just makes the entire industry worse for the workers. Those Uber drivers don't have regular full-time work, like someone working for a cab company. They don't get benefits, they don't have guaranteed wages, they don't have a company vehicle to drive. Sure, I'm certain that not every person working for a cab company is full-time with benefits, but I'm sure some people are. There are also protections because they are an employee for a company, not a contractor where companies like Uber can just treat them like shit and it doesn't matter. This also goes for places like AirBnB, which has the added benefit that you get all these companies and rich assholes buying up affordable houses to use at rentals making it harder for you (the average person) to buy a house.
This history disruption I think has a similar issue and criticizing the history that represents the majority of people at a time because it doesn't include everyone I think lends the idea that history is "wrong' or that is not worth learning because it's not everything. Sure, there are indeed issues with the majority view of history because it leaves a lot of people out because their sources are not there to tell us what happened. It seems to be that such disruption that leaves people wondering if it's worth studying history at all is short-sighted and counterproductive. As a history teacher, I want people to learn history, I think it's important (more on that in a future blog), but if people feel like it's not worth it because it's not "the whole story" then why would they bother? If we say it's all made up, it's not complete, it's faulty, then it undermines what we have. Alternatively, I feel the better way to discuss it is to be clear that not every story is told, but that our job as historians is to add those threads to the tapestry, that history is unfinished, and that we continue it. We've picked the low-hanging fruit, and need to get those from the higher branches before we can say we're finished. It's still important and it does matter, but we have to think about how we talk about it.