I recently expressed surprise at a young co-worker who had never heard of Watergate. Her defense, which she thought was entirely legitimate, was that she hadn’t even been born when it occurred.
This reminded me of a cruise ship trivia contest I was involved in a few years back. One team, composed of young 20-year-olds, complained that one of the categories (1960s music) had happened, yes, before they were born and thus was unfair. To my amazement the trivia girl agreed and removed that category from the contest.
To me, this is the lamest of excuses for being ignorant. It also implies the notion that nothing of significance is worth bothering with if it has not happened within one’s lifetime.
There are many events that happened before YOU were born that you don’t know about which the generation before you would classify as significant. The generation before you would express surprise at this.
Well, sure, but I remain unconvinced that Watergate is one of these. It led to the only resignation of a U.S. President in the history of the country. I think that’s important history.
The problem isn’t the ignorance so much as the defense of it. Yes, there are many things I don’t know - so I try to find out. I don’t whine like a bitch about it.
If you’d asked me fifteen years ago (when I was 30), I wouldn’t have been able to tell you where Pearl Harbor was. I knew vaguely of the event, but nothing specific, including its geographic location.
It’s interesting discovering what we know and don’t know, what we think is important to know, and which parts of those are a confused mix of ignorance and misapprehension, and which are approaching being correct.
The problem is that Watergate falls into that valley of being too recent to be history, too old to be current events.
How do people learn about Stuff That Happened? If it happened during their lifetime, they learn about it by living through it (watching the news, reading the papers, discussing it around the water cooler or on the internet). If it happened before they were born, they learn about it in history class. But if it happened within the lifetime of the people who set the curriculum and teach the classes, they don’t consider it history; they just think of it as common knowledge. (Plus, if the history class is arranged chronologically, they run out of time before they get to it.)
I grew up in the late 70’s to early 80’s. We always ran out of time in history class at the end of the WWII. I knew the Age of Discovery up to WWII quite well. But the Korean War, Vietname War, and Watergate not at all.
That’s so very true - I graduated high school in 1980 - in History Class we never, ever, EVER got even as far as Korea. I can tell you about the Archduke Ferdinand (should you wish to know), but I have absolutely no idea what started Korea. Nor do I particularly care. But that’s a whole other thing. And no, I’m not defending ignorance, I’m just saying I personally don’t give a shit.
I agree that it is an extraordinarily lame excuse. Most of human history happened before we were born (duh), but we obviously should be aware of its general contours at the very least. I do think that the teaching of history in schools is at an abysmally low level in all the countries I have lived in (US, UK, Russia). There are unquestionably bright spots in all these places but for various reasons an overall awareness of both historical events and trends seems sadly lacking IME.
And don’t even get me started on the way that literature is taught. And writing. And foreign languages. . .