Future of Gen Ed Should Include Pre-Modern History

To the editors:



Should I be flattered, cross, or amused at the reference to my course, Historical Study B-11, “The Crusades,” in the article entitled “Professors Say this Core is Solid” (news, Oct. 10)? It is the only course the article mentions in the context of the Report on General Education, but there my moment of glory and gratification ends, for the reference is peculiar in conception and short on fact. The course is described, either by the chairman of the history department or by the staff writers, it is not clear, as focusing too closely on aspects of the past that seem relevant to contemporary conflicts; it is strongly hinted that this is an example of the shortcomings of a report that “seems written too much in the shadow of 9/11.” What a blow!

As a matter of fact, I have taught a version of this course since 1981; the focus and content have been revised over the years, as new materials and perspectives were incorporated. Narrow it is not: It deals with northeastern Europe as much as with the Near East, as anyone acquainted with the history of the Crusades might have guessed. And my contention is that developments that took place and ideologies that crystallized during the long crusading period marked forever the history of all of Europe, the Near East, and to some small extent the so-called New World as well. The unifying factor is the interplay of war and religion. Was I prescient in 1981, did I prophesize 9/11 in offering this course? No, I was not. The connection to 9/11, if any there be, is of quite another nature. In fact, while I make frequent mention of the long-term effects of the Crusades, I believe that I do not once mention 9/11, for this is not a case in point for me. The conjunction of war and religion (or religious or would-be religious justification of war) is. It has a long, deep, and venerable history, and its most recent manifestations are only that.

The report is not to blame, for all it did was to include Historical Study B-11 among 10 or so courses which might meet, “or be adapted to meet, a requirement in ‘Societies of the World.’” Some of the other courses mentioned look much more narrow than “The Crusades.” So why the singling out, flattering or otherwise, of this course, to be tarred by the brush of I don’t know what—relevance?—possibly teaching someone something of the past that might illuminate (or not) some recent events as well? Perish the thought. Let General Education courses in the 21st century, especially the ones under the rubric “historical and global perspectives,” be pure, informing us above all that we, and our societies, have sprung forth like Athena from the head of Zeus: fully formed, fully armed, with no past to remember, forget, or learn from. History is only as deep as the 19th century. Historical Study B-11, unfortunately, is the only course mentioned in the appropriate segment of the Report that deals with the pre-modern period.



ANGELIKI E. LAIOU

Cambridge, Mass.

October 10, 2006



The writer is Dumbarton Oaks professor of Byzantine history.