Win had it precisely backwards. Although there is no established connection between Saddam and 9/11, it is conceivable that a smoking gun will turn up in Iraqi documents. It is not a settled and indisputable fact, it is an allegation without substantiation. Thus, although people should restrain themselves from leaping to conclusions, it is reasonable that some might speculate on a connection. On the other hand, it is beyond dispute that we fought the Germans when invading Europe on D- Day. There is no room for mistake, it is settled, nothing can turn up to show it mistaken tomorrow. It is also a matter of some relevance to the shape of the world, especially geopolitically, in which we operate. To say it is trivial is like saying we can have an intelligent opinion on foreign policy without knowing that Europe is a separate continent, or that we were involved in sustaining various sanctions in Iraq.
On the larger question, no one is asking for detailed knowledge of the British dynasties, nor even the ability to recite the presidents in sequence. Those are not important as matters of common knowledge, and are easy to look up on the rare occassions when that level of detailed is useful. But some things are important to know, or at least have an inkling of. It is not too much to require that students gain a mental outline of the causes and course of the Civil War, for example, or be able to put it at least within the correct 50 year period.
Whether they know who Frederick Barbarossa was, they should know what the Holy Roman Empire was, and how the "dream of Rome" haunted the European imagination. Whether they know who Titian is, they should know that there was something called the Renaissance around the 15th century, and that it involved a revival of interest in antiquity, which stimulated further innovation in learning and the arts.
Indeed, the Renaissance is instructive: th revival of Greek learning and Roman art did not dampen innovation, but stimulated it. Having "old knowledge" turned out to be a good thing. |
