Why I should've taken History

I've talked about history books I've read, and why it's good that I don't formally study history, but I've realised, with the books that (for some reason), I read, I might as well take history. This was basically prompted by the fact that even my English (aka Literature) EE is using New Historicism as a framework. Because of this, I've been looking for, and borrowed from Tim two books: Aspects of European History 1789 - 1980 by Stephen J. Lee and The History of Western Philosophy by B. Russel.

I haven't finished the philosophy history book (which is interesting but really thick), but I did read the European History one. It's actually quite interesting, and a re-cap (well, some what) of the history I studied in Secondary School.

The book is broken up into easy-to-read sections, and each section focuses on one particular period of time, E.g. Hitler's rise to power within the years......... (I'm sorry, I can't remember). But the book, though thin, provides a good summary of the different opinions of historians, and if I remember correctly, even admits that historians disagree on a few point, once again bringing up the subjective nature of history.

But from all this, it's easy (although it may not be true), to generalise the 20th century as a turbulent time. While this is probably because of the two World Wars, it's hard to say how the average person (and the authors) in England and Japan were affected by it.

But I'm guessing that since both England and Japan were major players in the war (or at the very least, WWII), it should've had a significant impact on the worldviews of the citizens there.

Yay! I've managed to consolidate the random strands of though into something intelligible and coherent(: