In part one of this essay we noted the harmony between Santayana’s two statements.   In part two, we noted the contradiction between the two statements, leading to the conclusion that the history we learned was more an espousal of a faith, rather than a recounting of facts.  Where would that conclusion leave history, given that history is taught in compulsory and higher education?  Said another way, might we be wasting much time by teaching and learning history? 

          If our purpose were to espouse a faith, the secular faith of the United States, then history should continue as it is now taught, but with the universal revelation and universal realization that we would be teaching and learning a faith.  What we should require, though, is that the faith be taught thoroughly, so that the faith serve as a better guide for our decisions.  (An example of thoroughness is the inclusion, in our history lessons, of the quotation from General McClellan in part one of this essay, June 7, 2007.) 

          If, on the other hand, our purpose were to espouse the secular faith of humankind, then history should continue, but with changes to reflect interpretations of facts not espoused by the faith of the United States.  You see where this is going?  A secular faith of humankind might enable us Americans to better understand the views, virtues, and vices of other peoples, but we would be weakening American patriotism, perhaps paralyzing and pulverizing our patriotism. 

          But does the above not beg a question:  what business does a faith, even a secular faith, masquerading as history have in a classroom meant to teach past reality?  Should we not set aside teaching history completely? 

          If we did take history out of the curriculum, with what would we replace it?  Do I see a few eager waving hands?  I would choose critical thinking, rhetoric, polemics, and the Socratic method of teaching. 

          This sounds odd, one would say, because we must understand historical references to communicate with one another and understand literature.  Yes, we must understand historical references to communicate and understand, but, no, the references would come only after we had a thorough and continual grounding, much more than is now done, in critical thinking, rhetoric, polemics, and the Socratic method of teaching.  The important point is that, going back to the first quotation of Santayana, we would lay the basis for prudent decision-making through skepticism and would practice skepticism, judging historical and contemporary references in light of that skepticism. 

          How would the world be different if that happened?  We explore that in the next part.