Why is history so old?

[Georgia Sixth]

Seriously. I really enjoy the many videos online of lectures and talks that we've shared here on the forum. But invariably, the camera cuts away to the audience and....they're all white haired or gray bearded. Not many people below Social Security benefits age are in attendance. What's up with that? Why aren't more younger people interested? Why are mainly old people interested? Does anyone have a theory?

 

[Patrick H]

I think you've posed a very interesting question, but I don't have an answer for you.

 

[diane]

Old people have time and money.

 

[huskerblitz]

Depends on when they are. I would suspect most younger people are at work. When you're retired you have a lot more time to attend things like that.

 

[DR_Hanna]

Seriously. I really enjoy the many videos online of lectures and talks that we've shared here on the forum. But invariably, the camera cuts away to the audience and....they're all white haired or gray bearded. Not many people below Social Security benefits age are in attendance. What's up with that? Why aren't more younger people interested? Why are mainly old people interested? Does anyone have a theory?

These are people who by luck or cunning have succeeded in life to the point where they have retired and now have the luxury to pursue their interests. The generation that is following them is still working - and probably will be for some time.

 

[Old_Glory]

Why aren't more younger people interested? Why are mainly old people interested? Does anyone have a theory?

My theory is because young people think they already know everything. It takes years of living in the real world to realize just how little you actually know and to learn to appreciate history.

 

[huskerblitz]

The Nebraska Historical Society have speakers about once a month that do lectures like these. But they are on Thursdays and begin at noon. Hard for someone like me to attend those (not considering the fact that I also live an hour away from Lincoln). So why not have it on weekends, well if you are younger and have kids then Saturdays is typically full of their activities or things to do around the house after the work week.

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

You should try attending lectures on the war of 1812. Even the lecturers don't show up.

But on the War of the Rebellion.... we were studiers once and young but yes, we aged through the past 40 years and as older members died or moved to Florida (the unlucky ones) we've not been seeing enthusiastic "young" people filling in the Round Table gaps. They still do join but in lesser numbers. We also find that we're more likely to pick up 35-45 year old new members (and increasingly, female) who will perhaps stay on but many of whom have grey hair, plus some blonde, blue and pinkish.

Larger seminars seem to draw a younger audience while smaller local meetings do not. And battlefields draw families - which Round Tables do not (much).

Time - yes, that's an element. Plus we old folks just don't go out and party like it's 1863.

 

[John Winn]

I'd agree with the "more time and money" factor but I don't think that explains it entirely. I think young people are just more interested in the moment or the near future. Things that happened in a time they perceive as very, very long ago just don't seem very relevant and study of such seems a lot like high school. I see the same gray-haired crowds no matter what day or time although sometimes I do see moms bringing young children it it's something that might have an entertainment factor (e.g. living history presentation where they fire a cannon).

I was somewhat like that and didn't really get interested in the study of the Civil War or genealogy or cemetery preservation until I was much older. While I didn't really reflect on why I wasn't interested and record it all in a diary I think I just didn't really connect what was happening in the present with what had happened in the (to me) very distant past so it just didn't seem all that relevant to the here and now. Also, as a young man my day was filled with practical things like work and fun, active things on my time off. I didn't really want to spend any more time than I already had in a classroom or reading a history book. Talking to my friends' children I see pretty much the same attitudes. In fact, I see the same lack of interest in things past among most of the adults I know and my crowd is a pretty well-educated bunch.

So, I think we may just have to admit that our interests are not mainstream; thus, our presence here.

 

[diane]

Younger people have a different way of socializing, as well. I've noticed a lot of things besides history lectures are lacking in young people - lots of old folk among the square dancers, too! Many times the lecture is 'caught' on CSpan or YouTube so it isn't necessary to attend but us older people like the connection with other people of similar interest. I've noticed that often younger people will exit almost immediately while older people will stand around and jaw some.

 

[Northern Light]

It probably is a bit like genealogy. When you are younger, there are a lot of family members that tell can tell you stuff, but as you get older, there are fewer and then you realize that you want to know about your family. History becomes more important as we age. as well older folks have the time to pursue things, because they are no longer caught up in careers, kids, and life in general. it is not that they are not interested, but they have less disposable time, and likely, income.

 

[Pat Young]

You should try attending lectures on the war of 1812. Even the lecturers don't show up.

lol

 

[James B White]

Well, I dunno if this has anything to do with it (I lean toward the more-money-and-time-theories above, actually), but...

A lecture is an anachronistic way of sharing information today, in my opinion. Like most people, I can read faster than someone can talk, so it's slow, compared to the written word. Also, it requires an investment in travel to get everyone gathered in the same place at the same time, making the dissemination of information very inefficient. That can be solved by Youtube, of course, but there's no way to look out over the "audience" and judge age there.

Also, a lecture is usually not interactive, in any efficient way. If an audience member disagrees with an assertion in the lecture he/she might be able to ask a question afterward. But the lecturer usually can only reply with a short response and no documentation because he wasn't prepared for the question, and the questioner can provide no documentation either because she didn't know the specific point would come up. Compare that to a slightly slower but far more complete electronic conversation, full of links and images of primary sources and more detailed analysis.

So the lecture format is, primarily, an "expert" slowly conveying information to a passive audience who have spent a lot of effort to hear him, and who aren't expected to question his wisdom. Not my cup of tea. I want speed, efficiency, interaction.

Now, here's the problem. I've always been that way, even before the computer age. The computer age fit exactly with what I wanted. I'm now one of those old dudes (55) who should be in the lecture audience and talking about why lectures are fun, but instead I'm arguing why I don't like them.

 

[Pat Young]

Seriously. I really enjoy the many videos online of lectures and talks that we've shared here on the forum. But invariably, the camera cuts away to the audience and....they're all white haired or gray bearded. Not many people below Social Security benefits age are in attendance. What's up with that? Why aren't more younger people interested? Why are mainly old people interested? Does anyone have a theory?

Are you talking about Civil War history talks?

I belonged to a Civil War Roundtable in the 1990s in which the average age of the 125 members was mid-40s.

So, I don't think it is just a matter of history being a capstone activity for older folks or people with means. Unlike reenacting, you can go to talks on history for relatively little money. I was at talks in NY this last year where people like Eric Foner, David Blight, and James Oakes spoke to full houses of 100 people or more. The programs were free.

But I also watch the CSPAN 3 talks and see small audiences of mostly men mt age (57) or older watching a lot of the history talks.

I have several facebook pages for different groups of people who follow my writing. Two of my pages, on general immigration subjects, have a readership whose average age is in their late 20s, but among the 7,000 people on my Immigrants' Civil War facebook page, the median age is between 45 and 54. So it is about two decades older than the readers of my non-history stuff.

Also, while the majority of my non-Civil War readers are women, my Immigrants' Civil War readers are 63% male.

 

[Pat Young]

A lecture is an anachronistic way of sharing information today, in my opinion. Like most people, I can read faster than someone can talk, so it's slow, compared to the written word.

I tend to agree with you on the anachronism issue. My readers for The Immigrants Civil War, even though in their late 40s and early 50s, are still younger than the over 55 crowd at most history lectures. So even middle aged folks are using the net to get their "live" history experience.

 

[Pat Young]

Of course as audiences decline and age, young people who do go to a lecture will likely not go to a second one because they will feel that people like them were not at the lecture.

 

[Pat Young]

I think that the flood of "Greatest Generation" media had the same effect on young people as the CW Centennial did on folks my age. Also, don't underestimate the impact of Call of Duty on awakening historical interest. Young people want to feel involved in an interactive experience.

 

[Tom Elmore]

We have to keep up with the digital world. Having spent 30 years preparing detailed maps on Gettysburg, I would like to work with someone who can develop an app showing troop movements when the individual is at any location on the field, perhaps linked to first person accounts, and even including realistic sound effects. It is being done to an extent now with computer programs that show unit movements over time.

Also, I was encouraged to see my 20-year-old son playing a video game with a friend that recreated a realistic battle between the Romans and Carthaginians. He also has me playing WW II tank games, which are addicting due to the degree of realism achieved. The point is we can make history more relevant to the younger generation by incorporating new technology, and it will be entertaining and interesting for the older folks as well.

 

[Georgia Sixth]

You should try attending lectures on the war of 1812. Even the lecturers don't show up.

But on the War of the Rebellion.... we were studiers once and young but yes, we aged through the past 40 years and as older members died or moved to Florida (the unlucky ones) we've not been seeing enthusiastic "young" people filling in the Round Table gaps. They still do join but in lesser numbers. We also find that we're more likely to pick up 35-45 year old new members (and increasingly, female) who will perhaps stay on but many of whom have grey hair, plus some blonde, blue and pinkish.

Larger seminars seem to draw a younger audience while smaller local meetings do not. And battlefields draw families - which Round Tables do not (much).

Time - yes, that's an element. Plus we old folks just don't go out and party like it's 1863.

I'm afraid I DO party like it's 1863. Maybe that's why I have zilch for a social life.

Great lines in your post, btw!

 

[Georgia Sixth]

Of course as audiences decline and age, young people who do go to a lecture will likely not go to a second one because they will feel that people like them were not at the lecture.

Pat, do you know my daughter?