<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Riley, Robert B.</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">What History Should We Teach And Why?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Landscape Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1995</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1995-09-21 01:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">220-225</style></pages><doi><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.3368/lj.14.2.220</style></doi><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14</style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">History has assumed more importance over the last decade for landscape architects, whether as scholars, teachers, or designers. Our standard history courses mirror the state of our curriculum, our discipline, and our profession: less about more, with little focus. The author comments on the role of history in our profession compared to others, offers some cautionary commandments for any teaching of our history, and suggests basic principles about form and meaning, change and continuity, and the universal and the local. He concludes by offering three alternative directions for a basic history course, appropriate for the three differing roles of form giver, professional imbedded in society, and manager of change.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>