New vs. Old History

[Vudak]

I've been studying history, both in a classroom and on my own, for most of my life.  Up until very recently, I've always been taught that the reason studying history is so important is that, in a nutshell, "lessons from the past must be learned to prevent situations similar to the past from repeating."

I call this, "Old History."

Now, however, there appears to be a different view emerging--at least on my college campus.  That is that, "All situations are different and, as such, history doesn't help us with today's world."

I call this, "New History."

The only real reason I can conclude that someone would believe in "New History," is that they don't feel like learning lessons from the past and applying them today.  That would take far too much work.

Liberals seem to be the ones who favor "New History," and they seem to do this to justify playing the ostrich once again, and sticking their heads in the sand by completely staying out of world affairs.

It doesn't do much good to remind them that America's insistence on doing just that arguably got more people killed last century than anything else we ever did.  They think of Vietnam, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died.  "Old Historians" think of WW2 and the Holocaust, and the tens of millions who died while the oppressed waited for "Those who had hitherto been half-blind [to be] half-ready."

I was wondering what your thoughts are.  Are you an "Old History" kind of guy, or "New History?"

[Curval]

Poor old liberals.  They are blamed for everything.

[eagl]

Your "new history" is why we're flailing in the middle east.  Nothing we're experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan is new or different.

Rest assured though, the media and both political parties will continue to say they could have or would have done it better or different somehow, because as you say, few people are very interested in history nowadays.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Curval
Poor old liberals.  They are blamed for everything.

Well, you know what Churchill said, "Anyone who's less than 30 and votes conservative has no heart and anyone who's over 30 and votes liberal has no brain..."  

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Vudak
Well, you know what Churchill said, "Anyone who's less than 30 and votes conservative has no heart and anyone who's over 30 and votes liberal has no brain..."  

It's a good quote, but Churchill never said it...  not Winston anyway.

[lazs2]

liberals like to think that fundamental human rights and needs change over the years and sooo.... lessons learned in the past do not apply..

the constitution for instance is "outdated" ..  the needs of humans then are different than the needs of humans today in their mind.

Socialism and communism failed not because they were bad systems but because we had not evolved enough is how they feel.

History shows the liberal to be wrong sooo.....  The only answer is...  history and it's lessons must be wrong.

The advice your grandparents and even parents is for another time and species of human... this is the brave new world.   More evolved..  They think everyone rides public transportation and lives in a filthy city like sardines.  

They are the blue voters.

lazs

[Saintaw]

"it was sooo much better when we were young in the 18th century..."

[Catalyst]

err History thread turning into a political one, next time try using a different approach for comparisons...

I'm Old History...Alexander, Greece, Thermopylae, Rome, Maya's, Egypt, WW1, WW2 etc etc...

can hardly wait for the movie 300(Frank Millers graphic novel)...

Persian "One hundred nations will descend upon you, our arrows will blot out the sun"

Spartan "then we'll fight in the shade"

what a piece of work those Spartans were...

Enjoy History my friend, nevermind this old and new stuff, you're just complicating something that really is what it is, just that, HISTORY

[Airscrew]

History is just history, what changes are some people's interpretation of that history.  They want to rewrite it, to change it so it fits their views or their objectives.   Like Pearl Harbor, oh the Japanese werent bad people, its all FDRs fault, our government bullied them and kept them from getting resources like oil and metals they had to attack Pearl Harbor to protect themselves

[Sikboy]

I think that the real problem with the old Adage "Those who failed to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them" is that History teaches conflicting lessons.

The Arms Control debate of the 80s was a great example. The Arms Control proponents could show fairly effectively (and I'm not here to uphold either opinion here people) that World War I could have been diffused. They developed the "Spiral Model" to show how competing security interests lead to arms races, greater tension and ultimately conflict.

On the other side of the fense, the deterrence proponents pointed to World War II. Arms control did a great job against Hitler and certainly prevented the world from plunging into conflict... Oh wait, no it didn't.

So in the 20th Century, the two great clashes seemed to show evidence of how to act to prevent conflict, yet at a basic level, the lessons were directly opposed to one another.

So it seems to me that when you use history as a basis for your argument, the argument becomes one of "what history is best applicable" to any given situation. Argue enough examples and I suppose you wind up concluding that all current situations are over-determined, and voila! You have your "new history"

Personally, I think History kicks bellybutton and is a great read. But I'm glad I'm not trying to apply it to the real world any more.

-Sik

[Hap]

Originally posted by Vudak
The only real reason I can conclude that someone would believe in "New History," is that they don't feel like learning lessons from the past and applying them today.  That would take far too much work.

Liberals seem to be the ones who favor "New History," and they seem to do this to justify playing the ostrich once again, and sticking their heads in the sand by completely staying out of world affairs.[/B]

For a professor today, especially in the Liberal Arts, to get and keep their job they must publish.  Most the good stuff has already been said.  Really, there's not much new to say that's worthwhile.  

So, they reienvent the wheel and call it something else, so they can write about it.

Has nothing to do with the truth.  Only a paycheck, and ego, and self-absorbtion.

Regards,

hap

[Catalyst]

well some research did help too correct some erronous History...we do need teachers or professors

[midnight Target]

Step 1. Define your enemy
Step 2. Name your enemy
Step 3. Broadcast your new definition.


"New History" heh.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It's a good quote, but Churchill never said it...  not Winston anyway.

No kidding, eh?  I'm not disputing your assertion - but where'd you find that out?  Snopes or something?  Because I wonder how many other Churchill "quotes" are also false?

[Dinger]

As a professional historian, I must say you're wrong. Hap is even more wrong: I'm publishing books of stuff that hasn't been looked at for centuries. But back to why you're wrong:

The point isn't that "we shouldn't try to take lessons from history". People do that all the time. Hell, I do it when I argue current events/politics.
The point is, that if we study history as the search for lessons for the present, we end up doing a disservice to what happened in the past. The past and its circumstances are interesting on their own terms, and not merely as the platform for new arguments.

Moreover, your "Old History" hasn't really existed for over a century, but people still cite historical examples for debates. Moreover, these examples have a nasty feedback effect: think of how both right-wing and left-wing Americans are using Vietnam in their debates about Iraq, then study the period in American history (or better yet, ask those who remember the period): history is being perverted to serve an argument.
Likewise, there's no point, historically speaking, in praising or blaming past actors. They're all dead, and they did what they did -- you ain't gonna change that. Notions of shared responsibility, or cultural heritage, or whatever are social and political, not inherent to the study of history. That cuts both ways, including those who want to study "how the poor native americans dealt with the evil, oppressive Europeans": you can certainly study how Europeans and Native americans perceived each other, and treated each other, but all your complaining ain't gonna change the facts.

So, in short: someone who digs up the past looking for "lessons for the present" isn't an historian, but a rhetor. If you're really interested in the past, you'd study it for it's own sake.
Likewise, a guy who takes a woman out to dinner only to get laid isn't a lover, but a player. Ain't nothing wrong with being a player.

So it ain't "Old History" and "New History", but rather "Rhetoric" and "History".