Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vudak on January 30, 2007, 06:56:59 AM
-
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?"
-
Poor old liberals. They are blamed for everything.
-
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.
-
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..." :D
-
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..." :D
It's a good quote, but Churchill never said it... not Winston anyway.
-
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
-
"it was sooo much better when we were young in the 18th century..."
-
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
-
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 :rolleyes:
-
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
-
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
-
well some research did help too correct some erronous History...we do need teachers or professors
-
Step 1. Define your enemy
Step 2. Name your enemy
Step 3. Broadcast your new definition.
"New History" heh.
-
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?
-
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".
-
Originally posted by Dinger
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".
Well put.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
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?
That "New History" is a ***** sometimes.
-
As a Historian, I've been reading through this whole thing trying to think of a good way to respond. Then Dinger just said it perfectly. Well put. People who ignore history are not students of 'new history'. I suppose the rhetor thing works for people who go digging through history with a mind to use it to their own ends, but not quite for those who just want to ignore history itself.
To those who would immediately scapegoat 'liberals' as ignoring history (which they do seem to do a lot of lately) I would point out several of the forgetful moments of the right: Iraq(see also: Vietnam) Iran-Contra(See also: Vietnam in the 1940s) Afghanistan(see also: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) The Red Scare(see also: Hitler). As a student of aviation history, I'm especially disappointed at Lynnette Cheney and the other rabid right wingers for what they drug the NASM through. These are snippet examples of course, but the point is that history is not railroaded or forgotten by any one side.
And Hap, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
If more people were instructed in history and not just presented a series of banal facts as is the case in most 'history' classes in this country, Americans might actually have a decent sense of their own and the world's history. I'm not holding my breath.
-
err History thread turning into a political one, next time try using a different approach for comparisons...
History is political. Don't ever think it isn't.
Game Set Match: McCarthyism. Current historians / liberals will tell you about the horrible time we spent accusing people of communism.
Real history shows that those people were actually aiding and abetting communists.
-
Dinger, you're talking about the motive to study history. 10 people 10 motives maybe. Who knows. Intentions and motives are slippery things, and many folks fib.
I stand by my statement that most of the best stuff has already been said. And I'm not talking about recent finds and discoveries.
I don't think for a moment we should all keep our traps shut and not discuss things. I love history. Why? Hard for me to put into words.
Academe has sold itself as the "answer guys." Socrates asks, "why bother?" Answer, "to make people better." Old Soc says, "oh, you've got my ears. Pray continue."
You know the Dialogue better than I.
Regards,
hap
-
68Hawk, I respect what you and Dinger said, but I have to disagree on the whole "Rhetoric" angle...
Also, by "Old/New" History, I mean the way history is presented in a classroom. For many years, it was presented as, "This is the past. Time flows like a river and history repeats, so if you're going to invade Russia, make sure you bring winter clothing."
Now, it seems to be presented as, "Isn't this interesting what happened? Let's draw no lessons or conclusions that can relate to today from it, and read history merely because it's enjoyable."
Really then, what's the point for the average student to read it? If we don't presume that it is wise to study the mistakes of the past, lest we repeat them, then students might as well read fiction. They'll get the same out of a study of hobbit gender roles as they would Ancient Egyptian ones.
Extreme example, I know... But do you follow what I'm saying?
Please don't confuse me for someone who isn't interested in history - I'd actually like to join your ranks someday, Dinger - but I'm not ready to abandon the "Old" way of looking at history just yet. I honestly - perhaps naievly - believe that valuable lessons for today can be learned from the past. It's not that I go looking for them, either. It's that I read history, and then something pops up today that feels like Deja Vu.
Anyway, I'm not asking a teacher to say, "THIS is the lesson from THAT experience..." But I'm also not very optimistic for our future if our teachers say, "Don't bother comparing anything from the past to today."
That's not how I was taught and I don't see how anyone who has studied history could think that way, but, evidently, one of my professors does.
-
In the classroom, it was not a "if you're gonna invade Russia, bring winter clothing" kinda thing.
And there's a reason why we discourage comparisons to "lessons for the present day": they muddy the discussion rather than clarify it, and the reason they muddy the discussion is they assume that history is a collection of facts about the past.
It isn't. History is made by producing arguments based on evidence from the past. We can't just assert something happened, we have to show that it did, and the data does not easily admit of a single, global understanding.
So, contrary to what Hap may think, there's plenty of good and exciting history to be done: as our understanding of the world changes, so does our history.
Bringing comparisons to the present in the classroom assumes history is static, that "we know what happened", so there's no point in investigating it. If you want to put it schematically, the difference is:
History:
Evidence --> Interpretation
Rhetoric:
Interpretation --> Position on Current Events
The moment you inject the present into an interpretation of the past, it raises all kinda of red flags: is your argument based on a fair assessment of the evidence, or merely what you want to see?
Moreover, as your "winter clothes lesson" clearly demonstrates, seeking present comparisons leads to the single-factor fallacy. Very few major events in human history have a single cause that is necessary and sufficient. Did the Germans lose the war because they didn't bring trenchcoats to the Eastern Front? Or were there deeper logistic problems that might have also contributed?
Ultimately, what really gets us annoyed with the "past/present" comparison, is that so many people are content with what they think happened in the past, that they don't care to know the truth. For this reason, I've taught University history classes by starting out with the book Inventing the Flat Earth:
Basically, the story is the following: a surprising number of people believe that a main purpose behind Columbus' 1492 voyage was to prove that the Earth was spherical, not flat, as the Church insisted everyone believe. Even a Pulitzer-prize winning former Librarian of Congress wrote a popular history book where he argued that Columbus was a brave man to stand in the face of Church-inspired ignorance.
The whole story is a lie, a huge bit of horsecrap, that bears only a negative relation to what people believed at the time. By negative relation, I mean they knew the world was spherical, and in fact, everyone with any sort of education in the past 2500 years of the Western Tradition took for granted that the world was spherical. Only a few crackpots believed the world was flat, and none of them had any roles of significance in the Church hierarchy. Incidentally, to make a past/present comparison, there are tons more of those flat-earth crackpots around today than there ever were.
How did this outright lie make it into our popular culture, and even our history books (presumably the ones Hap is talking about, where all the good stuff has been said)?
Why, of course, because certain people wanted to use history as ammunition for current debates.
In the late Nineteenth-Century, in the wake of Darwin, in the US we had something that secular progressivists liked to call "the war between science and religion". They believed in a bunch of silly notions, chief among them were that scientific and moral progress go hand-in-hand, and that religion is naturally opposed to scientific progress. So, seeing the opposition of various religious groups to Darwin's theories, they hunted and found a fictional account (by Washington Irving) of Christopher Columbus' life with this myth in it, and used it as ammunition: "See, this is what happens when religion rules science". They put it in geography textbooks, and the idea took off, not because it had any relation to reality, but because it fit what people wanted to believe was the case.
So as a result of this, millions of people believe that educated medieval churchmen thought the world was flat, an outright lie.
And that is why we discourage comparisons to the modern world: focus on the evidence, and find the story.
If there is an old history, it would be: "Here are the facts about the past. Memorize them and repeat them on the test." And the new history would be: "Here's the evidence from the past that we have, here's how we interpret it, and here are our results. Now you try it."
-
Reading a book called "shattered swords" about the battle of midway...
Probly no other battle has been written about and rehashed but... this is a fresh book with a fresh perspective. It is written from the records and point of view of the japs.
It is still filled with all the facts and the results come out the same but how they got their is told from a fresh viewpoint that has it's own lessons.
lazs
-
<--- Tips hat to Dinger. I think you may have converted me
:O
-
<----- Tips hat to Vudak, honorably done sir.
Dinger r smart.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
<----- Tips hat to Vudak, honorably done sir.
Dinger r smart.
You two nancies going to get a room?
:)
-Sik
-
Did Vudak tell?
curse him!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Did Vudak tell?
curse him!
Tell? he didnt have to tell, we have video :cool:
-
Originally posted by Dinger
there's plenty of good and exciting history to be done
This is patently false. History is not "done."
Though there maybe and I hope there are plenty of good and exciting historians.
One may lie -- telling a falsehood knowingly -- intentional deception
One may tell the truth --
One may be mistaken --
Bah! Some college education today is really a farrago of falsehoods.
Trying talking to a Cop about interpretations. Or the IRS. Or one's wife, mistress, the wife when she finds out about the mistress, etc. Or the burglar, or the dentist. Or the grocer.
It doesn't float in real life because it is the quintessence of vanity.
Nufsed,
hap
-
Originally posted by Dinger
And there's a reason why we discourage comparisons to "lessons for the present day": they muddy the discussion rather than clarify it, and the reason they muddy the discussion is they assume that history is a collection of facts about the past.
It isn't. History is made by producing arguments based on evidence from the past. We can't just assert something happened, we have to show that it did, and the data does not easily admit of a single, global understanding.
I like what you've said in this thread and I must say that I agree with most of it but I hesitate to say that it's always all or nothing.
Let's take the holocaust as an example. There is probably little in recent history that arouses more passion, heated debate and intense study than the plight of the Jews, Gypsies, and others that were considered undesirable in Germany in the 30's and 40's. Because of this, many in politics around the world have grabbed on to the holocaust and used their own version of it for their own gains, not unlike your example of Columbus in popular culture.
But, even through all the inaccuracies and lies, those of us in the western world have a pretty good timeline of how the Jews went from friend and neighbor to being rounded up and sent to their terrible fates during the Nazi regime. If we saw a country today taking the same, small but inevitable steps to eradicate a percentage of the population, should we stand by and say "we can't be sure" or "we could be wrong about the Nazis" or "it could turn out differently this time" or should we learn from what we know of Germany in the last century and say "enough, we know where this is going and we’re not going to let it happen again?"
-
Again I can only really second what Dinger said.
ChickenHawk, Dinger isn't saying that there aren't lessons to be learned from the past. There are, both positive and negative. We can sometimes study the past to hopefully repeat its good times. What is important is that we not get too focused on the comparisons because no two points in history will be exactly alike. Also, we don't really have as accurate of a picture of what's happening today than we do what happened 20 or 60 years ago. Dinger's example about logistics in Russia is a good one.
History is not a collection of facts strung on a time line. That's called a chronology. History is about the interpretation of the facts that we know. Sometimes minds and evidence can disagree. There are many things about the classic narrative of what happened during WW2 that can be debated or even called a lie. The debate, and the process of looking over old evidence in a new perspective is history.
An example for the thread:
When did the Cold War start?
Lets see how many answers we get.
-
Another aspect has to be brought into the equation when using history as a basis for comparison to the current world. That is human nature, or psychology if you will, as applied to operation of government and political entities.
Self interest has a very large part to play in politics and the impact of politics. Politics then directly impacts the making of history.
-
1945
-
Old History: Hitler was a zealous madman and mass murderer
New History: Hitler was just misunderstood.
Right.
:rolleyes:
-
My interest in history is apparently much more narrow. I look almost entirely at the persons instead of the events as the focal point of any piece of history.
The people (not the events) in history who were amazing, or horrific, or steadfast, or wretched were the ones who determined how the events would be documented and remembered thereafter.
And why not take a lesson or two from the results of their actions? The same 'ole human characteristics are alive & well in the folks who are around today...
TMom
-
Trying talking to a Cop about interpretations. Or the IRS. Or one's wife, mistress, the wife when she finds out about the mistress, etc. Or the burglar, or the dentist. Or the grocer.
It doesn't float in real life because it is the quintessence of vanity.
I didn't know vanity had a quintessence.
And guess what? The cop deals with interpretations. That's the cop's job: from a given set of data, the cop infers that you are likely breaking the law, and arrests your six. Then in court, the DA presents data, including the testimony of the cop, along with an interpretation to demonstrate that you were indeed breaking the law.
The IRS works similarly: they look at your tax return, and your supporting documentation, and they evaluate your interpretation of the tax code. If it doesn't match theirs, or they suspect it might not match, then they come by and you have a little talk, in which you are required to support your argument with more evidence.
I'll concede that with Wives and Mistresses, logic and sophistry are both equally useless.
A good burglar selects targets according to likelihood of success. If your house is surrounded by a chain-link fence, patrolled by guards with loose dogs running about, and your neighbor leaves for the night with the front door open, a sign on the lawn saying "be back tomorrow 10 AM", and priceless antiquities visible in the windows, a good burglar will likely interpret the evidence as pointing to your neighbor's house as the juicier target.
Dentists, like Medical Doctors, are trained to evaluate symptoms and make a diagnosis. Guess what that is? An interpretation based on evidence. This is what "second opinions" are for. The problem with many doctors, however, is the pressure to give "the right answer" without describing the process that led to it can make the process a little opaque. But that is how doctors work.
So why should historians be any different?
And in these examples lies the answer to the "holocaust" question. Just because we give interpretations doesn't mean we're free to give any interpretation we want. The rules of logic apply.
Holocaust deniers tend to use a series of logical fallacies that are general to conspiracy theorists, most notably A) possibility=probability and B) the cover up (anti-parsimony) C) suppressed evidence
A) The first fallacy runs along the lines of:
It is possible that the entire world, including my memories, was created yesterday.
Therefore it is probable that the world was created yesterday. In all likelihood, that is what happened.
B) The principle of parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor) runs along the lines of "Do not posit more beings in existence than necessary to explain the phenomena." Unknown to most people, Ockham adds "except in divine matters", since an omnipotent God can do whatever He likes, and besides, even if one arrives at a satisfactory proof of God's existence, the simplest explanation for God would be a unary God, not a Trinity.
Ockham's Razor gets translated to read: "The simplest explanation is the most likely". A conspiracy theorist tries to get around this by taking the "God clause": an all-powerful conspiracy manufactures evidence to the contrary.
C) suppressed evidence is simply to ignore any evidence that does not fit the argument.
But back to the Holocaust for a minute: The "history" of Holocaust deniers fails as history because of the enormous logical problems they have. But here's another point to ponder: Why would an historian need to deny the Holocaust, when the evidence is so overwhelming that it occurred?
Now we're back in the realm of rhetoric.
One more, just for fun:
Old History: Hitler was a zealous madman and mass murderer
New History: Hitler was just misunderstood.
That Hitler was a mass murderer is beyond question. But "zealous madman"? Hitler behaved nothing like the boss monster in Wolfenstein 3D, you know. Hitler didn't need a kazillion hit points and chain guns where his arms used to be. He had thousands of willing supporters who did his mass murdering for him. People who were otherwise perfectly respectable citizens would go to work and do morally the most outrageous acts. And many, many people around the world admired Hitler in the 30s. Henry Ford actively and financially supported him.
"zealous madman" is just what we call him to avoid the unpleasant reality that, in given social circumstances, most people are capable and willing to do horrendous evil. And numerous other contemporary examples give witness to this. "Zealous madman" is a comfortable lie we tell ourselves before going to bed each night. He is misunderstood, and we misunderstand him willfully, because the truth is even more horrible.
Dinger
"There's a little Hitler in each and every one of us."
-
Originally posted by Dinger
And guess what? The cop deals with interpretations. That's the cop's job: from a given set of data, the cop infers that you are likely breaking the law, and arrests your six.
"Intrepret" and "Infer" signify different acts. This is the crux. The reason why "real life examples" or attempts to overlay past events on present events "muddy the conversation" rather than clarify it, attests to the inutility and falsity of the endeavor.
It's like the Emperor is undressed and mirrors are forbidden.
Dinger, our discussion is doomed to devolve. It is not too different from religous discussions that go somewhat along the following lines:
Faith is right because . . . .
No it isn't, no faith is right because . . .
Well, that's faith too -- in faith not being right . . . .
That's pretty much won the day in Academe over the past, well 30 years might be pushing it. Given another 15 to 30 years, hopefully folks will have come to their senses. Though I'm not holding my breath.
All the Best,
hap