Although my other topics about history were moved toward the "casual conversation" directory, I will give another try in reviving this interesting category.


As all will know history has been for some time regarded as an independent scientific field. Historians use scientific methods to analyse their sources and are trying to reconstrate the past as good as possible. Although a lot of people enjoy to learn more about our wonderful past, some will, sooner or later, start asking questions about the importance of history in regard to the present.

There are roughly two answers to this question:

1.) The most commonly heard expression about the importance of history is that people today could and should learn from history. Examining historical events can lead to a better understanding of certain mechanisms and can be really handy in solving contemporary or future problems.

2. ) At the other side of the spectrum we find some historians that say that one can never learn from history. Every period and every place in history had its own mentality and morals. Those different morals and mentalities play a large role in the way a certain crisis, problem or event will be handled. Every person is a product of his own time and because of that every time deals with specific problems or events in a certain way. What once worked in a certain time, in a certain place, doesn't have to work in another period.


Question for debate is:

Is historical knowledge an important instrument in solving present or future problems? With other words can we learn from history?

If so, why? (if possible give an example)

If not, what role should history play in our daily lives? Do you accept the theory that history only serves to reconstruct our past?

There is something of an art to learning from history, especially in a debate setting.

We can "learn" from history. History is like any other data, it can be processed and conclusion can be formed.

The important thing to remember is what history is not. It is not the magic word that makes a false conclusion true.

Lesson 1:
History never repeats itself.

By virtue of that fact that one historical event must occur before another and thus influence the latter we can see this is categorically true.

In practical application there are bound to be several differences between any two events.

Lesson 2:
History (as applied to "present day" circumstances) is not an argument, it is at best an analogy.

This flows from Lesson 1, any analogy is bound to imperfectly fit a circumstance it applies to. Never ignore the differences.

Lesson 3:
History is not karma.

Less hard and fast than the previous points because it presupposes one does not believe in predestination.

For those who are not believers in karma, remember that skepticism when you call up a historical example.

Lesson 4:
A clear understanding of present circumstances is always more valuable than historical analogies when forming a conclusion about the present.

When present evidence conflicts with historical examples, go with the present. It is the actual evidence in play.


Remember those and sure, there's plenty you can learn from history.

Just don't abuse it.

Iraq and the endless loose comparisons to Vietnam or even earlier Western intervention in the region is a prime example of abuse of the rules of interpreting history.

A considered understanding of history can play an important part in current events. Unfortunately, a shallow un-contemplated acquaintance with history can also steer policy makers in absurd directions. It's also important to differentiate between periods of history and their relevance to the modern era.

Even ancient history can provide lessons of caution about the foibles of man and the pitfalls of the hubris of the powerful. Civil War history is an intermediate case. It tells us a lot about who we are as a people while, at the same time, providing all kinds of lessons about the mis-steps of the powerful and the best and worst that people can express in their behavior.

More modern history is fundamental not only to understanding ourselves but also in understanding those throughout the world with whom we relate. One could argue that the lessons of history were ignored in our adventure in Iraq. The policy makers failed to consider whether we as a people would, in the long term, stomach pre-preemptive war, torture, and the continued deaths of innocents. More importantly, they failed to take account of who the Europeans had become and their attachment to the norms of international law. Most fundamentally, they failed to consider the historical context of Iraq, the Arab World, and Islam generally. If they had, they would have known that such an intervention was problematic at best and that it ran the risk of inflaming the whole area.

However, perhaps their greatest failure in learning the lessons of history, was their overwhelming hubris and determination to pursue a unilateral course of action. I disagree with turnea on the use of Vietnam history in this regard. Sure the analogy can be overdrawn - the deserts of Iraq aren't the jungles of Vietnam and Saddam Hussein wasn't the Viet Cong nor Ho Chi Minh. Nevertheless, the failure to contemplate the potential of an insurgency and the blind hubris of power the led to mistake after mistake shows a profound disregard of the historical lessons of our disastrous involvement in Vietnam.

I do agree with turnea's point generally, however. My favorite misuse of history is the constant use of the Munich appeasement of Hitler to justify all kinds of confrontations when they generally lack any relationship to the Third Reich.

Question for debate is:

Is historical knowledge an important instrument in solving present or future
problems? With other words can we learn from history?

Historical events, and how those events were dealt with in the past can be a
useful tool in dealing with modern-day problems. It is history that has brought
us to the present day, so we must not discard it.


what role should history play in our daily lives? Do you accept the theory
that history only serves to reconstruct our past?

If there is one thing to be said about history, it is that events in history are told
or recounted by people who viewed and responed to events based on the
context of their own environment, so in each major event in history, there are
many different point-of-view. Whose to say which one is more accurate or valid.
That is why whenever I learn about an event in history I do not take what I am
reading as the end-all or absolutely correct version. Historical events have many
sides, and often we are privy to only one point of view. In America, we are given
the American point-of-view, most of the time, when we study history. That is
okay, but there is more than one side to every historical event.

History serves to give us a point from which to view our present. We see where
we've been, and it helps us to understand our present circumstances, and it helps
us to predict or estimate where we are going in the future.

..and Iran isn't exactly the Soviet Union or China. Insurgent funding and supplies are far less as well.

...and the insurgency is not popular with ordinary Iraqis and have taken to targeting them and vital infrastructure like water mains regularly.

...and the US has actually worked to set up a democratic government rather than propping up a dictator.

..and the US unseated an unpopular ruler instead of trying to prop up a French imperial puppet.

The comparison to Vietnam is every bit as bad as the Neville Chamberlain "peace in our time" comparison dusted off and presented before each conflict.

Both sides have abused history on this issue.

Finger-Wagging like "they haven't learned their lesson" should be use very carefully.

Historical lessons are just conclusions from collected data.

doomed_planet

makes a good point about perspective and I'd like to add that another way history is abused is by omission.

Ignoring actions of popular figures such as Woodrow Wilson's adamant racism or Theodore Roosevelt's imperialist escapades can present misleading pictures.

History should not be glorified (or demonized for that matter)

The roots of the present are deep in the past and in the words of Solomon, 'There is nothing new under the sun'. When looking at the past we can see patterns that can be used to predict the future.



How about Rome? In 410 AD Alaric sacked Rome and in 476 the last western emperor died leaving the once great Roman Empire in disarray.The seat of power then shifted from Rome to Constantinople until AD 1453 and the foundation for the modern era was laid. A thousand years previously the Greacian empire had been scattered to the four winds and in 506 BC Rome had expelled the last foreign emperor.

If this view of history is valid then we could expect that the modern era will last about another 500 years. Some time in the 26th century political and social upheaval will burn it up like the mythic Phoenix and from the ashes a new civilization will emerge.

turnea


As I tried to make clear and as you elaborated, there are many points of dissimilarity between Iraq and Vietnam. Nevertheless, I continue to manitain that there are many lessons from Vietnam that should have been considered before invading. The Powell Doctrine was an attempt to draw some lessons from that unfortuanate war. Unfortunately, it was over-ridden by the Neocons desire to project dominance.

I appologise for bringing up Iraq in this forum. I don't wish to divert the discussion from a more general discussion of the role of history. Perhaps we should continue our Vietnam discussion on one of the topic threads devoted to Iraq?

Is historical knowledge an important instrument in solving present or future problems? With other words can we learn from history?

This is one of those is the glass half-full or half-empty things.

Optimists, those who see the glass half-full, will reflect Santayana:



Others, a bit more pessimistic, might agree with Shaw:



Despite the apparent contradiction, I can see truth in both of these statements.

..and there lies the problem.

If two contradictory statements can be seen as true in contravention of all the rules of logic.

There is clearly something very wrong with how the situation is being considered.

I for one think we should do away with this entire concept of history "repeating" itself because it is simply a rhetorically useful fiction.

There are similar situations, they're are no identical situations.