Views on history

[Guiscard]

Human nature is fixed, and as a result, history is cyclic. Virtually everything has been tried before, and the vast majority of the time, context is irrelevant. And yet, mankind continues to make the same mistakes over and over. Why? Because mankind chooses to ignore it's history before striking out on yet another foolish path.

I'd argue that your assumptions here are wrong.

Everything has not been tried before. Before Westphalia in 1648 the organisation of, essentially, the world into nation states had never before happened. 'National' loyalties and identities had never really been present before, yet today we see them as inherent and an ever-present part of human nature. Again, moving towards colonialism, we brought those ideas of Nation States to Africa and the Middle East, where no such thing had ever existed, even in basic or conceptual form. Before the 9th century BC we'd never experienced cities in even the basic sense we imagine them to be today, nor had we seen these things as political bodies before ancient Greece. The 'public', in the sense of public space and public opinion, didn't even exist before the 16th or 17th century, at least according to Habermas, yet you think we keep making the same mistakes? The French Revolution was entirely different to earlier revolutions because it was the first to be driven by a new public space and a public will to act as both judge and subject.

We do not ignore our history because each context is entirely unique. We are acting independently of history, essentially... They are not the same mistakes because the ruler of a Nation State is a different person to an Emperor, who again is different to a City Elder, who is again different to a Tribal Leader.

[luns101]

Interesting point you have there luns. I remember that my old Social Studies teacher told me that "About 80% of the jobs offered in the near future aren't in existence right now" (I don't have any details to back this quote up though, so just take it with a grain of salt ) Unfortunately, the same teacher said that this quote was probably from the late 80's.

But the problem I foresee with progressive history is that we elaborate on how fast we progress way too much. Old-school Disney rides back in the 70's said that by the new millenium, we'll be traveling by hover cars. We still have this same problem of over estimating today, only not as blown out of proportion.

Yeah, and the thing with the progressive view is that it almost always gets linked to optimism. It's hard to have an optimistic view or progressive view when the world has 2 major wars in one century and also a holocaust, not to mention the killing of thousands of people in Southeast Asia. "hey, we're making progress!" is a bit hard to swallow when interpreting events like those.

A lot of people strayed away from Condorcet & Comte's views on progressivism due to those events that I stated above. For those who stayed in the progressive school, they stopped believing that history would inevitably develop in one positive direction.

[luns101]

"History is written by the victors"
-Winston Churchill

History was written by the victors to an extent until the advent of mass literacy and especially the printing process. After that, not so. The quote is an erroneous one, and Churchill certainly wasn't its originator.

But he did make the following comment which I thought was rather clever:

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill

[ScottS]

I'd argue that your assumptions here are wrong.

I had a nice big post written up giving examples in the ancient world of all of those things you said have never happened before, but then it was eaten by a network crash.

Nationalism. Colonialism. Populist sentiment having a major effect on politics. It's ALL happened before. And it's well documented.

Context is important, but many historians get mired in it and refuse to allow themselves to get at the deeper truths. That's not history, that's fact collecting. Don't get me wrong, it can be interesting, but it misses the point. There is wisdom to be gained by understanding the millenia of human endeavor that has gone before us. Saying that context matters in the extreme, to the point that little to none of what has happened in the past can be related to the present, reduces the study of history to little more than stamp collecting.

[Titanic]

while I do see the relevance of progresive and evolution. I find that the most important thing we can learn from history is to be prepared to watch it happen again. History repeating.

I've not been surprised at the lack of support for the idea of progress in history, especially due to the events of the 20th century. So I guess you belong to the cyclical school in general...interesting. So you would agree with this possibly:

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience." - George Bernard Shaw

Similar to that quote:

We learn from history that we learn nothing from history. - George Bernard Shaw
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana

Probably my favourite, and the most relevant

History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are. - David C. McCullough

[Jenos Ridan]

History seems to flow, moving through cycles but always with a forward, linear direction. Nations rise, dynasties colapse, markets bloom, dark ages overshadow for brief intervals. And so on. But while it moves in a decidedly cyclical fashion, it does tend to also move in a line. More of a 'cork-screw' really.

The idea that history moves in cycles or corkscrews is a slightly erroneous one. We constantly have new ideas, new standards and new events. Certain eras may seem like we are, at least to an extent, going back to the status quo of the past but in reality we cannot be.

It may seem that Empires rise and fall, but the fall of the Assyrian empire was very different the fall of the Roman empire, and the fall of the British empire was drastically different again. Although we have applied the label of Empire to each of them, they were all so drastically different in nature that each deserves its own term really. The more you study history, the harder it is to ascribe overall trends. Its pretty frustrating really.

In every period of history, there was a great and mighty empire. In ancient days, this was Egypt, then Persia, then Macedonian Greece, then Rome. And period of darkness followed, A brief time of Pax Mongolia, an Ottoman empire to replace the Byzantine, then in the age of fighting sail came the British Empire. And in the middle of the last century, came the age of Pax Americana. Were will this go? Who really knows, save God, were the trends will go. An interesting abberation to this flow is the nation of China. Although it has had many regime changes, it is still for the most part the same nation it was when Confusious and Sun Tzu were around. It is virtually a constant.

[unriggable]

I'm surprised so many people believe more from the bible than any other school of thought.

[luns101]

We learn from history that we learn nothing from history. - George Bernard Shaw
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana

Probably my favourite, and the most relevant

History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are. - David C. McCullough

I love the fact that you're also sharing quotes. In that first one by Shaw, he was actually giving credit to Hegel. David McCullough is awesome. I just read his book 1776 last summer. McCullough presents history like he was your grandfather and you climbed up on his lap for a good bedtime story. He's not very deep, but he does present the very human part of historical events and the emotions involved.

I saw Tim Russert interview McCullough last year, and it seemed like Russert was hanging on every single word that was said. Very interesting characters, both of them.

[I GOT SERVED]

Yeah, and the thing with the progressive view is that it almost always gets linked to optimism. It's hard to have an optimistic view or progressive view when the world has 2 major wars in one century and also a holocaust, not to mention the killing of thousands of people in Southeast Asia. "hey, we're making progress!" is a bit hard to swallow when interpreting events like those.

A lot of people strayed away from Condorcet & Comte's views on progressivism due to those events that I stated above. For those who stayed in the progressive school, they stopped believing that history would inevitably develop in one positive direction.

True, very true. It appears that the only way that the progressive view stays intact is because of the overflowing amounts of optimism. Progressive views appear to have great pros, but even worse cons.

I haven't heard of Condorcet & Comte's views before....I'll have to check that out on wikipedia

[Anarchist]

I'd argue that your assumptions here are wrong.

I had a nice big post written up giving examples in the ancient world of all of those things you said have never happened before, but then it was eaten by a network crash.

Nationalism. Colonialism. Populist sentiment having a major effect on politics. It's ALL happened before. And it's well documented.

Context is important, but many historians get mired in it and refuse to allow themselves to get at the deeper truths. That's not history, that's fact collecting. Don't get me wrong, it can be interesting, but it misses the point. There is wisdom to be gained by understanding the millenia of human endeavor that has gone before us. Saying that context matters in the extreme, to the point that little to none of what has happened in the past can be related to the present, reduces the study of history to little more than stamp collecting.

From what you've written I tend to agree, if we look at history not with each individual detail, but as a whole society where all events are interlinked we will see that many wars,revolutions,and other advancements all stem from the same causes.
(Ex) I am yet to hear of a war that was caused without some form of material gain.No matter the excuse of a nations involvement in it.

guiscard- while I agree with your analogy of written history, I am curious on what your opinions are for Ceaser being held in such high favor? I Cant find any written documents bashing Ceaser for the imperialist that he was.

I see progressive history as counter productive, for it is driven by a forward march(progressive can be pessemistic-AI as the closest example[Im not advocating that AI would be a bad thing]-)
While progressive shows the march of time it does not take the into consideration the true extent of what we have lost. How much knowledge has been lost?(Crusades) How many traditions?(that many miss now)

I see history as a structure built too weak, If built poorly the foundation will collapse, then we must gather all the pieces and start building again with a new architect. The recent ruins found off the coast of Japan are evidence of a great civilisation lost, what secrets did they take with them?
I mentioned the Mayans earlier, The Aztec cities used a layout of far more insight. Building canals and waterways, what some would consider a paradise. I look at New York and I do not imagine our temples lasting a thousand years. Nor do I envision a forest rising when it is gone.

[Guiscard]

I'd argue that your assumptions here are wrong.

I had a nice big post written up giving examples in the ancient world of all of those things you said have never happened before, but then it was eaten by a network crash.

Nationalism. Colonialism. Populist sentiment having a major effect on politics. It's ALL happened before. And it's well documented.

Context is important, but many historians get mired in it and refuse to allow themselves to get at the deeper truths. That's not history, that's fact collecting. Don't get me wrong, it can be interesting, but it misses the point. There is wisdom to be gained by understanding the millenia of human endeavor that has gone before us. Saying that context matters in the extreme, to the point that little to none of what has happened in the past can be related to the present, reduces the study of history to little more than stamp collecting.

I'd like to see that post then, because you'd be disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of historical opinion.

I don't really understand how you're second paragraph relates to what I am saying. Of course history is relevant to the present, and we can certainly learn lessons and draw conclusions about the probable results of our present actions by looking at those in the past. I'm arguing, however, that the cyclical view of history is, in the most part, an erroneous one. We can look at many and varied factors, but it is my view that what we see with hindsight as periods of prosperity followed by dark ages, or empire followed by barbarism, are simply structures applied with hindsight without really considering much of the actual historical evidence. You seem to make the overbearing statement that everything has happened before when in fact very little has. There were categorically not nation-states on the scale of those which formed after Westphalia. Imperialism is a very different thing in many different contexts. We have shadow empires, maritime trade empires, vulture empires... All can seem the same but all are very very different with a single label applied.

This also answers Jenos post, in a fashion, because I'd like to discuss what European historians have labelled the 'dark ages'. What every schoolchild is taught as a time of unrest, famine, economic and political recession was, when we actually consider the evidence, to a greater degree a time of progress and vast social change. The formation of medieval Europe was laid in the upheavals of the dark ages, and if we view it from a
different perspective we can see in that period the foundation of much of what is held as medieval glory. We see it as a 'dark age' compared to the apparent height of Rome, but it is very hard to place such a label on any period of history. All have their merits.

[Guiscard]

guiscard- while I agree with your analogy of written history, I am curious on what your opinions are for Ceaser being held in such high favor? I Cant find any written documents bashing Ceaser for the imperialist that he was.

You'll find many and varied assessments of Ceaser in any university library. Many would praise his military skill and his political guile, but I think with such a large passage of time we begin to see figures in an ambivalent light. Few serious historians would ignore his rampant imperialism, and theories on the motivations for Roman expansion are obviously explored greatly. I doubt any serious study would simply praise his imperialism, but then again it would seem like a slightly worthless enterprise to write a book on how horrible he was. History looks back analytically, not judgementally - or at least proper history does.

[CrazyAnglican]

Yeah, and the thing with the progressive view is that it almost always gets linked to optimism. It's hard to have an optimistic view or progressive view when the world has 2 major wars in one century and also a holocaust, not to mention the killing of thousands of people in Southeast Asia. "hey, we're making progress!" is a bit hard to swallow when interpreting events like those.

Hey now wait a minute we're killing each other with much greater reliability and efficiency now. That's progress.

I mean really WWI was when humans became deadlier than microbes, wasn't it?

[Guiscard]

Yeah, and the thing with the progressive view is that it almost always gets linked to optimism. It's hard to have an optimistic view or progressive view when the world has 2 major wars in one century and also a holocaust, not to mention the killing of thousands of people in Southeast Asia. "hey, we're making progress!" is a bit hard to swallow when interpreting events like those.

Hey now wait a minute we're killing each other with much greater reliability and efficiency now. That's progress.

I mean really WWI was when humans became deadlier than microbes, wasn't it?

In a way, though, that IS a more positive step forwards. We cannot control microbes. They don't obey laws or morals. We can, however, control human beings. At least to a degree.

The modern period does, actually, pose one of the greatest problems for cyclical history that we've ever witnessed! The globalisation of society is an entirely new phenomenon, especially in regards to air transport and the internet... We can go anywhere, do anything and potentially we have knowledge of the entire world. We cannot tell how this set of factors, so drastically different from anything that has gone before, will play out if we were faced with some of the issues that those who favour a cyclical approach believe will definitely appear.

[CrazyAnglican]

Yeah, and the thing with the progressive view is that it almost always gets linked to optimism. It's hard to have an optimistic view or progressive view when the world has 2 major wars in one century and also a holocaust, not to mention the killing of thousands of people in Southeast Asia. "hey, we're making progress!" is a bit hard to swallow when interpreting events like those.

Hey now wait a minute we're killing each other with much greater reliability and efficiency now. That's progress.

I mean really WWI was when humans became deadlier than microbes, wasn't it?

In a way, though, that IS a more positive step forwards. We cannot control microbes. They don't obey laws or morals. We can, however, control human beings. At least to a degree.

The modern period does, actually, pose one of the greatest problems for cyclical history that we've ever witnessed! The globalisation of society is an entirely new phenomenon, especially in regards to air transport and the internet... We can go anywhere, do anything and potentially we have knowledge of the entire world. We cannot tell how this set of factors, so drastically different from anything that has gone before, will play out if we were faced with some of the issues that those who favour a cyclical approach believe will definitely appear.

Yes, I agree that there are problems with the idea that history is cyclical, when technological and political advancements are taken into account. I do think that in spite of these advancements we are still dealing with basically the same human animal, with all the same motivations and psychological quirks that ancient man had. Basically, take a Cro-magnon baby and raise her in a modern environment and she'd fit in pretty well, I think. Of course, no way to prove that though.

I think that I agree with you here that an eclectic approach is best. I certainly agree that attributing an occurence to a divine figure is theology and not history.

[luns101]

The modern period does, actually, pose one of the greatest problems for cyclical history that we've ever witnessed! The globalisation of society is an entirely new phenomenon, especially in regards to air transport and the internet... We can go anywhere, do anything and potentially we have knowledge of the entire world. We cannot tell how this set of factors, so drastically different from anything that has gone before, will play out if we were faced with some of the issues that those who favour a cyclical approach believe will definitely appear.

If it plays out the way I'm thinking it will...the differences in the way that various cultures view things will erode away. There may well be a one-world culture that is so interconnected that previous differentiations go away. I don't think there will ever be a complete disappearance between cultures, but it will still be significant.

Assuming this is correct, then will historicism fade away as a school of viewing past events? I can hear Jacob Burckhardt rolling over in his grave now.

[got tonkaed]

The modern period does, actually, pose one of the greatest problems for cyclical history that we've ever witnessed! The globalisation of society is an entirely new phenomenon, especially in regards to air transport and the internet... We can go anywhere, do anything and potentially we have knowledge of the entire world. We cannot tell how this set of factors, so drastically different from anything that has gone before, will play out if we were faced with some of the issues that those who favour a cyclical approach believe will definitely appear.

bolded for mostly truth and quite possibly the engine that drives my hopefully eventual academic career.

[Jenos Ridan]

Yeah, and the thing with the progressive view is that it almost always gets linked to optimism. It's hard to have an optimistic view or progressive view when the world has 2 major wars in one century and also a holocaust, not to mention the killing of thousands of people in Southeast Asia. "hey, we're making progress!" is a bit hard to swallow when interpreting events like those.

Hey now wait a minute we're killing each other with much greater reliability and efficiency now. That's progress.

I mean really WWI was when humans became deadlier than microbes, wasn't it?

In a way, though, that IS a more positive step forwards. We cannot control microbes. They don't obey laws or morals. We can, however, control human beings. At least to a degree.

The modern period does, actually, pose one of the greatest problems for cyclical history that we've ever witnessed! The globalisation of society is an entirely new phenomenon, especially in regards to air transport and the internet... We can go anywhere, do anything and potentially we have knowledge of the entire world. We cannot tell how this set of factors, so drastically different from anything that has gone before, will play out if we were faced with some of the issues that those who favour a cyclical approach believe will definitely appear.

Yes, I agree that there are problems with the idea that history is cyclical, when technological and political advancements are taken into account. I do think that in spite of these advancements we are still dealing with basically the same human animal, with all the same motivations and psychological quirks that ancient man had. Basically, take a Cro-magnon baby and raise her in a modern environment and she'd fit in pretty well, I think. Of course, no way to prove that though.

I think that I agree with you here that an eclectic approach is best. I certainly agree that attributing an occurence to a divine figure is theology and not history.

Hence my corkscrew/cyclical-view.

[Anarchist]

I second that Jenos

[Jenos Ridan]

I second that Jenos

Thanks for understanding my reasoning.

[flashleg8]

Yeah, and the thing with the progressive view is that it almost always gets linked to optimism. It's hard to have an optimistic view or progressive view when the world has 2 major wars in one century and also a holocaust, not to mention the killing of thousands of people in Southeast Asia. "hey, we're making progress!" is a bit hard to swallow when interpreting events like those.

Hey now wait a minute we're killing each other with much greater reliability and efficiency now. That's progress.

I mean really WWI was when humans became deadlier than microbes, wasn't it?

Ha! Thats where your wrong. The Spanish Flu outbreak of 1918-1920 killed far more people than the Great war did.

P.S. Great thread. Enjoying the posts here (for the record I support the Marxist view)

P.P.S. Guiscard raised a great point with the Dark ages being a bit of a misnomer. There was a large amount of cultural, artistic work going on at this time with vast trade routes and intricate community governmental systems. It was traditionally written off by historians due to the small amount of written evidence surviving from this time (mainly biased histories from the early Christian monks). Modern archeology and historical research shows how diverse and sophisticated life really was in this period.

[I GOT SERVED]

P.P.S. Guiscard raised a great point with the Dark ages being a bit of a misnomer. There was a large amount of cultural, artistic work going on at this time with vast trade routes and intricate community governmental systems. It was traditionally written off by historians due to the small amount of written evidence surviving from this time (mainly biased histories from the early Christian monks). Modern archeology and historical research shows how diverse and sophisticated life really was in this period.

I just found this pic the other day, and it seems appropriate right now.

[flashleg8]

I just found this pic the other day, and it seems appropriate right now.

Interesting, though I disagree. This is a very Eurocentric idea, if you look at other world cultures you will see this as a time of rapid expansion of trade, spread of technology, advances in art, literature and science. I'm thinking in particular of the rise of Islam and the Chinese Tang and Song dynasties.

[Guiscard]

P.P.S. Guiscard raised a great point with the Dark ages being a bit of a misnomer. There was a large amount of cultural, artistic work going on at this time with vast trade routes and intricate community governmental systems. It was traditionally written off by historians due to the small amount of written evidence surviving from this time (mainly biased histories from the early Christian monks). Modern archeology and historical research shows how diverse and sophisticated life really was in this period.

I just found this pic the other day, and it seems appropriate right now.

I'd love to know where you found that graph from. The problem is that it gives no context as to what we use to measure 'scientific advancement'. It can be measured in so many different ways and in so many different contexts, as well as taking into account a less euro-centric view, that it makes such a simplistic assessment pretty damn silly.

As a random example, if we're looking at scientific advancement in terms of writing, communication and basic economic activity, the graph would have a massive peak at the beginning then level off for a time when markets remained generally stable. If we are looking at the advancement of 'political' science, as it were, the Greeks would have the peak, then perhaps again in the enlightenment.

edit: actually just looked at the source site - not too convincing.

[Anarchist]

I do hope you 2 were able to recognise the joke?