History

Moishe3rd wrote:

What planet do you live on?

It's called Earth, it's the third planet from a star called Sol in the milky way galaxy. It's small and out of the way, but I happen to like it. You can't miss it, lots of radio waves, pretty blue and white, golden sun. Stands out for light years.

0 Replies

Quote:

Because America won.

Oddly the American (somewhat less extreme) concentration camps are glossed over. Why? Because America won.

A) He was spanish. (And the English won).
B) Equal rights movements won.

Because the north won.

Because anti-corporatism won (the popular psyche anyway).

Because anti-imperialism won.

What do you mean?
America won? North won?
Is that the version of the winers? Or are you referring to historical facts?

0 Replies

Hi val (and others), sorry not to have replied earlier.

val wrote:

psychonerd

I understand the problems you described.
But I insist in this:
There are facts, and there is the interpretation of facts. (I know that, talking about facts is also problematic, but that has to do with epistemology, not History).

I would agree, but hasten to add that the problem is much more complex. Namely, there are also half-truths, and I think they play a huge role in indoctrination. I don't really think we can easily dissect the facts from the impact they have on the mind that gets to know about them.

Anyway... If I'm not much mistaken, the idea in the original post was to have history taught because it teaches us about our present, right? I think that the facts per se teach us nothing, but their interpretations do. And I think I am correct, without even taking a short look at my psych books to pull up any arguments, because I have seen history books change rapidly and I'm quite sure it had to do with ideology. The past has changed quite a few times -> because the present has changed. In the books, at least.

History is part of what we are, whether we know it or not. My country - Serbia - has fought recent wars over the old border of East and West Roman empire. I'm quite sure rarely anybody realizes this - it's an impact which is a thousand years old. Today we speak of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, of what each of these nations is like. We all had obligatory history lessons from grade 5 till the end of our schooling (bar college). We all learned about ancient times. Realizing about the impact that's left over has made me feel a richer person. But would this realization help prevent the wars? I seriously think that there is no chance. We still react, emotionally, to the present, and we still make most of our decisions based on our emotions (will discuss this further if you wish).

Quote:

So, I insist: Hitler existed, the 3rd Reich and it's laws existed, concentration camps existed. Those are facts.

Prove that the 3rd Reich existed Laughing

I think it was a figment of our imagination - it was just a piece of the European continent on planet Earth, where men occassionally put up some borders, but only on the roads that another man can travel by. Man called this the 3rd Reich, but man was wrong even within his own system of symbols - there was no monarch in this Reich, it was just a president of a political party and state. I forget if "Reich" means kingdom or "tsardom", but it's one of the two.

I'm just playing with logic a bit here, you can respond if you want to play as well, but you can also ignore my thoughts and I won't mind.

0 Replies

I just got a PM I tried to reply to, and was notified I need to post a bit more and behave nicely before I can use the feature. I'd just like to say hi to the Croatian enemy who contacted me Smile

It would be interesting to exchange the different versions of our recent history, without killing each other in the process.

p.s. - p.m: zensko sam, imam decka u Zagrebu, i, sto bi rekli hadezeovci - volim Hrvatsku! Buahahaha!

0 Replies

yeah, I had no idea about that new policy, found out only recently about it...

As for our recent history...main evil guy is in Hague, his best friend is dead...so....
We have some problems with "cash" to deal with still...you with some more "heroes", but I guess things are going in good direction after all.

0 Replies

MyOwnUsername wrote:

yeah, I had no idea about that new policy, found out only recently about it...

As for our recent history...main evil guy is in Hague, his best friend is dead...so....
We have some problems with "cash" to deal with still...you with some more "heroes", but I guess things are going in good direction after all.

Yeah... As far as our neighbourly contact are considered, the dust seems to be settling quite nicely. After all, Croatia is one of the rare countries we can travel to without a visa.

But let's not hijack the topic anymore. I'll keep posting, and we'll PM each other later on Smile

0 Replies

well, it is history after all Wink

(funny thing with visas is that there are few countries in Europe we still need visa for, but we need passport for most - however, we can enter both Slovenia and Italy with ID only. And since there are no borders inside EU anymore, we can actually enter all EU with ID only Smile

even funnier was period when we needed visas for Serbia, but were able to go to Montenegro only with ID on Debeli Brijeg).

as for private matters, I saw guy complaining that he is unable to send PM's and he has about 200 posts Razz

So, if you have anything private you can mail me to [Moderator: part of email address redacted at poster's request] (on yahoo account - just a little spam protection that I didn't wrote full adress, but you have enough information)

0 Replies

The problem with the question "do we learn from the mistakes of history" lies not so much in the definition of "history" but with the definition of "we".

To some extent we ARE our history since all concepts of self and group identity are acquired through socialization and contemporary linguistic categorizations(discussed above). Secondly, the question... of whether "learning" is about "control" of social dynamics..... is anthropomorphic in as much that it relates such "control" to the behaviour of individuals (and such control is itself problematic). This anthropomorhism ...e.g. of attributing individual concepts like "motivation" to groups.... is I think one of the chief stubbling blocks in any claims by historians to rigour or metatheory, even though the pitfalls of such anthropomorphism are well understood in the demarkation between "sociology" and "psychology".

So I agree with those above who say that the academic study of "history" is "useful" ONLY in as much as it is a general exercise in critical thinking. If anything at all can be "learned" from history it is that the fundamental nature of humans as aggressive tribal animals is unlikely to change irrespective of the definition of the tribal boundaries or the means by which they are disputed. "History" which serves to maintain or justify the boundaries merely exacerbates such "natural" polarities.

0 Replies

Quote:

So I agree with those above who say that the academic study of "history" is "useful" ONLY in as much as it is a general exercise in critical thinking. If anything at all can be "learned" from history it is that the fundamental nature of humans as aggressive tribal animals is unlikely to change irrespective of the definition of the tribal boundaries or the means by which they are disputed.

But, historically speaking, the above is inaccurate. Smile

We can learn from history that cultures have "funcamental natures."
We can learn from history how various cultures changed or altered these "fundamental natures."
What were the triggers?
What effect did their change have?
Did the "fundamental nature" of the culture in question revert or did it manifest itself in another form.
How?
How can these lessons be applied to the world today?

Quote:

"History" which serves to maintain or justify the boundaries merely exacerbates such "natural" polarities.

No, no, no. That is the beauty of History. It does not maintain or justify; it merely explains.
The "natural polarities" exist. History explains why.
And History can demonstrate the fashion in which to remake these "natural polarities."
The brave new world of a borderless Europe may grow and prosper, or it may result in dismal failure as the French wake up one day and realize they want to be French and not German and the Germans do the same... (just two minor possibilities in a vast panoply of "natural polarities.")
Or Eurarabia may wake up and find itself united under the banner of Dar Islam. Or it may simply settle into a conglomeration of states - a new sleepy backwater to the growing empires of China and the United States and Dar Islam... (But History tells us that this is the least likely scenario - when threatened with irrelevance, "tribalism" reasserts itself.)

"The world is so full of a number of things,
I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings."
- Robert Louis Stevenson

0 Replies

Moishe

You have assumed "cultures" exist and/or are defineable. You have also failed to define the nature of "explanation" especially with respect to the accusation of anthropomorphism.

To give an example of the arbitrariness of "history" , how shall we evaluate say "the causes of the rise of Hitler"....shall we (as Hitler did) cite an international financial debacle which resulted in the wall street crash....or shall we cite an antithesis to Communism?......or shall we cite the isolationist stance of the USA after WW1.....or shall we cite the influence of Satanic forces ? etc etc .......and would any of this "analysis" prevent the rise of "another Hitler" ? Surely all these "causes" are simplistic anthropomorphic rationalizations but they all have there acolytes.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Moishe

You have assumed "cultures" exist and/or are defineable. You have also failed to define the nature of "explanation" especially with respect to the accusation of anthropomorphism.

To give an example of the arbitrariness of "history" , how shall we evaluate say "the causes of the rise of Hitler"....shall we (as Hitler did) cite an international financial debacle which resulted in the wall street crash....or shall we cite an antithesis to Communism?......or shall we cite the isolationist stance of the USA after WW1.....or shall we cite the influence of Satanic forces ? etc etc .......and would any of this "analysis" prevent the rise of "another Hitler" ? Surely all these "causes" are simplistic anthropomorphic rationalizations but they all have there acolytes.

Militaristic Germanic culture (substitute peoples or tribal grouping if you so choose - culture is simply an easier descriptive)
plus
Thwarted Ambitions (sanctions of WWI; economic depression; loss of land; injured national pride; etc.)
plus
Culture of Diplomacy (too much to elucidate - read up on diplomacy between 1850 and WWII)
plus
Incredible New War Technology
plus
The Charismatic Leader Who Can Put It All Together (not unique to Germany - new ideologies were rampant and The Leaders to implement these ideologies appeared in practically every country in the world at this time)
Equals = German Conquests

Which inevitably leads to conflict with other Powers who will oppose.

The above postulates are historical, not isolated to the Twentieth Century and Nazi Germany.
Similiar or identical cause and effect postulates can and have been demonstrated in various scenarios such as the Persian/Greek city states conflicts or the English/French conflicts or a whole host of various conflicts.
One can learn from History.
Unless, of course, one dimisses History as arbitrary and not applicable to any "modern" scenario.

0 Replies

Well it seems to boil down to what we mean by "applicability". By finding "elements of similarity" in historical events we seem merely to be indulging in the general cognitive process of "pattern seeking" as in science. But unlike in science, there are no culturally neutral observations nor the means by which we can control the variables. i.e. historians indulge in "pseudo-science" which amounts to sophisticated retrospective story telling.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Well it seems to boil down to what we mean by "applicability". By finding "elements of similarity" in historical events we seem merely to be indulging in the general cognitive process of "pattern seeking" as in science. But unlike in science, there are no culturally neutral observations nor the means by which we can control the variables. i.e. historians indulge in "pseudo-science" which amounts to sophisticated retrospective story telling (letters in bold added).

Great phraseology that.... Meaningless and arbitrary, but a really cool turn of phrase. Smile

My premise is a simple one.
One can learn about present actions through studying history.
The opposition seems to be that this is not true because history is biased in favor of those who "win" and is therefore an inaccurate barometer of judging modern situations.
As my premise is easily applied with accuracy as to modern motivations and actions, I do not understand your "retrospective story telling" be it sophisticated or simplistic.
If you could perhaps point out a trend or situation or observation that does not fit into this paradigm, then I might be able to understand your objection.
Or visa-versa, if you could elucidate a sophisticated retrospective story that is used (retrospectively?) by "History" to illustrate how a modern event falls in line with an historical one, this would also be useful.
I am interested in your notion, but I do not understand it.

0 Replies

Moishe,

Perhaps if you had a look at a range of references to "cognition", "semantics" and "epistemology" you would get a feel for problems concerning "the urge to control" and the "observer-observed interaction". Such philosophical issues have been raised in "hard science" itself and by extrapolation are even more relevent to the study of the humanities. In this repect, your usage of terms like "accuracy" to describe historical events and even the concept of "an event" itself are subject to deconstruction.

Don't get me wrong! I can enjoy "history" like anyone else and can appreciate the "research efforts" as an intellectual exercise, but to deny the cultural selectivity involved or the relativity of terms like "winner/ loser" or "freedom fighter/terrorist" is the adult equivalent of believing in fairy tales. Data are highlighted or suppressed according to the needs of the writer...examples of suppression include: Churchills involvement in the pre-war gassing of the Kurds; or Mohammeds paedophilia....and we should bear in mind concept of the continuous rewriting of history by "The Ministry of Truth" in Orwells "1984"....and BTW, I read today that a new film is out about Hitler which highlights his "human qualities," and it is packing German cinemas !

0 Replies

Re: History

Laurwen SilverFox wrote:

Alright I was having this conversation with a fellow history major of mine. Do you think that everyone (I mean EVERYONE) should have to learn and understand the importance of major historical events (good and bad) so history won't repeat itself? Or is it doomed to repeat itself anyway, dispite what we do?
Basically are we in control of our own futures, and can we use past example to help us? Or are our basic human natures going to make us repeat it anyway?

Loaded question, I know ::is sorry::

I disagree with the concept that history repeats itself. History by definition is a process, and change, thus it cannot repeat itself, because of the concept of time. What once was will never be. That we may have similarities and similar patterns does not necessarily mean a repitition. Max Beerbohm once said that, History does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another.

In the end there are two ideas we must consider: history, and the philosophy of history. The initial deals with human action, of individuals who make choices and react to their given historical setting. The latter seeks to find patterns that there is some force that is guiding events to a specific course or goal. Often times the two are misunderstood which is a cause for confusion.

0 Replies

psychonerd

History is a collective (and selective) memory.
We are historical beings since we live in time.

As for facts, I think all facts are mental facts. And not only in History. Is a star a fact? Why? You see little bright lights at night, that is all. Saying "Star" is already to give a conceptual meaning, creating a mental fact.
History or Natural Science deal with mental facts.

But what I meant was a different situation: Cyracuz insisted that History is the version of the winers, and I tried to reply to that.

Proove that Hitler and 3rd Reich existed? How can I proove that? I can't even proove that there is someone named "psychonerd" whom I'm answrering.
But I can say that there is a general agreement, no matter the ideology is, about the existence of Hitler, the 3rd Reich and Concentration camps - neonazis accept all this. What was their meaning is different: there is no general agreement - and there Cyracuz position may be true.
The same way I can say that there a city named New York. I will never be able to proove it. It is only a matter of general agreement. And this is what I call a fact.

[

0 Replies

fresco

Your conception is not very far from mine, although we think of the problem in two different levels.
Allow me to start with an example:
I was born in Lisbon, and, now I live in Lisbon. What is Lisbon?
Well, let's suppose you never visited Lisbon. You take a book and read that Lisbon is the name of a city that is the capital of a country named Portugal. The book tells you the geographic position of Lisbon, number of inhabitants, and that it was probably built by the phoenicians some 2.200 years ago.
Those are consensual facts. I mean there is a general agreement about them.

But that is Lisbon and it isn't Lisbon.

Lisbon is it's memory: the historic places - I mean places where events took place according to general consensus - the sea, the light, the parks, the hills, the churches, the museums, the degraded quarters where african or east europe emigrants live, the air, the cars ...
Like everything else, Lisbon is an experience of events. The bar where the poet Pessoa passed his nights, becomes your experience if you enter there. History is not only a few descriptions in a book. Like our personal memory is not only a few biographic documents.

And that is why History is essential. Because it is History that gives "identity" to Lisbon - or New York, or London, or Oslo. But History as present experience - in fact, in each man the history begins from the start.

Facts are concepts and experience. And experience is the way we deal with consensual facts/concepts. Adolf Hitler is not only a consensual name in History books. It is my experience of it. Your experience of it. A nazi experience of it.

0 Replies

Re: History

Quote:

This is why in addition to history we need to understand psychology. Until we understand ourselves we're not going to be able to develop beyond where we are.

I agree with you. Just by learning everyone the good and bad in history,telling them what to do and not to do, wouldnt really work. Maybe for some but not everyone. Because there will always keep coming people who wanna start trouble if you know what I mean.
Sad, but true; the human being is a very primitive and quite stupid creature. There will always keep coming selfish, powerhungry people. And there will always be weak people who bow for them. So, if we wanna stop history from repeting itself I think we have to built up a steady ground for people. Like you said, we need to know and understand ourselves. And eachother for that mather.

But as I said. Our race is very, well, stupid. So If I´m gonna be realistic I dont think there will ever be this perfect society where everybody lives in harmony with eachother. Because if you think about, have there ever been a time in history when people havent been fighting eachother? Have there ever been a time of peace around the world? There have always been war, unjustice and so on. I think its a part of the human nature.
And there it comes;We need to understand that. And get to know ourselves. Only then MAYBE we can provent this sorta things from happening in the future.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know