1
   

What happened to History?

 
 
rayban1
 
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 09:27 pm
This is an important piece by one of our national treasures:

This excerpt is just a taste:

We rarely do. We argue endlessly over the academic freedom of a Ward Churchill -- plagiarist and faker -- as he becomes famous for calling the 3,000 murdered on September 11, 2001, "little Eichmanns." Few in the debate pause, if just for a moment, to think of the thousands of now anonymous Americans blown apart over Berlin or on Okinawa to ensure we can freely embarrass ourselves over this charlatan.



What happened to history?


By Victor Davis Hanson

Our society suffers from the tyranny of the present. Presentism is the strange affliction of assuming we ourselves created all our good things -- as if those without our technology who came before us lacked our superior knowledge and morality.
We naturally speak of our own offspring in reverential tones. Do this or that "for the children" -- youth who are the most affluent and leisured in the history of civilization. A new Medicare prescription drug benefit will add a mountain of national debt. Yet contemporary "seniors" as a group, even apart from the largess of Social Security and Medicare, are already the most insured cohort in our society.
We rarely mention our forebears. These were the millions of less fortunate Americans who built the country, handed down to us our institutions, and died keeping them safe.
Such amnesia about them was not always so. Public acknowledgment of prior generations characterized the best orations of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, who looked for guidance from, and gave thanks to, their ancestors.
We rarely do. We argue endlessly over the academic freedom of a Ward Churchill -- plagiarist and faker -- as he becomes famous for calling the 3,000 murdered on September 11, 2001, "little Eichmanns." Few in the debate pause, if just for a moment, to think of the thousands of now anonymous Americans blown apart over Berlin or on Okinawa to ensure we can freely embarrass ourselves over this charlatan.
Why do we not carry with us at the least the whispers of those who gave us what we have, from the Hoover Dam and Golden Gate Bridge to penicillin and relief from polio? In part, it is a simple ignorance of real history. The schools and university curricula today are stuffed with therapy -- drug counseling, AIDS warnings, self-improvement advice, sex education, women's/gay/Chicano/African-American/Asian/peace/urban/environmental/leisure studies. These are all well-meaning and nice -isms and -ologies that once would have been seen as nonacademic or left to the individual, family or community. But in the zero-sum game of daily instruction, something else was given up -- too often it was knowledge of the past.
What history we know we often judge as illiberal, forgetting we are the beneficiaries of past sacrifices and wealthy largely because of the toil of others who were far less secure. History is also not easy melodrama, but rather tragedy.
It was hard for women to be fully equal in the pre-industrial world of rampant disease and famine, when they had 15 pregnancies or so to ensure three to four children survived to keep the family alive. In the so-called intolerant past, 9 in 10 Americans worked on the farm until dark just to feed the populace; less than 1 in 100 do so now.
Before dismissing them as hopelessly biased, sexist, superstitious or prejudiced, at least concede that most of us sensitive suburbanites would collapse after a few minutes of scything, threshing, milling and baking to get our daily loaf.
To appreciate the value of history, we must also accept that human nature is constant and fixed across time and space. Our kindred forefathers in very dissimilar landscapes were nevertheless subject to the same emotions of fear, envy, honor and shame as our own.
In contrast, if one believes human nature is malleable -- or with requisite money and counseling can be "improved" -- history becomes just an obsolete science. It would be no different from 18th-century biology before the microscope or early genetics without knowledge of DNA. Once man before our time appears alien, the story of his past has very little prognostic value.
Finally, there is a radically new idea that most past occurrences are of equal interest -- far different from the Greeks' notion that history meant inquiry about "important" events that cost or saved thousands of lives, or provided ideas and lessons that transcended space and time.
The history of the pencil, girdle or cartoon offers us less wisdom about events, past and present, than does knowledge of U.S. Grant, the causes of the Great Depression or the miracle of Normandy Beach. A society that cannot distinguish between the critical and the trivial of history predictably will also believe a Scott Peterson merits as much attention as the simultaneous siege of Fallujah, or that a presidential press conference should be pre-empted for Paris Hilton or Donald Trump.
Reverence for those who came before us ensures humility about our own limitations. It restores confidence that far worse crises than our own -- slavery, the great flu epidemic, or World War II -- were endured with far less resources.
By pondering those now dead, we create a certain pact: We, too, will do our part for another generation not yet born to enjoy the same privilege of America, which at such great cost was given to us by others whom we have now all but forgotten.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 664 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 03:38 am
Victor Hanson, if he doesn't start writing better than this pap, will never be a national treasure. If I was grading this paper from a high school senior I would give it a C-, and he would feel lucky to get it.

Look at this paragraph:
Quote:
What history we know we often judge as illiberal, forgetting we are the beneficiaries of past sacrifices and wealthy largely because of the toil of others who were far less secure. History is also not easy melodrama, but rather tragedy. (sic) It was hard for women to be fully equal in the pre-industrial world of rampant disease and famine, when they had 15 pregnancies or so to ensure three to four children survived to keep the family alive. In the so-called intolerant past, 9 in 10 Americans worked on the farm until dark just to feed the populace; less than 1 in 100 do so now.


That's right. It's not a paragraph. It's a jumble of unrelated thoughts and musings, a criticism of history, I think, without any specific historical reference. He swoops from pre-industrial pregnant women to American farm workers feeding the populace. Are they supposed to be two examples of the same idea expressed in the lead sentence? Are we to assume the women were Americans or just pre-industrial baby makers finding it hard to be fully equal (sic)? Clue: look up the meaning of equal.


There's more to re-write here than to read.

Joe(Try to remember to connect thoughts to each other.)Nation
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 06:11 am
I make it a point never to read anything by Victor Davis Hanson. His tripe sends my bill for headache painkillers sky high.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 06:54 am
At least tripe is edible, this stuff cannot be digested except perhaps by the bovine type sheeple who may or may not have four stomachs. I would think it would take at least that many to deal with:

Quote:
To appreciate the value of history, we must also accept that human nature is constant and fixed across time and space. Our kindred forefathers in very dissimilar landscapes were nevertheless subject to the same emotions of fear, envy, honor and shame as our own.


You talk about lack of understanding, yeah, the landscapes were different, but the people were just like you and me. Sure. And it's nice that he listed all the important emotions: Fear, envy, honor and shame, not exactly the Boy Scout Oath, but close.

Joe(Pass the Advil...and the Pepto) Nation
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:51 am
Oh really

I suppose both of you would favor and savor the bovine excrement put out by Noam Chomsky? Our very own Anarchist who worships Castro.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:06 am
Joe Nation wrote:
At least tripe is edible, this stuff cannot be digested except perhaps by the bovine type sheeple who may or may not have four stomachs. I would think it would take at least that many to deal with:

Quote:
To appreciate the value of history, we must also accept that human nature is constant and fixed across time and space. Our kindred forefathers in very dissimilar landscapes were nevertheless subject to the same emotions of fear, envy, honor and shame as our own.


You talk about lack of understanding, yeah, the landscapes were different, but the people were just like you and me. Sure. And it's nice that he listed all the important emotions: Fear, envy, honor and shame, not exactly the Boy Scout Oath, but close.

Joe(Pass the Advil...and the Pepto) Nation


You seem not to comprehend what you read.........when you quoted Hanson you seem to think that he thought people of today are different when actually he is agreeing with you that because human nature is fixed and unchanging we are exactly the same people as our forefathers......merely facing different challenges. Your illusion that you are qualified to grade anyone's paper is ludicrous. You must be a pompous, egotistical college freshmen who still thinks his parents are stupid hicks.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:07 am
Oh no you don't, we have to stay on this guy Victor, who is a what again-- a classicist and historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution? Do you suppose he was having an off day when he wrote what you posted or is it a prime example of his wit (where?) and depth of knowledge?

This is really kind of sad. Is that why you are helping to flog his book?

Joe(I am willing to help with the rewrites. Not really.)Nation
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:30 am
No, you mis-understood. When I wrote
Quote:
You talk about lack of understanding, yeah, the landscapes were different, but the people were just like you and me. Sure.


I was repeating what he said in my own words. Maybe instead of 'Sure.' I should have written bullhockey so you could tell I was being sarcastic.

Human nature is fixed across space and time

, Bullhockey.

Maybe in his history books, but in mine, humans have changed just a bit since 100,000 BC. Some have been left behind perhaps he is referring to himself as one of the unchanged primitives who did live their lives in what were they again? fear, envy, shame and oh yes,,,,, honor. (Why do I hear "One of these things is not like the other?" is my head?)

and
Quote:
You must be a pompous, egotistical college freshmen who still thinks his parents are stupid hicks.


Um. No, not pompous, more humble than most, really, not very egotistical either, and though I feel strangely complimented by your assertion of my youth, I assure that I have left my salad days well behind me.

Now, could we leave me out of this and talk about your national treasure and his (gulp) ideas?

I know you think the world of him but really have a good look and then get back to us.

Joe(Freshman rule!)Nation
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 11:39 am
I'm still trying to figure out what message we're all supposed to get from that painfully tortured bit of prose. I freely admit that I have great difficulty in trying to read it word-for-word. I only bring this up because, so far, we've been discussing the qualifications of Prof. Hanson, not the substance of his screed. What's this about 'history'?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 11:51 am
Well, rayban, I'm not really that good in classics, since my historical studies focuse on different and more general topics.

However, as far as I remember from universities, Victor Hanson's views of classic history are ... ehem ... views of a classical historian with a special view of history.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 09:05 pm
Joe wrote:

<Maybe in his history books, but in mine, humans have changed just a bit since 100,000 BC. Some have been left behind perhaps he is referring to himself as one of the unchanged primitives who did live their lives in what were they again? fear, envy, shame and oh yes,,,,, honor. (Why do I hear "One of these things is not like the other?" is my head?)>

So this sort of thinking and writing makes you qualified to grade the papers of a brilliant PHD and a long time college professor who has written many published books (that have received rave reviews all over the world). It is small wonder that you don't admire Dr. Hanson........ you are incapable of comprehending his thinking.

I think you will find that every human still will have the same reaction to danger........fight or flight. You will still find the same percentage of psychopaths, sociopaths, and the same percentage with learning disabilities, the same percentage of those with high IQs, moderately high IQs and the same percentage with average IQs, and so on. You will still find the same percentage of those who will be corrupted by power, the same percentage of murderers, the same percentage of those who are filled with compassion, the same percentage who worship money, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

One example that I like to use in the case of someone with your mentality is that of Karl Marx........he based an entire ideology on a false premise.......that human nature was malleable when he wrote: To each according to need, from each according to abilities. In other words each human could be brainwashed to respond in accordance with this false premise. If you believe this mush Joe then you are correct but look at the evidence. In Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, they "Indoctrinate" (brain wash) humans. If that didn't/doesn't work, they just killed them. In Cambodia they didn't waste time brain washing they just killed all the educated people in the hope that they could brain wash the remainder on the mistaken premise that they could fill an empty head with their mush. This goes back to Dr. Hanson's paragraph in which he talked about human nature being fixed and NOT malleable.

I won't waste any more of my time attempting to persuade you of anything Joe because your mind is closed to anything except your own mistaken perceptions of reality or maybe the pot just fried your brain.

If Dr. Hanson's writing tortures you so.....try reading Kant. In case you don't know who he is, try Google.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 10:43 pm
This piece by Hanson is unintelligible.

And before you round on me with a personal attack as you did on Joe just think of this - you don't know me. You know nothing about me. By all means critique what I write here - if I was worried about someone taking a shot at what I write I'd lurk - but do not attack me personally as you just did with Joe. That is insufferably rude and arrogant.

The fact is that I found Hanson's stuff incoherent. I'm not going to pretend I'm brilliant, I'm frequently in awe of the arguments I read here (but not awestruck).

I have read Kant for years (and I admit I'm still trying to understand him) and yes he is difficult. But we still talk about Kant - how long will we be talking about Hanson?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 11:10 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Victor Hanson, if he doesn't start writing better than this pap, will never be a national treasure. If I was grading this paper from a high school senior I would give it a C-, and he would feel lucky to get it.

Look at this paragraph:
Quote:
What history we know we often judge as illiberal, forgetting we are the beneficiaries of past sacrifices and wealthy largely because of the toil of others who were far less secure. History is also not easy melodrama, but rather tragedy. (sic) It was hard for women to be fully equal in the pre-industrial world of rampant disease and famine, when they had 15 pregnancies or so to ensure three to four children survived to keep the family alive. In the so-called intolerant past, 9 in 10 Americans worked on the farm until dark just to feed the populace; less than 1 in 100 do so now.


That's right. It's not a paragraph. It's a jumble of unrelated thoughts and musings, a criticism of history, I think, without any specific historical reference. He swoops from pre-industrial pregnant women to American farm workers feeding the populace. Are they supposed to be two examples of the same idea expressed in the lead sentence? Are we to assume the women were Americans or just pre-industrial baby makers finding it hard to be fully equal (sic)? Clue: look up the meaning of equal.


There's more to re-write here than to read.

Joe(Try to remember to connect thoughts to each other.)Nation


Goodfielder

This is what Joe first responded to Dr. Hanson's piece which I found arrogant and childish. Perhaps you have not read what I was responding to.

First of all do you agree with what I have just said about human nature which is where I agree with Dr. Hanson?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 11:26 pm
Dr. Hanson summarizes his intent very succinctly in the following sentence

"A society that cannot distinguish between the critical and the trivial of history predictably will also believe a Scott Peterson merits as much attention as the simultaneous siege of Fallujah, or that a presidential press conference should be pre-empted for Paris Hilton or Donald Trump."
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 01:20 am
rayban1 wrote:
Dr. Hanson summarizes his intent very succinctly in the following sentence

"A society that cannot distinguish between the critical and the trivial of history predictably will also believe a Scott Peterson merits as much attention as the simultaneous siege of Fallujah, or that a presidential press conference should be pre-empted for Paris Hilton or Donald Trump."


That must be my problem I think - an inability to concentrate. Okay I have stepped back and taken a deep breath. My reaction to that paragraph? I agree with him when he points out that we're interested in trivial matters rather than earth-shattering events. I don't know who to blame but I'm looking very hard.

But when it comes to what is critical and trivial in history I'm somewhat ambivalent. I didn't study history at university though I enjoyed it at high school and still enjoy it. As a kid I was taught history was about great people, huge events and significant dates. As an adult and able to choose my own curriculum, as it were, I find myself fascinated by the trivial. I am more interested in the quirky little events in history than the big screen approach. I enjoy everyday life in historical periods rather than the antics of Emperors and Kings. So I suppose going back and doing history at university is out of the question for me Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 04:46 am
Quote:
....You will still find the same percentage of psychopaths, sociopaths, and the same percentage with learning disabilities, the same percentage of those with high IQs, moderately high IQs and the same percentage with average IQs, and so on. You will still find the same percentage of those who will be corrupted by power, the same percentage of murderers, the same percentage of those who are filled with compassion, the same percentage who worship money, etc., etc., ad nauseam.


You got the as nauseam part right. So now we have Dr. Hanson's
Quote:
Human nature is fixed across space and time

and you've got the percentages to prove it. Good. What was the percentage of murderers in 1960AD New York City as opposed to the City of Ur in 4500 BC? Answer: the same. yup. Human nature has been in stasis throughout time and circumstance, so the number of depressed people with character flaws resulting in a lack of socialability skills in Tempe, Arizona 1924AD is the same as those in the jungles of Kalimatan during the Ice Age.

This is the guy who thinks we don't remember history?

"
Quote:
A society that cannot distinguish between the critical and the trivial of history predictably will also believe a Scott Peterson merits as much attention as the simultaneous siege of Fallujah, or that a presidential press conference should be pre-empted for Paris Hilton or Donald Trump."


Socrates used to complain about the same thing, how the youth of his day were wasting their time on triviality. Not really a profound thought from either gentlemen, and well...

We aren't giving your good professor his due. Tonight I think would be a good night to go through your original post to mine out the great thoughts contained therein.

Joe(grinding his pick)Nation
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 05:33 am
I think Hanson was right to bemoan the general lack of study of history. And I think he was also right to say human beings are basically the same now as 100,000 years ago. The adrenalin gland still kicks in the same way. The emotions of homo sapiens havent changed. But the amount of "good" and "bad" going on at anyone time is determined by the type of society and its environment and the degree to which those factors affect the individual. (imo hastens to add)

Whether his piece was well written or not is of no interest to me.

History is important. Its blindingly obvious that you cant appreciate whats going on in the present without a knowledge of what went on in the past. But what is going on in the present is a matter for the ruling elites, not the ordinary people. Hence its no surprise imo to find the study of history quietly relegated to the arcane pursuit of academics.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 06:08 am
Excellent post Steve - I second every word.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 08:19 am
Laughing
Steve......it's time for me to re-examine my position........you seem to be agreeing with mine Shocked

Have a nice day basking in the afterglow of a Labour victory no matter how slim. BTW.......care to offer an opinion of how many months before Blair steps aside for the heir apparent or is this speculation just the making of headlines for the likes of Andrew Gilligan and other unscrupulous headline seekers.

rayban
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What happened to History?
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2025 at 11:38:55