First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Time and time again - a discussion of the use of historical knowledge.
104 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Horny aren't ya
Offline
Posted 8/11/07
i can tell you this world is filled with Deja Vu.

I hope you all realize this
42015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Fort Meade, MD
Offline
Posted 8/11/07

henz_lan wrote:

Does history repeat itself?

Dear god yes it does.
not exactly, but similar styles and similar circumstances.
IE iraq war.
We all were gung ho for it when congress decided unanimously to go, and now are wanting our soldiers home etc etc.
this is very similar to the Viet Nam war (policing action) when the french asked us to join them for assistance, the country was behind it. But when the draft heated up, the support for the war died.



Is it worth learning history?

History is always worth learning, if you don't know where you came from, how can you know how far you need to go? Or to figure out the problems of the past to fix the present or the future.


What counts as history?

Anything in the past. IMO. If it's already been done, it's history, if you can't change it, it's history. You should learn from it though.


How does history affect the present?

It's the stepping stones mankind has walked upon to get where they are now. Without these then we wouldn't be where we are currently.
This also applies in personal history as well.


Is history fact?

Not always. I mean the history of the greeks ie mythology they took as fact, yet we have deduced that it's not real. (logical deduction)

104 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Horny aren't ya
Offline
Posted 8/11/07
Did you all know that the pentagons grand opening was on September 11th ?
37756 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / アメリカ
Offline
Posted 8/11/07
holy hell the pentagon was made in 1 day?????
104 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Horny aren't ya
Offline
Posted 8/11/07
No.....stay in school sypris.

i meant it was created on September 11th....

oh and i also think learning history is ideal...because most things people do now are taking ideas from the past and reforming them
3928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Jersey
Offline
Posted 8/11/07
Personally I think some of these examples given are a bit of a stretch like the UN and League of Nations things. I think Eros summed it up the right way here. The idea of "history repeating itself" is ambiguous itself.

I personally don't think we learn history to prevent the similar problems from occurring. Sure you can draw parallels to previous times, but you fail to take consideration in a lot of other things. I would be weary of drawing immediate parallels between a lot of your examples, but hey who am I?

The most important thing about history is to understand why things came to be. I don't agree that we use it to learn about what to prevent in the future. Each major event is invariably different from the next. Sure we can draw some broad generalizations that would help later on, but there are fundamental differences in each experience that keeps them discrete. However when you get down to it, these are nothing more than vague declarations that can be applied to a variety of situations with the same amount of uncertainty in their outcome. You can stereotype these events all you want, but in the end all you come up with are typical cliche statements that only have a slight air of authority. There are too many potential complications to properly predict any catastrophes so it's of little use.

History is not fact. You will never find a single article which is completely impartial. Humans obviously have an opinion about everything. Through the choice of words or tone, a historian can significantly affect our views on history directly or unconsciously. We don't know anything about true history because we can never get around this basic roadblock. We can always try, but that always yields more problems and issues.

History can be anything you want. There is no prerequisite for it to count as history. Even the most mundane of things can be recorded down as significant so there isn't anything that is completely pointless. Of course I won't read any of those autobiographical accounts of everyday life, but hey it counts as history mundane as it is. As Whitman put it, the most mundane are usually the most significant in life.
2937 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / San Francisco CA...
Offline
Posted 8/11/07

sypris wrote:

holy hell the pentagon was made in 1 day?????


not anything can be created in 1 day


jamehze wrote:

The most important thing about history is to understand why things came to be. I don't agree that we use it to learn about what to prevent in the future. Each major event is invariably different from the next. Sure we can draw some broad generalizations that would help later on, but there are fundamental differences in each experience that keeps them discrete. However when you get down to it, these are nothing more than vague declarations that can be applied to a variety of situations with the same amount of uncertainty in their outcome. You can stereotype these events all you want, but in the end all you come up with are typical cliche statements that only have a slight air of authority. There are too many potential complications to properly predict any catastrophes so it's of little use.


Thats one of the important factors of history.... but it isnt because we need to know the origins of everything. History also serves as References in some actions we do today. just like we learn from the masters before masters.



History is not fact. You will never find a single article which is completely impartial. Humans obviously have an opinion about everything. Through the choice of words or tone, a historian can significantly affect our views on history directly or unconsciously. We don't know anything about true history because we can never get around this basic roadblock. We can always try, but that always yields more problems and issues.


History CAN be fact and always be... but its true it may not be one. Governments has the power to change its own History. depending if the government has a controlled rule of law. Governments say they won the war and the other may say they won too so it would conflict whos the victor of the battle. Take for instance the DPRK (democratic people's Republic of Korea) their propaganda movement changed their own history but being the victors of the korean war when in fact they won because of the chinese, if the chinese wouldnt be there then will they say that they would still win?... but above all history is a fact.



History can be anything you want. There is no prerequisite for it to count as history. Even the most mundane of things can be recorded down as significant so there isn't anything that is completely pointless. Of course I won't read any of those autobiographical accounts of everyday life, but hey it counts as history mundane as it is. As Whitman put it, the most mundane are usually the most significant in life.


Unknown or famous, Victory or loss, success and failure, Blood and Glory, everything is written in history. its still continuing writting what is happening today. history is ment for us for the future, we learn from it to either: avoid mistakes, or find out origins. situations related to Iraq in the future will happen and its eminent.



Eros wrote:
Such a phrase as, "history repeat itself", is terribly vague. What exactly is meant? I venture nothing much exactly much of the time except a vague pointing out of the notion that something occurred before is occurring again. I came on CR yesterday, and I came on it again today. Or simply noting that genocide (a general term) occurred over and over. In that sense, of course. In the sense of exact repetition? Of course not.


You venture much but ddnt see it because it isnt clearly shown, but you have to analyze the situation before you compare.

Yes History repeats itself not in a way that it happened the same way as before but in a totally different one. we initially think this event might be new but to look closer to it, we compare what had happened before.


~~~~~
Please don't triple post next time. Use the edit button.
~ edsamac
1075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/07

henz_lan wrote:

Does history repeat itself?


Yes, it does. Here's an example that I am using with my own opinion. In 1933 Hitler staged a false flagged attack burning down his own Parliament building and blamed it on terrorists. After that he was able to pass the Enabling Act due to blaming it on terrorism. Being a 9/11 conspiracist I believe this reflects off Hitlers action. The Twin Towers blew up, we blamed it on terrorists, and passed the Patriot Act and Homeland security.

Is it worth learning history?
If it affects millions of people, yes.

What counts as history?
Anything done in the past.

How does history affect the present?
It changes the way you view something.

Is history fact?
Depends if it's true. If it's false then its not fact, but if its true then its fact.



78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 8/11/07

Linkx wrote:
What counts as history?
Anything done in the past.


Not necessarily. So the day I slipped on a burrito and broke my leg is considered History? It is part of the past, but it does not necessarily reflect upon something that can be considered as "History".

The basis for historical importance in the human context can be summarized in what is called SHE (Significant Human Experiences). Mainly, these are events that have been documented (historical basis), usually in the form of a concrete existence (usually documents. Oral history falls under pre-historical tradition), and these have shown a remarked impact on the people during that time.

It's for this reason that most historical events only gain significance after they have occurred. It is the present generation the scrutinizes the actions of the past, and determines what events were significant or not. Sadly, patriarchal tradition dominates most of history (hence the term: "his" + "Story"). Many actions of women and other people will be left unheard of in the annals of human history. These are significant human events, but they have been forgotten, buried, ignored... considered insignificant in the context of "human history".

It's for this reason that events in the past cannot be the only basis for saying that something is "historical". Sadly, our history, and our concept of it, is highly colored. But that doesn't mean we can't learn anything from it. There is much to learn from it, but we can only truly understand it as a blueprint for the future if we keep our minds open, and not subject ourselves to the simplistic ideal that "history repeats itself".
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/07

Being a 9/11 conspiracist


Nine Eleven conspiracist? My, my…


jamehze wrote:
I personally don't think we learn history to prevent the similar problems from occurring. Sure you can draw parallels to previous times, but you fail to take consideration in a lot of other things. I would be weary of drawing immediate parallels between a lot of your examples, but hey who am I?


The most important thing about history is to understand why things came to be. I don't agree that we use it to learn about what to prevent in the future. Each major event is invariably different from the next. Sure we can draw some broad generalizations that would help later on, but there are fundamental differences in each experience that keeps them discrete. However when you get down to it, these are nothing more than vague declarations that can be applied to a variety of situations with the same amount of uncertainty in their outcome. You can stereotype these events all you want, but in the end all you come up with are typical cliche statements that only have a slight air of authority. There are too many potential complications to properly predict any catastrophes so it's of little use.


I think I disagree. There’s an old dictum that I heard from a creative writing teacher. He said, “Every story has already been told, just in a different way.” This being said I think that the “whys” behind historical events are often almost entirely similar. I do agree that understanding the “whys” is highly important, but what is the value of that knowledge beyond personal interest if we don’t put them into play?

In ancient Athens they had a name for savagely ending rebellions, even when the rebels threw down their arms. The hope had been to discourage future riots, but the result actually came in fewer surrenders. As a result one politician suggested that they be more forgiving and less strict to recaptures rogue provinces. This happened to work out very well, and although it didn’t completely end rebellion it did make it so that future rebellions were more easily talked out of full on assault.

I also feel history is important as a means of understanding the Human psyche on large scale.


History is not fact. You will never find a single article which is completely impartial. Humans obviously have an opinion about everything. Through the choice of words or tone, a historian can significantly affect our views on history directly or unconsciously. We don't know anything about true history because we can never get around this basic roadblock. We can always try, but that always yields more problems and issues.



That’s a good point. Can I ask you your opinion on something, Jam? If that is true then would you say that there is no -fact?- I mean…I think, therefore I am. In all actuality there is always a certain ambiguous touch to existence itself. I know I’m real, but how do I know that you’re not a figment of my imagination? I can only assume, which is what we do with history.

I think there is a difference between truth and reality. Reality is a matter of perception. Everybody has their own reality. Truth, on the other hand, is universal. History can be fact, though we may be ambivalent in our belief of it. Don’t you think?

I was happy to see your name on a post, my friend.


That’s a good point. Can I ask you your opinion on something, Jam? If that is true then would you say that there is no -fact?- I mean…I think, therefore I am. In all actuality there is always a certain ambiguous touch to existence itself. I know I’m real, but how do I know that you’re not a figment of my imagination? I can only assume, which is what we do with history.

I think there is a difference between truth and reality. Reality is a matter of perception. Everybody has their own reality. Truth, on the other hand, is universal. History can be fact, though we may be ambivalent in our belief of it. Don’t you think?

I was happy to see your name on a post, my friend.
1075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/07

edsamac wrote:


Linkx wrote:
What counts as history?
Anything done in the past.


Not necessarily. So the day I slipped on a burrito and broke my leg is considered History? It is part of the past, but it does not necessarily reflect upon something that can be considered as "History".


Imo, yes. There is many theories of what history really is.

his·to·ry /ˈhɪstəri, ˈhɪstri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[his-tuh-ree, his-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.

Imo, History = Past. That's just my opinion however.




SeraphAlford wrote:


Being a 9/11 conspiracist


Nine Eleven conspiracist? My, my…



Something wrong with that?

78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 8/11/07
^ You just took a dictionary definition. It's not so much that you know what it means, but the implications of what history is. In it's strictest sense, it is the study of the past, but from a practical standpoint, what events in the past are worth investigating and putting together to form a body of knowledge known as "history".

That snippet from whatever dictionary you took that from is only doing what it's supposed to do... define the term. Human history, however, shows that meaning is added to the term, and even the practice itself gives meaning to these "past experiences". My history does not necessarily concern the history of man, in general, as this thread is trying to talk about. So the focus, really, is on significant human events.

Don't get your terms mixed up. I see no point in what the etymology and pronunciation had to do either with proving your point.
4738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / ...T_T!!
Offline
Posted 8/11/07
i love history!.. ..and learning from it can be quite useful at times..only if you know how to use what uve learned..
1075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/07

edsamac wrote:

^ You just took a dictionary definition. It's not so much that you know what it means, but the implications of what history is. In it's strictest sense, it is the study of the past, but from a practical standpoint, what events in the past are worth investigating and putting together to form a body of knowledge known as "history".


I did take it from the dictionary. I wasn't aware we we're talking about history in it's strictest sense. If we are, then you are right. It strictest sense would be known as important pieces of information and knowledge from the past.



That snippet from whatever dictionary you took that from is only doing what it's supposed to do... define the term. Human history, however, shows that meaning is added to the term, and even the practice itself gives meaning to these "past experiences". My history does not necessarily concern the history of man, in general, as this thread is trying to talk about. So the focus, really, is on significant human events.


I thought the question was asking about history in general, and not history of man. But you have well explained that the thread was actually talking about the history of man.



Don't get your terms mixed up. I see no point in what the etymology and pronunciation had to do either with proving your point.


They don't. I left that there for people to see that I copied that from a dictionary source.

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/07

edsamac wrote:

^ You just took a dictionary definition. It's not so much that you know what it means, but the implications of what history is. In it's strictest sense, it is the study of the past, but from a practical standpoint, what events in the past are worth investigating and putting together to form a body of knowledge known as "history".

That snippet from whatever dictionary you took that from is only doing what it's supposed to do... define the term. Human history, however, shows that meaning is added to the term, and even the practice itself gives meaning to these "past experiences". My history does not necessarily concern the history of man, in general, as this thread is trying to talk about. So the focus, really, is on significant human events.

Don't get your terms mixed up. I see no point in what the etymology and pronunciation had to do either with proving your point.


Yeah. What he said. There’s a ‘suggestion’ or ‘connotation’ behind every word. The dictionary only gives you a technical and literal meaning, but how often are we speaking technically and literally?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.