We often hear "history repeats itself" or that those who ignore it are "deemed to repeat it." And certainly, on the surface it looks that way. But does it?
I never felt comfortable with this even though I could never articulate it - I still can't. The vibe and sense I get doesn't jive.
The whole notion implies history is one long circular motion. Sure, there are universal principals and themes common to all threads in history however this doesn't mean it repeats itself. If it did how would we progress? If we know it's coming why think forward? Why dream? After all, it will repeat itself. All we need to do is wait. Furthermore, it implies the past are deterministic links to the present and future. We just have to follow the patterns.
Are we already mapped out in such a manner?
History, to me, is linear with many circles imprinted upon it. This is why we see similarities to the past but each circle is its own set of special circumstances.
For example, just because Germany and France failed to invade Russia doesn't mean it can't be invaded. If, say, China were to ever invade maybe it has a different strategy or seen a weakness in Russian defenses not observed by others. Maybe the geography on the Chinese-Russian borders are different and waiting to be exploited.
I'm just loosely illustrating a point.
We can't always look to the past. The past sometimes lies. We look to FDR for the way he handled the Depression. But new scholarship shows his hand in it was a little more complex - and less impressive. Those who support massive bail outs, for example, the claim "if you don't learn from the past" can't really find solace in FDR. Just the folly in their assumptions.
I deliberately and superficially use two simple examples.
Nonetheless, it's a question worth pondering.
The Empires come and go, the genocides repeat themselves over the centuries and the conditions under which they happen remain so similar that a shrewed analysis can predict where the next one will happen. Depressions and recessions are like clockwork yet from one to the other we do not learn how to prevent them.
ReplyDeleteYes each has it's own set of circumstances...but they have the same genealogy.
Yes, but doesn't that have more meaning if it happens to the same society twice? Does lightning strike at the same place?
ReplyDeleteAre these mere coincidences given they happened in different places, committed by different peoples at different intervals in history?
Genocide happens but is it proof of history repeating itself?
The problem is that one society does not learn from another society's errors, nor successes for that matter. Otherwise humanity as a whole would have learned to solve the problems in a sensible way.
ReplyDeleteOf course History has traditionnally been taught in such a boring and inadequate way that what we have learned is of little use.
Good article, very thought-provoking! I don't agree that history is doomed to repeat itself either. Circumstances can look similar but they are never going to be exactly the same as they were in the past.
ReplyDeleteIt's still important to study history though because we can learn a lot from the past and see how the past affects the present!
Ok, you have provoked the Man of Roma lol, so I’ll just shoot this.
ReplyDeleteI think that history teaches us not because of repetition, since circumstances are always different (technology evolves, supplying an army invading Russia is today totally different, there are nukes around etc.), so repetition cannot really occur, as Rebecca says. History teaches us because this exact moment can be somewhat compared to the frame of a movie, or this period to a section of a movie. I can better understand this movie frame or section if I have an idea, even a rough idea, of the previous frames or sections.
For example I can better establish trends etc. It is like a line graph on a timeline. The larger the timeline the better I can see trends. Two months prices fluctuation is better than two weeks. I’ve mentioned in this blog the case of India and China. “All right - one might say - they are ‘progressing’ a bit, so what.” But if we consider that for 3 thousand years (years arbitrary) they were always at the top of wealth, science and technology and that they went down only for 300 hundreds years (years arbitrary), which is only 12 generations, we might consider this ‘progressing’ from a different perspective. Of course this doesn’t prove they will progress again and reach the top, but one cannot deny history (like stock graphs) provide some insight on possible trends.
But the trend thing was just an example. History to me is really like a story or a movie. Seeing just a small section of it doesn’t provide me much information. I’m like blind.
PS
ReplyDeleteI forgot. Of course a better understanding of the present, the trends etc. allows me a bigger power on planning the future.
PPS
ReplyDeleteRemember though I am not a pro historian.
MOR, but doesn't history help to unfold patterns? What do you mean you're not "pro-historian?"
ReplyDeleteRebecca, welcome. Glad the subject was sufficiently interesting enough for you to comment. Yes, history should be a guide.
PC, "The problem is that one society does not learn from another society's errors, nor successes for that matter. Otherwise humanity as a whole would have learned to solve the problems in a sensible way."
Doesn't this prove my point - or at least lend credence to it?
In a way, yes, but my point is that ignorance of History is the main culprit.
ReplyDeleteI'm brushing up these things after a long time. It's tough stuff. I should think about it. The concept of 'pattern' also seems to me too vague (like 'structure' for the French). I meant I am a dilettante.
ReplyDeleteYes, it might be best I do the same!
ReplyDelete