What History Doesn't Teach Us
Many people are talking about Anne Applebaum's column comparing the Arab uprising to the revolutions of 1848:
The Arab revolutions, by contrast, are the product of multiple changes—economic, technological, demographic—and have already taken on a distinctly different flavor and meaning in each country. In that sense, they resemble 1848 far more than 1989.
Though inspired very generally by the ideas of liberal nationalism and democracy, the mostly middle-class demonstrators of 1848 had, like their Arab contemporaries, very different goals in different countries. In Hungary, they demanded independence from Habsburg Austria. In what is now Germany, they aimed to unify the German-speaking peoples into a single state. In France, they wanted to overthrow the monarchy (again). In some countries, revolution led to pitched battles between different ethnic groups. Others were brought to a halt by outside intervention.
I'm all for learning the lessons of history. All historians are: What else have we got to offer? And of course we should be asking whether relevant historical parallels are to be found in 1776, 1789, 1848, 1917, 1979, or 1989. The eerie parallels between recent events and the Yellow Turban Rebellion of 184 are, I'm sure, much on your minds today as well.
But at a certain point, we have to face it: Sometimes history repeats itself, and sometimes it doesn't. The Maginot line would have worked a treat if it were as easy to learn the lessons of history as the injunction to heed them suggests. It's well and good to wonder what history teaches us about the events we're now witnessing, but don't be surprised if we're all surprised. As history also teaches us, that's the way everyone usually ends up.
By definition, we don't know what the surprise will be.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: What History Doesn't Teach Us
Claire,
The question remains as to whether there are visible strings attached to the players.
Was this fomented by an identifiable entity or fermented in a mix of economic conditions and political oppression ?
Whadya think ?
Oct '10
Re: What History Doesn't Teach Us
I couldn’t agree more! Last week, Rand Simberg asked, “What’s the right analogy for Wisconsin?” My abridged response:
I vote for controlling the urge to make analogies altogether. Even the best of them are blunt instruments, replete with questionable assumptions. They are often simply a vehicle for arguing by assertion or avoiding more material analysis.
Analogies quickly shift debate to the aptness of comparisons, instead of the actual issue at hand, with consensus an unlikely prospect. Entire discussions are derailed by extrapolations intended to “prove” or “refute” points which are otherwise insupportable.
Pattern recognition is an essential, emblematic, human skill, but our desire to fit complex phenomena into simple templates, and the faulty analogies which usually result, can lead us into serious, sometimes dangerous, error when it comes to exploring probable outcomes. Just lining up all the possible dominoes is hard enough.
The fundamental problem with Santayana’s familiar advice is that history itself is a blunt instrument. Sometimes it repeats itself, and sometimes it does not. What analogy could have prepared us for the explosive rise of the tea parties? We can look for retrospective similarities now, but reliable predictions are, of course, oxymoronically easier in hindsight.
Oct '10
Re: What History Doesn't Teach Us
Any chance of getting the Preview window back? :-)
Dec '10
Re: What History Doesn't Teach Us
And we all know how well that worked out over the next hundred years.
Dec '10
Re: What History Doesn't Teach Us
I miss it, too.
Feb '11
Re: What History Doesn't Teach Us
If history teaches us anything, it's that history doesn't teach us anything.
Jun '10
Re: What History Doesn't Teach Us
Attributed to Mark Twain:
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."