"Is history important?" Topic

No matter how entertaining I find history, I wrestle with the idea that I should find history important.

I enjoy history as a pursuit, as an entertainment. I love reading historical books, researching my armies, watching historical movies etc etc. I love revelling in former times, which always feel much more exciting times to live (though much more uncomfortable too!).

But while it is fun, is history actually important?

Read more about this topic on my 'Dressing the Lines' blog here:

link

"it is just one thing after another "

"… and then they died." Which is probably the only absolutely indisputable historical fact about anything older than a century or so.

History is important not necessarily because of what it teaches us about the past but because of what it teaches us about ourselves.

Having researched and written Civil War history for over two decades, I have discovered that there are two types of history – the history we want ot hear and the history we need to hear. History is important because it really tells us who we are as individuals, as societies. I interpret the Civil War through the eyes of the men who fought it.

I agree that the minute details don't really affect history. Whether Lieutenant Hazlett was shot in the head while mounted behind his #1 gun or was kneeling over his friend Weed when he received his death wound does not matter in the larger scope of history.

However, it mattered to the #1 man who saw him get shot and to the gunner into whose arms he fell. "Little things" mean a lot to the people whom they affected directly. It's kind of like studying WWII from the perspective of Ike or through the eyes of Willie and Joe. Two different levels of perception. Two different experiences upon the field.

I learned about WWII from a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne, from a father who was a wire runner on the Canal, from an officer in the submarine service who rescued a wounded flyer from the water, from a priest who saw his brother ruthlessly murdered on the Bataan Death March.

Again, there are two types of history – one is global in perspective and the other is more personal and in depth. Both serve their purpose. One paints a grnad scale picture of life as it had been and might be in the future. The other – the one that grips me the most – is the personal one that helps me appreciate what real people sacrificed to create the world we live in now.

Most of the people whom I have met who have a deep interest in the Civil War had relatives who lived through it. For me it is a personal experience and I have found that the little facts that did not make the history books not only dispel the mythology but make me realize that basic human nature has never really changed.

It's only inportant if you want it to be.

Unfortunately, there are those in positions of Power who are blithely ignorant of History. They are confronted by existential adversaries to whom history matters VERY MUCH. And, they do not have the smarts to figure out why there is a problem.

Are you suggesting we forget about the failures of Marxist-Leninism. So that, having forgotten, we try once more to make it work?

Personally, I think some history is worth knowing. Usually what doesn't work.

History is a king of mankind psychoanalysis. If you are not interested in mankind, human societies, politics, international relations, culture or science, don't learn it and just take your pills.

History is the record of everything that has happened so far.

So, apart from history, there isn't really anything else.

All the best,

John.

Are you suggesting we forget about the failures of Marxist-Leninism.

Nope, I'm not suggesting that at all, Mark. However, I am suggesting that those who argue about the details of this history are not doing something as important as many other occupations/sciences.

No matter how much historians research into it, people will always be more affected by their received version of the history of Marxist-Leninism (or any other historical event) than the actual truth of what went on.

People won't learn from history, as there'll always be different versions of what that truth actually was. So if people do learn, it is from what they believe about an event, not what actually happened.

The same applies for John the OFM's "existential adversaries to whom history matters VERY MUCH". If John is talking about who I think he is, it is their version of history that matters very much to them. If a historian were to discover a truth that countered that version, I don't think they would give him/her much of a hearing.

History is what the Present finds useful to remember about the Past.

Are you suggesting that your OWN memory is unimportant?

Knowledge mostly comes from comparison. If we want to understand the present, we must compare it with something. What else could we use, except the past?

People ought to be knowledgeable about other PLACES, so that they know what of their own customs and beliefs are merely local, provincial. It is just as important that people be knowledgeable about other TIMES, so that they know what modern attitudes are merely current fashion.

History gives us the opportunity to learn from mistakes made by others, particularly the fatal ones, so we don't have to learn only from the ones we make ourselves.

Dennis

The loss of history is akin to a collective version of Alziemer's Disease.

By failing to retain and remember our history, we lose our identity and forget from where we came from.

My two shillings.

Eric

Yes, the historian's job might be to find the truth (if they can!). But I think that is no more important to humanity than a novelist writing a fiction book. It is still fun, colourful, adds dimension to our lives etc – but it is not important.

History is much more than the grasping of regurgitatable (not a real word btw) facts and dates. Or (un)interesting minutia of the events and people of past times. History is understanding the broader concepts, how they got us to where we are today. Without history we are coming into a movie that's been playing for the past 10,000 years and trying to piece together the motives of major/minor actors (be they leaders,countries, or movements) Also trying to run a republic with people who have no grasp of major world events makes it a bit more challenging.

History is the recorded lies of our human ancestors about themselves. It's still possible to read between the lines and discover useful information, and if nothing else we are able to learn about the thought processes and motivations of those who wrote those lies.

So yes, it is important… whether it is actually important to wargaming just gets us into the simulationist vs. gamist quagmire.

History is one of those things – like drug metabolism – that is critically important to appreciate contextually but which is so horrendously taught that people hate it

I agree that understanding history is very important not only to understand where we are but also where we are going – it continues to astound me, given that I spend most of my time at a university, how so many smart people can get things so terribly wrong (like imaging that people will do something just because you want them to)

How can you know where youre going unless you know where you've been? I've always felt that history is the cumulative experience of those before us,and as such, a useful tool to understanding why things are the way they are.

Granted, much of contemporary historiography is dreadful: poorly written, politically correct, and obsessed with details that often lack the context that makes factoids interesting and meaningful.

History is still enigmatic. Decades after a event, new information comes out. The old KGB admitting that the Rosenburgs were Soviet spies and MI6 stating their agent killed Rasputin. Another couple of decades and files on WWI and WWII will reveal new info. What we do or how we represent that info is what worries me.

History is enigmatic because people are enigmatic. I look inside myself and find complex and even contradictory motives even for apparently simple acts, as well as talent for deception and for SELF-deception. And RELATIONSHIPS are far more complex, something like the square of the number of people involved in them. So OF COURSE history is inherently incomplete. The reality is always far more complicated than what the historian writes. But it is essential to try to do our best.

Here's an interesting introduction to the philosophy of history:

link

"Those who fail history will have to take it over in the summer."

Same carp, different day ! One can look back over the centuries and see all the manipulations, mistakes and evil things that have occurred as well as the good. An intelligent people should be able to make decisions based on these happenings and the results ? An intelligent people..ummm…never mind !

Is History important ?? – Let's look at one example. Many of the events we face in today's world can be traced back to one date " 28 June 1914". The events of that one day either created or greatly furthered the timeline on the following processes:

The emergence of the United States as a world power and the corresponding decline of the British Empire
The domination of the Muslim world by primarily European Christian powers
The rise of Arabia as a major source of petroleum
The creation of Palestine
The rise of a modern Russia
The break up of the Balkans into ever more fractured ethnic and/or religious zones
European domination of Africa
The increasing rise of Japan as a Pacific power
The rise of European dictatorships.
The Second World War
The Holocaust …

and we have not even touched changes in technology, economics, the arts, philosophy, etc

Unless you know and understand the events of 28 July 1914 you cannot hope understand the background behind many of today's current events.

If you have not figured it out already 28 July, 1914 was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo that statred the momentum leading to World War One.

No matter how entertaining I find history, I wrestle with the idea that I should find history important.

If you are a politician, then No. You'll bash on and make the same mistakes regardless.

For a wargamer, well, yes. So you can immerse yourself into your hobby and Syracuse DBA34 is more than just a collection of metal pawns on the table.

Also, history provides all those historical scenarios to try out on the tabletop.

Cheers
Mark

"The main thing we learn from history is that people never learn from history."

I am a conservative in large part because I DO NOT TRUST people, not as individuals and not as We the People. And most definitely not as the elite, those who think they know better, know best, and are qualified to tell the rest how to live their lives. Bad things WILL happen. Revolutions WILL almost always eat their children and replace a bad regime with a worse one. Good intentions WILL have unanticipated consequences which are almost always bad. As Chesterton wrote, "As much as ever, more than ever, I believe in liberalism. But there was a time of rosy innocence when I believed in liberals." History shows me the folly of ANY confidence in mere man.

Daft question. Of course it is.

History is important, wargaming isn't.

For the 'it's all lies', 'it's all the author's prejudice' etc. actually history is a process, not an inert bundle of stuff. So of course it's important you trust the person conducting the process or that you do it yourself. Or approach it critically.

As for the importance of history within wargaming, it is primary. And then there is 'gaming'. And that keeps a lot of people happy too.

Phil

I'm in no position to speak definitively whether history is important or not. It is important to me. I do know that there is a high correlation between those who tell me history is unimportant, and those for whom the success of Western Civilization is inconvenient.

Important… compared with what? With physics or astronomics? Mathematics? Engineering? Biomolecular medicine? Actually, the answer is irrelevant. Societies crave for their past, no matter how much rationally irrelevant that past can be. All our experience lies in the past. Still better: we are nothing but memories of what we have lived. Neither present nor future are real. While I am writing I am thinking about what I just wrote, to avoid falling in contradiction with myself. It lies in the past. It's history. I do not need to remember it. However I want to remember it. My mind tricks me into rememberance. All that history does is to record and explain collective memories that we want not to be lost. It doesn't matter than history won't ever cure cancer or deviate an asteroid from hitting the Earth, because while there is a person alive, that person won't stop of remembering and looking for answers to its present predicament. It's in our nature.

I have a history degree and when I look at the world I find myself with the OFM on this one.

The whole doomed to repeat history is an appropriate adage…

In the United States, we have a presidential candidate that is going around preaching Isolationism and protectionist trade policies. This all resounds with with the blue collar set. Only trouble is that these policies lead to the Great Depression or worsened the effects of both World Wars.

There are those that believe a certain political system or policies are the 'cure' for what ails us in this flagging economy too. Problem is that they ignore what has happened in every single country that moves to a more socialist stance.

I find nothing progressive into moving to policies grounded in mid-19th century political dogma. I find nothing progressive in policies that extend failed policies of the last century either. Man is a self-centered beast in the main. He needs a carrot to move in the right direction. If he already is feasting on free salad, the carrot had better be awfully tasty!

As a country, we have certainly made our share of mistakes and certainly many of them repeat themselves. It is NOT a mystery that trying the same things over and over again and getting the same results should be anticipated. The War on Poverty and other socialist mandates have been going on for the better part of a century. You would think that our leaders would try something different than handing out money. Things like the Job Corps help but aren't funded to the level of making a true difference. There is no incentive, other than a personal one, to move beyond government hand outs. Expecting a different result from the same policies is rather moronic. This is just a clear example, to my mind, of why history is important. Both sides of the political spectrum would do well to study it closer as we certainly seem to repeat the same mistakes whether domestically or with foreign policies.

As an example for the OFM's point – the conduct of US foreign policy in the Balkans during the 90s and since has been accompanied by ignorance of the regions history. Interceding in foreign affairs should at least require a look into the history of a region and at the ramifications of the interference.

History allows us to understand why we are where we are today. I do NOT believe that you can learn "lessons" that can be repeated time and again because modern situations are different than those of the past just as one modern situation is different than another simply because of the number of variables in play…not to mention that you can't identify all the variables at play either then or now. But, knowing history can help you understand all that.

"Only a fool learns by experience. A wise man learns from the experiences of others."

I got a State Senator recalled and two schools built. I used Thucydides' "History of the Peleponnesian Wars" as my guide book. That seems relevant to me.