"The young do not know history " Topic

"A simmering conflict with the Kurds threatens to consume an American ally and inflame an already-unstable region.

On the morning of Oct. 29, 2014, a long convoy of armored vehicles and trucks rolled northward in the shadow of Iraq's Zagros Mountains and crossed a bridge over the Khabur River, which marks the border with Turkey. As the convoy rumbled past the border gate, the road for miles ahead was lined with thousands of ecstatic Kurds, who clapped, cheered and waved the Kurdish flag. Many had tears in their eyes. Some even kissed the tanks and trucks as they passed. The soldiers, Iraqi Kurds, were on their way through Turkey to help defend Kobani, a Syrian border city, against ISIS. Their route that day traced an arc from northern Iraq through southeastern Turkey and onward into northern Syria: the historical heartland of the Kurdish people. For the bystanders who cheered them on under a hazy autumn sky, the date was deliciously symbolic. It was Turkey's Republic Day. What had long been a grim annual reminder of Turkish rule over the Kurds was transformed into rapture, as they watched Kurdish soldiers parade through three countries where they have long dreamed of founding their own republic…"
Main page
link

A must read for those who are following this conflict….

Amicalement
Armand

"Novelists deal with rejection. We get rejected all the time and receive replies like "This does not fit in with our current editorial needs." But when a publisher turns down a novel because "I found that I had to suspend disbelief," as one of them told my agent, that is another thing.

My novel The Last Witness is set in the near future in 2039. It's about a 100-year-old man who is the last living survivor of the Holocaust, but he lives in a world abysmally ignorant and complacent about the last century. Apparently, this publisher didn't think people's knowledge of history would be so thin one generation down the road.

So I produced a video. Now you can't make a video that shows what people know or don't know about major historical events in the near future, as in my novel, but you can make one that shows what they know today. And I did. A videographer and I went out one cold afternoon in November to ask university students in Toronto what they know about the Holocaust and World War II.

I asked two girls when the Holocaust took place and at first they said "the 1980s," but they weren't sure. Then they said "nineteen-forty …" but not with much conviction…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

It's worse than that – even older people do not know history.

I went to my local shop/P.O. and was chatting with the manager about the wide range of countries I was sending parcels to. She commented that a lady who lives down the road from me, came in to post a parcel to [southern] Ireland, and was flabbergasted when told of the postal cost. The manager had to explain that the Republic of Ireland was not in the UK, and thus counted as an overseas postal rate.

The lady concerned is in her early 60's and is married to an amateur historian !

DOM just graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas Summa Cum Laude in both Electrical Engineering and History. Got it … single, anecdotal (and probably unverifiable) example. And an outlier at that, but …

People ignore things because they deliberately want not to bother. History is a thing. Some people are young. That's all there is to it.

My novel The Last Witness is set in the near future in 2039. It's about a 100-year-old man who is the last living survivor of the Holocaust, but he lives in a world abysmally ignorant and complacent about the last century. Apparently, this publisher didn't think people's knowledge of history would be so thin one generation down the road.

SWMBO drives out to Cleveland (from DC) once a month to help out my aunt and take her to the care facility to see my uncle (who had a stroke). People my age (mid 40's) don't understand what it means that both of them lived under Soviet, then Nazi, then Soviet (again) occupation.

True story – had an interesting conversation with No. 4 son (aka The Little Prince) about how Italy was actually on both sides in WWII

It is sad that Turkey is sliding into civil war – an Egyptian buddy of mine said "Atatruk wanted to turn Turkey into a European country and Erdogan is determined to turn it into a Middle Eastern country"; places the US in a very tough place

Looks like the Turks and the Kurds have nothing on the bug.

It's not just the young (disclaimer: I am young). Recently had an argument with an older gentleman (late 50's or early 60's) who was absolutely *adamant* that we'd all be British Subjects right now if Andrew Jackson hadn't whipped the British at New Orleans. No amount of evidence that the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed and the battle didn't change the outcome war was adequate. Andrew Jackson had saved the country, that was that.

-Will

Actually, wminsing, due to the twin facts that a) the treaty had phased effective dates, depending on the area, and b} the treaty had not yet been ratified (indeed, hadn't even reached Washington), the Battle of New Orleans DID materially affect the outcome of the war.

Most people in the US don't know history …

Highly unlikely taking New Orleans would have changed anyone's minds about ratifying the treaty, and even if it did we would not all be taking high tea and speaking the Queen's English.

The most ironic thing is that the fellow in question had never even heard of the Battle of Plattsburgh, which actually had a major impact on the outcome of the war and the treaty writing process.

-Will

Appeals to "history" are feckless. Ignorant people learn history late and what kind of history is that? Whichever version they believe. Random history lessons. We are doomed to repeat all the versions that we don't know or believe in.

The Middle East's history is the most convoluted on the planet. It doesn't concern the rest of the world other than collateral damage. We can protect ourselves and move on to tomorrow. Forget the damned past! It doesn't help us one bit. The past is too murky, too emotional, too partizan, too religious! Forget it! Build defenses against the contemporary problems, the force and demagoguery on all sides. Don't trust any side that puts up pictures of "the strong man", their leader, no matter who s/he happens to be: their thinking is screwy if they think that "the strong man" is going to save them, or is what/who they are fighting for. Thus, "Kurdistan" is a myth, a false goal to mobilize popular support for yet another dictator.

We need to get out and stay out. Period. Too bad that ISIS remains. Too bad that Kurds lose their main weapons and training source and will have to look elsewhere. The US should not be in the business of correcting the ages-old problems of other places in the world.

This is not isolationism. It is the exact opposite: but it isn't intervention either. We defend ourselves with might. We show that we have more might than any collection of them. And they had better keep their killing to themselves, or else we stomp the danger flat. No considerations for collateral damage. That is a luxury. As long as the terror remains outside of our homeland we have nothing to say about how other people live and die among themselves. We offer asylum to those vetted individuals who want out, who want our way of life. We remain land of the free. We return to that ideal with everything we have. Only an alternative way will convince those who kill that their old ways are wrong together.

If they want to escape the killing, they can come here, but the price they must pay is integration. They must prove that that is what they want….

@Great War Ace so Rome would have the Foderatie. protect the borders eh?

Ignorance of history by the youth is big governments way of recruiting the next intake, and don't give the guff of honour and duty, in the end its a job in which the only thing that counts is loyalty and duty to ones comrades (and I for one am humbled by such sacrifice), the big picture just uses the excuse to use the decent to do the dirty work (so how about some honest recognition and pay for such). Time for a new paradigm shift about honesty and about the motives behind it all.
You break it you own it.

Rather farcical isn't it? Most of the war gamers nattering on here about historical ignorance don't even know much more of the history of their favorite periods than that which they get out of the rules they use and an Osprey Book, which is like the Harlequen Romances of Historical Writing. Having gone though the grinder of Academia to get advanced degrees, I can assure you that the historical knowledge of most professors is little better.

My best memory of this is in a class I was instructoring as training where one twenty something said in class that she didn't blame the Japanese for bombing us at Pearl Harobor, after all we destroyed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, with atomic bombs. In vain did I remonstrate with her that there was an error in chronology. She simply held up her hand and said "I don't want to hear it! it was all Bush's fault."

As to the article. This is all well and good but there comes a time where you have to ask "How is all this oour fault? and "Is this a history that is really worth knowing or caring about.

Will, if you read the treaty, you will find that if the British had managed to take New Orleans and hold it until the effective date of the treaty there, they would have kept it. I'd certainly call that a major impact on the outcome of the war.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. – Mark Twain

Twain had it right. It is pretty bad that so many people seem to know nothing about history. Unfortunately a huge proportion of the rest know it all wrong.

@Zargon: "History" is the way a gov't gets the next generation to line up behind the "cause". Each generation is taught "history" at home and through the Medía machine. So don't get worked up over the ignorance of people. Their knowledge is largely a construct to serve the Gov't.

Look at how that Kurdish leader's face is seen all over the place. Tell me that lining up behind him isn't a deliberately constructed Medía phenomenon. Let's see if you can defend the Turkish Medía over the Kurdish variety. Or does the Israeli version have something over the Muslim-centric versions? Do the various slants on "history" in Islam agree with each other? Rhetorical question.

That's why I am for dropping so-called historical precedents as equally so-called justifications for taking action. The only, ONLY casus belli should be what "they" are doing to "us" today. The past must be dead, if any progress is going to happen. Today is all that matters. Acts today are the reason for using defensive force. Anyone can see aggression. Reasons for aggression should be discounted. No doubt such reasons are couched in "historical" justification terms….

(A TMP aside: interesting how this title does not match the title on the Ultra Modern topics page. Bug?)

GWA
I didn't see anyone 'appealing' to history.

The (second) op in the thread bemoans the fact people don't now about history. I didn't see anyone asking history to justify a particular action.

And what you are complaining about isn't history, it is the opportunistic use of historical dressing for contemporary issues to justify policy.

History doesn't do that – it observes, researches and analyses then refines the results for a better understanding of the human condition in the past which can help us understand out current position.

What on earth does 'reasons for aggression should be discounted' mean? As for the idea that only what happens 'now' justifies action – explain to me when 'now' becomes 'history' and we are no longer allowed to act upon it?

Is it a minute ago? An hour? A day, A week, a month, a year a decade? In the common understanding of time as a linear progression (there are other paradigms of course) what I just wrote is now history.

'The young do not know history'. When in anyone's history have the young known history? Potentially thorough training in a selected slice of history by private or state run schools, agenda-driven media and the mad wilderness of the internet is all the young have at their disposal to learn anything more than family or community history. Is it any wonder that they are lost babes in the forest full of trees? No one can know history. There are too many versions of history and too many approaches for the studying of history for any one person to assimilate them all into one comprehensive "history".

History is the myths and justifications which a society has agreed to accept and share in order to explain where it has come from and to where it is going. The myths change from society to society and also adapt and change within a society over time. No one has the opportunity or the time to assimilate all these parochial myths into a global mono-myth which spans all societies and all times. We are condemned to see the human condition through the keyholes of our limited experience. The scope of our total human experience on this tiny accretion which some of us call Earth is just too grand for us to learn, understand and master. Therefore the only difference between a wiseman and an ignorant fool is that the wiseman knows he is an ignorant fool and is always willing to learn and adapt his understanding based on new knowledge and experience. History is a journey, not a destination; nobody has 'arrived'.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson (an ignorant traveler).

Rather farcical isn't it? Most of the war gamers nattering on here about historical ignorance don't even know much more of the history of their favorite periods than that which they get out of the rules they use and an Osprey Book,

Well even though I still study history. I only gamed Sci-fi … so … that pretty much leaves me a lot of wiggle room.

Having gone though the grinder of Academia to get advanced degrees, I can assure you that the historical knowledge of most professors is little better.

I have heard the same … but some here may dispute that.

[BTW … nice to hear again from you Otto !]

Is it a minute ago? An hour? A day, A week, a month, a year a decade?

How about within living memory? Three generations. Beyond that, "history" is all up for grabs. Subjective. My sources can beat up your sources. Ad nauseam. And no, history does not enlighten, anymore than my religion can beat up your religion. That's because in the "source wars", there is only deadlock, with nothing to break it up except a war. The winner will then write all the histories….

Is it any wonder that they are lost babes in the forest full of trees?

I feel like a lost babe in the woods, and I am sixty-three. Once-upon-a-time I believed in "history". It seemed that thorough study would reveal truth. Instead, it only reveals human constructs, deconstruction and tampering with malice-a-forethought. Nobody is "out of the woods" where our shared past is concerned. That is why any resort to the past to justify the present is bogus and that game is played by all sides….

We need to get out and stay out. Period. Too bad that ISIS remains. Too bad that Kurds lose their main weapons and training source and will have to look elsewhere. The US should not be in the business of correcting the ages-old problems of other places in the world.

Who are "WE"; this is an international forum.

How about within living memory? Three generations.

Living memory = 70 years.
Generation today = 10 years.

Collective memories run much longer.

I am of the same generation but I do not share your pessimism. Each generation requires educating and rewrites history to its own taste. The process of the rewrite is as important as the destination outcome and history is just one facet of culture.

I can agree that the future should be about looking at where we are and where we are going to go and not about rewriting the present by trying to change the past.

All you need to know is that we beat the French at Pearl Harbour, thus starting the battle of Vietnam.

We the Danish or we the Oregonians?

The mutability of historical interpretation is one of its greatest contributions to peace. It is the poor historians (like some politicians) who cry for certain facts.

I am not a big fan of postmodernism in history but a recognition that each reading of the text is a rewriting of it does undermine those certainties beloved of those trying to engineer war.

GWA you need to realise that History is one of the humanities and as such expands and enriches the human experience. It is the rejection of learning that leads to narrow minds which can be manipulated into prejudice.

Learning helps us recognise our common humanity and is a prophylaxis against prejudice.

@rmaker- You are not correct. It says directly in Article 1 of the treaty that "All territory, places, and possessions whatsoever taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this Treaty, excepting only the Islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay".

This article was not dependent on ratification but on signing. Both the US and Britain signed the treaty on December 24th. The Battle of New Orleans took place on January 8th. Even if New Orleans had fallen to the British, per Article 1 it would have been turned back over the US upon ratification. There's no if, ands or buts about this. The battle did not change the outcome of the war.

-Will

All you need to know is that we beat the French at Pearl Harbour, thus starting the battle of Vietnam.

What is scary is after seeing the US media doing interviews on the street and asking historical questions, etc., … The replies were totally shocking in most cases.

Did you know we fought the UK and French in the ACW ? That is what one 25 year old female answered !! And she was not alone in outrageous replies like that !?!?!

When asked about Benghazi … one 30ish male asked what is Benghazi ?

And it just went down from there. You know they called the Cold War because it was fought in the winter … DOH !!!!

And these people actually can vote, get a drivers' license and have jobs where they may make decisions that can affect others !?!?!?

Who are "WE"; this is an international forum.

The "West", the US, the UN. Those of us not living there and therefore not involved without inserting ourselves.

Collective memories run much longer.

Yes. And look how well "collective memories" serve the Kurds and the Turks. The Star Trek episode with the last two guys that had faces half black and half white was pointing to the irrational absurdity of "collective memories", with one group lording it over the other group. If Ataturk had not created/resurrected the problem, there would be no Turkey-Kurds war today.

GWA you need to realise that History is one of the humanities

And the push to get "history" to merge with the sciences is productive of state manipulation. "Psycho history" was Azimov at his imaginative scariest. If such a thing were proven by science, then the state could take it and run with it, justifying all manner of expedient counter-measures ahead of the fact, or intervention with "malice-a-forethought." I do believe that a high degree of that kind of historical justification is behind the foreign policies of the US and the EU vis-a-vis the Middle East.

Good points here!…

Amicalement
Armand

Kyoteblue,you're right, the Bug must be getting worse--the usual explanation,simultaneous posts,doesn't fit.
Hmm…

"And these people actually can vote, get a drivers' license and have jobs where they may make decisions that can affect others !?!?!?"

This is the start for the majority of humanity, all they really want is good pay, to party, look cool to their peers and smart in a uniform, reality bites for the majority and thus ignorance IS bliss.

Great War Ace I get your anger it does sound all so wrong and wasteful, decent leadership and that line fron Riddick sounds like a solution to ignorance of history 'You keep what you kill' that should put the pundits in their place. I'm no Marine but until that happens Semper Fi.

This is the start for the majority of humanity, all they really want is good pay, to party, look cool to their peers and smart in a uniform, reality bites for the majority and thus ignorance IS bliss.

You won't get an argument from me !

At 9PM (more or less) began the "Doom Zone" my good friend… and nobody can post a thing…

Amicalement
Armand

I'm far less worried about them not knowing history than not knowing current events, which seems to be a major challenge for many too.

They can work the heck out of those tiny little keyboards on their personal communicators though, and seem to be enslaved by them.

The only thing worse than not having competency requirements to vote is having competency requirements to vote.

With apologies, Mr. Wilde.

I have some recollection of The Economist recently purporting in a book review that Arabic slave traders and owners treated their slaves like people… apart from forced marches through the desert, castration, humiliation and the like, of course.

26 May 2016 3:40 a.m. PST

It's worse than that – even older people do not know history.

I went to my local shop/P.O. and was chatting with the manager about the wide range of countries I was sending parcels to. She commented that a lady who lives down the road from me, came in to post a parcel to [southern] Ireland, and was flabbergasted when told of the postal cost. The manager had to explain that the Republic of Ireland was not in the UK, and thus counted as an overseas postal rate.

The lady concerned is in her early 60's and is married to an amateur historian !

Having said that, considering Ireland is the only country with which the UK has a substantial land border, it's debatable to what extent it counts as "overseas". I'd probably be surprised at a high postage charge too, to be fair.

"History" is the way a gov't gets the next generation to line up behind the "cause". Each generation is taught "history" at home and through the Medía machine. So don't get worked up over the ignorance of people. Their knowledge is largely a construct to serve the Gov't.
---------------
That could sort of sound like an argument against the study of history at all. Also of course relativism plays right into the hands of some very malevolent people – Holocaust deniers would love it if they could convince people that the history of the Holocaust is just a view and a construct.