Does history repeat itself?

Joe1919

Its often thought that the study of history has many stages. The first stage is a search and investigation stage, a digging stage for traces.

The second stage is an assimalation of information, an attempt to make sense of the information, the chronicles.

The historian then uses his imagination to create a narrative, as Von Ranke says, to" re-create the past."

Most postmodern historians such as Keith Jenkins or Hayden White would criticize Von Rankes scientific view , saying that historians go to history with already a narrative in mind.

Hayden Whites famous and colourful quote is "'If one is going to "go to history," one had better have an address in mind, rather than go wandering around the streets of the past like a flaneur. Historical flaneurisme is undeniably enjoyable, but the history which we are living today is no place for tourists. If you are going to "go to history," you had better have a clear idea of which history you are going to, and you had better have a pretty good notion of whether the one you are going to is hospitable to the values you carry into it. This is the function of theory in general, that is to say, to provide justification of a stance vis-a-vis the materials being dealt with that can render it plausible. Indeed, the function of theory is to justify a notion of plausibility itself. Without such a justification, criticism especially is left with nothing but "common sense" to fall back on.' "

By the way, I dont totally agree with him . I think the historian can approach history with an innocent eye.

Denerick

I don't think I'm contradicting myself whatsoever really. History is a 'science' (very loosely termed though) of the available source material. My beef with the more 'out there' areas of history is that they practically invent sources; they read too much into a small selection of sources and judge that its reasonable that certain conditions occured as a result of the small amount of source material they had. Which is why I think women's history, and much of the study of ethnic minorities is impossible in any meaningful way.

History is only an approximation of the past... No-one tries to claim otherwise. History is essentialy infinity and there are too many things that are ultimately unknowable - but if we follow this philosophy to its natural conclusion it just gets lazy. After all, if we adopt that line of thinking then we might as well drop dead and stop living at all.

After all, if all of history is merely a formation of the historians mind, surely that means that no past event (Which includes the present) can possibly be considered to have happened, since in all likelihood it is impossible that we can ever understand what happened, even if we see it with our own eyes (After all it is equally plausible that I was simply imagining what I saw - hence what I saw neither can or cannot be confirmed to have happened. Its equally possible that none of the world as I conceive of it is real, and if it is not real how can it possible be objectively true?)

If we logically analyse the postmodern conception of history and existence then we can just as easily discount their argument by saying 'But your belief that all history is unknowable is a value judgement and a product of your mind - hence, what you say is fundamentally unknowable and therefore without value'.

See how crazy this whole thing gets? its not simply a matter of history and our ability to understand it, its a basic acceptance of reality since one way or the other we all 'create' a system of existence that is 'normal' to each and every one of us, and it is in this system that we operate. Postmodernists seem to think this system is wrong, but if they really take that belief then anything they ever say or believe in is also wrong because everything is merely an infinity of possible right or wrong answers.

I apologise for the inevitable incoherence. I'm tired and its 1 AM in the morning and spewing forth a wild stream of consciousness...

Capt'n Midnight

Joe1919 wrote:

We also choose ourselves to selectively forget part of our history, such as the contribution Ireland and Irish regiments such as the Royal Dublin Fusilers made in places like Gallipoli during WW1. They were written out of Irish history.

Note about the 1925 Wireless Exhibition in the Mansion Hall

11 November, 1925 the opening day of the exhibition, was also the seventh anniversary of the singing of the Armistice at the end of World War 1 and great crowds were expected in Dublin for the ceremonies to mark the occasion. 250,000 Flanders poppies were available in the city but a further 60,000 were rushed in to meet the great demand. It was expected that the number of poppies bought would greatly exceed the sales in the previous year when, it was reported,"in friendly rivalry, Dublin had easily beaten Belfast".

The exhibition organisers had decided to delay the opening until 2:30 p.m. to allow patrons to avail of the ceremonies. An estimated 120,000 people attended the wreath laying in At. Stephen's Green.

Capt'n Midnight

Joe191 wrote:

Similarly the Americans were always giving the credit for rescuing European democracy during WW2 but many modern military historians such as David M. Glantz in his 'When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler' argue that it was paradoxically Stalin and the Communist system that saved Europen democracy as most of the action took place on the Eastern front and it was only a centrally organised political system such as communism that could have moved the factories and workers east.

All you have to do is count the number of divisions / casualties on each front.

The UK went further down a total war footing much earlier then Germany. Much human rights legislation was put aside in the UK, while in Germany it was only for the minorities. Women were working in factories and on the land while Germany relied on foreign workers, also until very later in the war German aircraft were still getting full trim and creature comforts.

Denerick

Just came across a great Mark Twain quote: "[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, 'times new roman']History doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it does rhyme"[/FONT]

Joe1919

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Note about the 1925 Wireless Exhibition in the Mansion Hall

11 November, 1925 the opening day of the exhibition, was also the seventh anniversary of the singing of the Armistice at the end of World War 1 and great crowds were expected in Dublin for the ceremonies to mark the occasion. 250,000 Flanders poppies were available in the city but a further 60,000 were rushed in to meet the great demand. It was expected that the number of poppies bought would greatly exceed the sales in the previous year when, it was reported,"in friendly rivalry, Dublin had easily beaten Belfast".

The exhibition organisers had decided to delay the opening until 2:30 p.m. to allow patrons to avail of the ceremonies. An estimated 120,000 people attended the wreath laying in At. Stephen's Green.

But Fianna Fail posed restriction on the legions right to march when they came into power in 1932. In 1945 the then Minister of Justice Gerry Boland said the rational was 'that in the past these parades were regarded by a large section of the community as provocative demonstrations antagonistic to national sentiment." (Brian Girvin, From Union to Union, P.109)

Also some reference to these arguments in Dail Debates Dáil Éireann - Volume 98 - 14 November, 1945 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - British Legion Parade. http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/

Joe1919

Denerick wrote: »

History is a 'science' (very loosely termed though) of the available source material. .

Many argue that history is also an Art.
To reduce history to science to fall into the trap of material reductionism and not to acknowledge that history is about human action, feeling, values and freedom. Whats wrong with the scientific view (imo) is not that its totally wrong, it just insufficent.

It also fails to acknowledge the creative aspect of history. Historians dont just collect historical facts. They bring there judgement and their values to bear on these facts. They show empathy to the facts and to the people who are the subject of history. In this respect, Art is superior to science because science can only describe wheras Art can create. The historian not only describes the past but he attempts to give meaning to the past. He states 'what does the past mean to me'.

Joe1919

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

All you have to do is count the number of divisions / casualties on each front.

The UK went further down a total war footing much earlier then Germany. Much human rights legislation was put aside in the UK, while in Germany it was only for the minorities. Women were working in factories and on the land while Germany relied on foreign workers, also until very later in the war German aircraft were still getting full trim and creature comforts.

Im not an expert in this area (other than doing an essay on this subject once). All I'm stating is that opinions are varied and subject to change, in this case, especially, as new information is coming to light since the fall of communism and the end of the cold war.

mewmoo

Humans enjoy looking for patterns...

Seeing faces where there are none, finding meaning in the meaningless.
History seems likes repeating itself if you make generic statements like "a tyrant comes to power and is then over thrown".

It's all about circumstance an context as someone put it on the front page.