History 101
I remember my first class of my first year history course in University like it was yesterday – even though it was almost twenty years ago. The Professor, a brilliant man whom I grew to respect greatly over the years, opened the initial lecture with the thought: “History provides no lessons; we do not learn from it and it does not repeat itself even though the flavours of current events often resemble those of the pastâ€. I thought to myself (as did others, I presume) that this guy had spent too much time in his dingy office reading primary sources and not enough in the “real world”. Of course we learn from history and it does repeat itself. Duh?Â
Over time, I have come to agree with the first notion. I doubt that we do learn anything from history at all. Take this example. The US has a missile shield it wants to install in neighbouring countries around Russia. Russia responds with an inter-continental missile with multiple war heads to render the US system ineffective. So the story goes. It sounds a lot like the start of a renewed cold war. I lived through the tail end of the first one. It could be a frightening time when one took the time to ponder the sheer number of nuclear missiles on both sides and the destruction that seemed inevitable. There were more than enough to end civilization as we knew it. We learned years later about some of the close calls. Some, older than me, lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis. While it would be absurd to suggest that the recent rhetoric and moves by the US and Russia constitute a cold war of the magnitude of the old feud between the Soviets and the Americans, the aroma is similar. Maybe my professor was right about the second part too.Â
We have learned nothing at all from those years and while it looks like the beginning of what might be another period of cold war like behaviour, my cynicism leads me to believe that it will be different than the last one – it will probably be worse. My professor was a smart man.Â
Â
Interesting, but I would argue that it is the lack of history, or perhaps the misuse of it, which is why we don’t learn from it.
History as it is taught in schools is little more than patriotic myth-making, but understanding the past gives important context to today’s events.
Individuals are capable of learning from history, and do. Societies don’t, though; collectively we continue to be moved by the same tribal impulses.
I agree with Red Jenny, we do not teach history anymore, if we ever did. The schools pump out some sort of government approved, sugar coated, chest thumping, nationalistic, b/s that they label as history – but it’s not.
I like the “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes” thing that, oddly, I’ve only heard from people on the right. It’s a meme with them, but I like it.
I think the thing is this: the people who aspire to power don’t particularly care about not repeating history. Generally, they care about making sure that they end up on top of history-revisited. I have no doubt whatsoever that Cheney has turned to propogandists and strategists of times past to learn his trade, and he’s providing a variation on the theme.
The first thing “learning from history” would entail is that we all wanted to learn the same lesson. Which we don’t. Which is why we end up same-shit different-pile.
the people who aspire to power don’t particularly care about not repeating history
Or, they care: they learn what kind of propaganda techniques work best, for example.
Last time around the Soviets had the resources and industry of eastern Europe (some of it relocated to the USSR) to prop them up. Any new cold war will end for the same reason the last one did, only much more quickly.
IIRC the last one ended because the US had greater capacity to acquire debt than the USSR did – IOW, America out spent them.
Given the amount of debt America has already incurred in Afghanistan/Iraq do you think they have the same capacity today?
Do you think this government could sell it to the American people?
“Any new cold war will end for the same reason the last one did, only much more quickly.”
Possibly, lrC. A few things I have read lately, however, suggest that Russia has quite a lot of oil to sell these days having opened up exploration in recent years. As we both know, oil can be very lucrative for any government.
Or, the US could freak out about Russia as it has over a small collection of insane fundamentalists, and start twitching about the Red Scare, regardless of Russia’s ability.
We have well proven our capacity for terror is radically disproportionate to the size of the threat: we allow global warming to proceed unchecked and allow school cafeterias to convert to mini-food courts (nutrition by Subway! and KFC!), but make sure there are no wading pools and that kids wear knee pads to pogo stick, and we fret that two people getting married will affect us at all.
Does anybody trust us to be rational?
The US could still absorb hefty amounts of spending. The USSR was hard-pressed to meet its needs back in the day when it could manage the economy of eastern Europe to suit itself, whether it needed steel or food. Now it would have to deal with that combined and increased (more prosperous) economic might not only moved out of its control, but into the balance sheet column of those who would tend to align against a resurgent USSR. When the North Vietnamese broke the shiny army they were given attempting to take over the South in 1972, the Russians largely gave them a new one for 1975. Cuba was the recipient of massive subsidization. Those are examples of Cold War activities the USSR would be unlikely to afford, not to mention unwilling at the personal level to tolerate in the face of the necessary deprivation. If by Cold War one means a prolonged period of proxy war, I don’t see it happening.