Yes it's true. Historic recurrence is very common in the world irrespective of space and time. This is more so when one cannot learn from it or do not wish to learn rather.

Maybe history wouldn't have to repeat itself if we listened once in awhile.

George Santayana, perhaps wanted to make us learn that continuity is necessary to progress. Truly, we must remember how we did in the past in order to do it better in the future.

Yes it's true. Historic recurrence is very common in the world irrespective of space and time. This is more so when one cannot learn from it or do not wish to learn rather.

Maybe history wouldn't have to repeat itself if we listened once in awhile.

George Santayana, perhaps wanted to make us learn that continuity is necessary to progress. Truly, we must remember how we did in the past in order to do it better in the future.

It is very true. Look at today's Europe, which seems to go back to the 1930's, although Europeans are supposed to have learned the lessons of the last two wars, WWII and the Cold War.

True. Those who want to forget history or deny it are not facing reality and there is likelihood that history would repeat itself. Examples of dictators from the past like Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, etc. reveal that they committed atrocities which should never be forgotten so that the society would not let these types of events occur again. Humankind generally has made much progress in terms of reforms, equality and rights. There is always a political wing (and it exists in all countries) that wishes to undo the progress made and wants to take the country back into the dark ages

I would agree with Santayana here. I study the politics and history of student governments, which provides some unique insights into this. For instance, take undergraduate student governments- let's say the average undergraduate degree takes four years to complete and the average term in office for a student representative is one year. This high turnover rate allows one to see a large number of generations of the electorate when looking at primary sources in university archives. When I look at these documents, I often find the same or similar arguments in student newspapers about issues like political participation in the student government, disillusion with the political system, and the same mistakes having to be relearned over and over again. In other cases, best practices and examples of what students can accomplish, like the University of Bologna in the Middle Ages where students made all of the major decisions in the university, to even student movements of the 1960s, are largely lost to students of the 21st century. By contrast, the student leaders who understood the historical evolution of their student government institutions were better equipped to deal with issues and build off of past achievements to innovate in new ways.

In this case, student governments can perhaps be viewed not only as microcosms of societies, but as potential examples of what may happen over high numbers of turnovers in a population's electorate. It could also be used to justify the need for knowledge retention systems, the proper preservation of archival documents, and above all, understanding history.

I would also connect this with a more ideological perspective by drawing from Hegel's dialectic that in a nutshell starts with a thesis (an idea) that is met with an antithesis (counter idea), which leads to the creation of a synthesis (new idea) that essentially becomes the new thesis and the process continues. Without knowledge of the thesis and antithesis needed to make the synthesis, could the dialectic still function, and if it could, would there be a risk of it circling back to the original thesis and creating an endless loop where no new knowledge or understanding is gained?

True. There are some people who want to twist history (some even in RG), maybe for personal promotion. Then, we will watch them fall into a trap and repeat old mistakes. Some others will suffer as a result and that is the trouble with society: Some don't believe in history. There are countries who punish those who spread "false history".

Generally, I agree. BUT, first we have to know history. Another saying is "history is written by the winners". Winners soon (a century or two) turn to losers. So, on larger issues of states and societies, the data as to what is history is very clouded if not outright wrong. About the only concepts that can be attributed to dead societies is what killed them and then only if the killers leave their records.

The US grew in the 19th century when at the same time the white men were killing Indians - What is the lesson? Today's morals tend to view this as wrong. But the US grew and expanded by conquering others. So did all other great societies. What have we learned? NOTHING for today the political goal is to interfere rather than kill and conquer. Look at Israel: they are now trying to cooperate with the neighbors. There very foundation was conquer thru war. Now they want to coexist? They new temple may be destroyed before it is built. The British had a long period of dominance which was marked by killing many "rebellions". The humanistic period started around WW1. There was an incident where a military commander killed many in a "protest". He was dismissed rather than honored as he would have been decades earlier. Soon, the British empire crumbled. Today, the US is trying to be world cop and to interfere/control in other's states. The cost is not recovered as it was not when the British had the empire. If we want to be humanistic - we will collapse - Have we learned nothing?

Interesting question and nice replies.

I guess the quote "we learn from our mistakes" is another way of saying. If we cannot learn from mistakes, we might repeat them.

Experiential learning approach in education is based on that idea. People should use their experience to learn. This implies thought that they need to be taught that. In other words, it should not be taken for granted!

This question reminds me of the Igbo proverb in Chinue Achebe's *Things Fall Apart*: "Those who do not know where the rain began to beat them cannot say where they dried their bodies."

Very true.

Take the example of Quebeckers and Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Their stories were overshadowed when the conquerors who dominated them began to spread other stories through propaganda.

The royalist conquerors did so in order to continue to appropriate privileges and impunity for their cliques.

We have seen this particularly in 1982, when some opportunists have decided to perpetuate the infringing monarchist status quo and to inflict further outrages on those nations, even though we were all deemed to commit ourselves to respect the 1966 Covenants and the 1948 Universal Declaration.

They forced a constitutional framework that was still essentially misleading and contrary to jus cogens.

It would not have happened if Quebeckers and Aboriginals of Canada had been able to demystify the truth of the false in their respective histories.

They could also have prevented the constitutional coup and get some stronger protection if they had been better informed about the true stories of other nations subjected to similar domineering and genocidal strengths.

The history of the Scots, Irish, Patriots of the United States, Indians, Aboriginals of Oceania and Africans - also subject to the abominable domination of speculative finance - would have been useful...

We know better today !

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Mark Twain.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Thanks for the many fine responses. I hope we can go a bit deeper into the question. For instance, one may argue on the basis of the Santayana quotation --or equally that of Mark Twain-- that learning from history, in order to avoid the mistakes of the past requires that we can know history and what the mistakes of the past have been.

But we have already seen a skeptical challenge:

Hodge wrote:

Generally, I agree. BUT, first we have to know history. Another saying is "history is written by the winners". Winners soon (a century or two) turn to losers. So, on larger issues of states and societies, the data as to what is history is very clouded if not outright wrong. About the only concepts that can be attributed to dead societies is what killed them and then only if the killers leave their records.

---End quotation

This suggests to me the claim that we cannot know history. If "history" is always and exclusively "written by the winners," then it would seem to follow that all we can know is what the "winners" tell us. History is, on such accounts, merely an ideological expression of someone's past "victory," (over someone else), and we have very little to go on by way of avoiding errors not marked as errors by those who write the current ideological account.

But obviously, we do mostly agree that we know something of history, and we recognize some of the mistakes of the past--not just some privileged group's self-flattering stories. It strike me that if Santayana and Mark Twain are right, then this skeptical view of history must be wrong.

Agreed?

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Regarding known historical facts, say, "American Independence was declared in Philadelphia, in 1776" --what to make of the following claim:

"There are no facts, only interpretations." —Friedrich Nietzsche

Don't we all know any number of historical facts, say, "Nationalism has proved to be especially dangerous in Europe" or, "The British colonies in North America were formed well after Columbus' voyages to the New World," or "Britain and France long contended for control of North America," or "French help was crucial to the American War of Independence," or "The American Civil War was fought long after the Revolutionary War," etc.

Are these reasonably regarded as "only interpretations"? Are they reasonably just a story told by "the winners" who get to write history?

To claim that there are no historical facts, but only "interpretations," seems to be at best a (very contentious) "interpretation," --certainly no fact.

Can this idea possibly pass as a contribution to serious research?

H.G. Callaway

H.G. Callaway

the "What" of events serve as benchmarks- only. The true lessons revolve around "why?" and "how?". these are described by the winners in very idealistic terms. So,it's winning the west by destiny and moral righteousness and not killing the current residents; cooperation not War works; compromise not dominate; etc.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hodge & readers,

So, it appears you do want to allow historical facts, after all. If so, then, of course, historians might sometimes get the facts right and other times not. We are making some progress.

None of this is to say, on the other hand that there can be no disputed claims in the history books. But if there is room for reasonable debate on any controversial matters, then that suggests it is simply false that "the winners" (alone) get to write history. For example, the history of the American Civil War has been written by historians both in the North and in the South.

What then of the "Why?" and "How?" of history. More possible disputes, it would seem. So again, not only a single side writes the history of old conflicts. But all sides need to attend to the facts--or discover new facts. This is the point of historical research into original sources.

At a profound level, you seem to think that history can only be a kind of rationalization of an establishment. But this kind of "ideological" history is in fact regularly disputed by the historians. It is not that there are no difficult or disputed questions. But how should we best understand, say "the winning of the (American) West"? What are the conflicting claims to be considered? Is it the story of the establishment of a blooming landscape and prosperity for millions, perhaps? Or is all that unimportant in relation to the suffering of the native Americans? Can both sides fairly be told? Can the issue be debated? What values do we legitimately invoke to attempt to settle debate?

My own take on the theme of "manifest destiny," btw, is that there was simply no way that hunting and gathering societies were going to hold out against an influx of European agriculturalists. Much the same might be said, by the way, about the very ancient influx of middle-eastern agriculturalists into Europe--in prehistory. In any case, is it relevant here to ask whether the West is better governed now than before the influx of settlers?

I'm happy if the questions can be debated on a factual basis and in light of the interests of the people who live actually there.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

the "What" of events serve as benchmarks- only. The true lessons revolve around "why?" and "how?". these are described by the winners in very idealistic terms. So, it's winning the west by destiny and moral righteousness and not killing the current residents; cooperation not War works; compromise not dominate; etc.

Yes, it seems true. The word 'history' should be put in a neutral context. It refers to something that happened in the past.

For example, were the soldiers who killed the Indians at Wounded Knee HEROES? Their action did continue the replacement of hunter gatherer groups with agriculture. Extend this to modern culture. Is the support of the weak/losers a morally correct thing to do? If so, it should continue the survival of us? Is the tolerance of, say, the Palestinians morally correct? Or are we continuing the existence of an enemy (they're still in the tribal organization phase) who wants to kill the more advanced technology ? Technology civilizations can thrive with trading partners. But no society can survive by tolerating and supporting those who would destroy it.

H.G. Callaway

I have found your comment thought provoking. What organizing principles should a new world order be based upon? I think the Bill of Right at the Federal level was a mistake (the Constitution Convention was correct in rejecting it) as was the continued interference of Federal authority in state affairs that is continuing today even at the UN level. Westphalia Sovereignty had the better idea but it also could not survive the tendency to interfere with other's business.

In my opinion the quotation is mostly accurate. One can be sceptical about history not being objective due to existence of partial historical narratives and cover ups, but there will be usually some events that occurred on which to learn some lessons. It does seem odd that both Napoleon and Hitler decided to invade Russia and keep campaigning in the winter; Hitler (no doubt for the better of the world) did not learn that lesson. The problem is to choose a set of events which is sufficiently similar to your own; and in many cases there does not seem to be a set of events which is sufficiently similar. Brexit, mass global migration, nuclear war, rapid climate change: there has been nothing quite like them before. On the other hand when analysing threats and fighting wars, an analysis of history (strategies and tactics) is essential.

Well, this is a crucial statement. That is precisely the reason why the History is studied. And also other disciplines like the ethics, religion, arts, humanism, sciences.

Nowadays we see a completely absurd "reinvention" of human being without taking into account the discoveries of the humanity. Deliberately forgotten or simply not studied. A great lose of time is happening, because the conclusion that they are going to achieve, the reinventors, will be the same with no doubt, as known already. But worse and with a lot of waste of time.

Also history is being repeated in its worse projection, forgetting, or despising unbelievaly the effects of badness, corruption or bad policies. Forgetting for example the Roman empire fall, and why it happened directly related with the corruption. (Probably as a result, no other unificated power were performed in Italy until the XIX century, a lot of centuries after that debacle of Roman Empire.).

This flagrant lose of time, and this irresponsable put in risk of the world is a direct consequence of ignorance in every field, and a direct consequence of putting ignorant and self seeking people governing nations.(This absurdity uses to happen for example when power passing is a matter of blood).

I would tell them , don´t lose time and don´t make all of us lose time, because of your ignorance.

I think it was the historian Will Durant who said:

"The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history."

But I think he was not quite right.

I believe humans have a relatively small range of moral understanding (Dual Morality) and that most cultures will build upon one or the other variation of democracy or autocracy ... that people will seek love and children ... that the foibles of the 7 deadly sins will haunt us...

Humanity has not changed, what has changed is technology. The scientific revolution lead to the industrial revolution (technology as applied science) and so each generation is enjoying new gadgets with which to accomplish the same old aims and ends.

-Where before we could only feed the millions, we now feed the billions

-Where before we only had a few sets of clothes and a handful of baubles, we now have closets full of clothes and piles of jewelry.

-Where before women could only shower their kids with the occasional apple pie or candy cane -- they now give them all elaborate birthday parties and carry them to Disney World.

-Where before men only dreamed of seeing a few women naked, they now can go on porn sights and view them by the hundreds.

-We once only killed our enemies in the thousands, we can now kill them in the millions.

-Where before we dreamed we might live to 65 we now wonder who will pass 100.

So history may be repeating itself, but thanks to wealth and production it is repeating itself in every more opulent and spectacular ways. And apparently, we would not (and probably cannot) have it any other way.

The world is the way it is, because we are the way we are.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

I've often remarked myself, that it is something of a wonder that Aristotle's Ethics and Politics still make sense to us --some thousands of years later. This may suggest that something, "human nature," say, has remained unchanged. Aristotle's natural science, in contrast is chiefly obsolete. It is not, of course that everyone will agree about Aristotle's Ethics or Politics, but they do make good sense to us.

But does it then follow that only natural science and technology have changed, but that as concerns the humanities there is little or nothing new under the sun?

I don't think so; and the contrary argument rests on the point that human beings have learned to do things which they could not do before. There has been an increase in human powers over nature generally, as you seem to note in passing.

Concerning history in particular, if we come to understand the contributing causes of past events, then it stands to reason that we should now be better able to avoid similar undesirable developments. That is part of the value of the study of history. We are always able to do some of what we want, and given new understanding of constraints, we can also expand what we are able to do. The point is not without moral and political significance. E.g., is it a good idea to colonize Mars? Is the development of A.I. a desirable goal? Should expanded computer inter-connectivity be used for social control or surveillance?

One might put the point another way. Human cultures may be fairly viewed as based in human nature. But even supposing that human nature would remain unchanging over centuries and millennia, human cultures change, differentiate and develop. They have become in significant degree independent of the evolutionary forces which originally shaped human nature. No doubt, they remain adaptive to the environment, but they are also capable, within some limits or other, of modifying the physical environment. We are confronted with choices and options which our ancient ancestors could not even imagine.

Though we might just passively acquiesce in repetitions of history, it is sometimes possible to break out of old, recognized tendencies or cycles --perhaps, e.g., even the domination of ethnic nationalism over modern European history?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Humanity has not changed, what has changed is technology. The scientific revolution lead to the industrial revolution (technology as applied science) and so each generation is enjoying new gadgets with which to accomplish the same old aims and ends.

H.G. Callaway , Dr. Callaway, your questions are always so multifaceted and interesting. I will address another aspect of your history question here:

There is a bifrucation in the nature of man that is evident in his approach to history. We have the personal history of remembering our kid's birthdays, our anniversaries, our High School reunion, the annual family Labor Day picnic ... and then we have social history of recollecting wars, the names of presidents, celebrating national independence, recalling the names of dead inventors, etc.

The foundational question of history is:

WHAT SHOULD WE REMEMBER AND WHY SHOULD WE REMEMBER IT?

Is answered by us in to patterns.

And it appears that a strong case can be made that the sexes tend to favor one form or the other, with females focusing on FAMILY HISTORY while males focus upon PUBLIC HISTORY.

"Understanding" is really the process of "correct generalization"

and experience teaches us that moms (generally) tend to be the ones who remember all the kids birthdays and anniversaries while dads are ones who sit around and watch all the history channel shows about WWII and Adolf Hitler.

Biologically, we can trace these behaviors back to the roles of males and females PRE-HISTORY and probably PRE-HUMANITY....

Where the world of females involved raising and protecting offspring and the world of the males focused upon defending their group and trying to rise in the pecking order.

I would say that in general this quote is just following a principle of economy. It is not just the part of making a previously made mistake but of re doing and wasting valuable time when you can just build on top of what you can learn. This economy of action facilitates faster evolution (not necessarily progress).

History may be subjective, but this is where one has to pass judgement on the subjectivity of the source and whether it is applies or not

Generally true.

Travels in many foreign countries taught me that nations do not agree on what is happening now. Histories are different in each country.

Failure to comprehend history is causing failure to learn from history, more for nations that won their recent wars than for those who lost.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Decker & readers,

Thanks for your reply.

Certainly, there are more or less subtle differences among countries in how history is told or recorded. But this tells us little about the significance of the differences. There are also differences in the accounts of history among the various historians of any single country. With greater access to the histories told within a single country, we are in a better position to sort them out.

But presumably there is also much agreement, on the basis of which the differences might be hashed out. Everyone agrees, for instance, that WWI started in 1914 and ended in 1918; that Hitler came to power in Germany in the 1930's --not in France. Again, historians generally agree that competitions for colonial empires and for sea power contributed to the outbreak of war in Europe in 1914; and everyone agrees that Japan attacked the American navy at Perl Harbor, December 7, 1941--etc, etc.

But I have seen it said, on some sides, that the American conquest of the Philippines in the Spanish-American war of 1898, made war with Japan nearly inevitable. This is a somewhat more controversial claim, perhaps. But it is not that it cannot be reasonably debated --partly on the basis of commonly accepted historical facts.

I tend to agree, overall, that the countries that prevailed in WWII have subsequently tended to be less self-critical. But, again, we are perhaps lacking some account of the significance of the differences.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Generally true. Travels in many foreign countries taught me that nations do not agree on what is happening now. Histories are different in each country. Failure to comprehend history is causing failure to learn from history, more for nations that won their recent wars than for those who lost.

"People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them." (James Baldwin)

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." (Napoleon Bonaparte)

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Abbas & readers,

Interesting. But this quotation may tell us more about Napoleon than it does about history?

There is no indication in the quotation that people may "decide to agree upon" a version --for better or worse reasons and based on facts or perhaps on self-flattering suppositions, say. We evaluate the "versions" partly based on their adequacy to the facts.

Napoleon made a lot of history, but that does not make him an expert on the discipline of writing history. Quite the contrary. Such "men of action" are often more unreflective --thinking that mere willing can make it so.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." (Napoleon Bonaparte)

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

I don't think it can be doubted that our various interests (or values) contribute to our perspectives on history. But again, it is eventually a question of evaluation of perspectives (and even of values).

Generally, differences is perspective are somewhat like our having binocular vision--a feature very prominent in evolution. The brain integrates the dual images into a richer overall view. This is a scientific metaphor, of course, but we should be able to learn from it. Notice that where we get the same result from different historical accounts, then that strengthens the evidence available for that result. For example, British and French historians may differ in their accounts of the conquest of Quebec during the Seven Years' war, but they will at least agree that the British won the fight and took control of Quebec.

The reconciliation of differing perspectives on history by men and women is an important and interesting task. But it is not so different from the task of evaluating and sorting out the differing historical accounts among historians who differ in other ways. In general terms, and avoiding contentious politicization, one might expect the differing perspectives to enrich each other.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Where the world of females involved raising and protecting offspring and the world of the males focused upon defending their group and trying to rise in the pecking order.

Dear Callaway & readers

Reading histories of military colleges leaves impression that wars are planned long in advance and fought for different reasons than are offered to the public.

We might agree on when a war was fought or some other event, but to prevent a reoccurrence the causes must be better understood. In that case it is important to read the histories of decision makers and those who make preparations.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Decker & readers,

Agreed.

Let me recommend a book which I've found quite fascinating, John Taliaferro (2013) All the Great Prizes, The Life of John Hay, from Lincoln to Roosevelt.

See the publisher's description:

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/All-the-Great-Prizes/John-Taliaferro/9781416597346

Hay was a personal secretary to Lincoln, later an American diplomat, became quite rich, and eventually became Secretary of State under President McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. Basically he knew everyone in a position to make decisions both in the U.S. and in GB.

This book is a genuine "page turner." Its very hard to put it down.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

We might agree on when a war was fought or some other event, but to prevent a re-occurrence the causes must be better understood. In that case it is important to read the histories of decision makers and those who make preparations.

Everyone acts on the premise that they have learned from history, politics, ethics, and other disciplines.

History and historians should be teaching us that there was no need to invade Europe in WWII at Normandy (if the reason was to defeat Hitler) since it was clear by looking back over the past 3 centuries that Russia was capable of beating the Germans and marching all the way to the Atlantic.

i.e. Napoleon

Which is exactly what they would have done again had the Brits & Americans not landed in western Europe.

But we do not teach that our landing at Normandy prevented Staling from marching to the sea and controlling all of Europe for the last half of the 20th century.

We say our landing at Normandy was to defeat Hitler.

So what are we learning from history concerning the landing at Normandy?

That it was needed to defeat the Nazis (who had been on full retreat from the Russians for almost two years at that point). A clear historical falsehood!

Or do we teach that our landing kept the Russians from marching to the Atlantic and controlling all of Europe?

What people learn from history generally involves what historians teach about it.

And in this case it seems that we are not teaching the most important lesson concerning this one very well known example.

So, concerning the Normandy landings and the defeat of the Germans in WWII .... what is it that we are to learn from history?

True

History arranged society with respect to transformation and future extrapolate in equivalent trend examined from history.

Rational ideology of society protect diversities, natural rights, and Qualitative measures

True. But those who have learnt altered history without any logic is more dangerous and will doom themselves and even the country at large than those who have not learnt.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Please keep in mind that the objective of this thread is to answer the question:

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." True or false?

I see no reason to think that this requires rehearsing answers to any and every arbitrarily selected and contentious historical interpretation or view.

If some questions can be settled, then that should be enough to show that history indeed provides useful materials, say, for social and political thought.

Concentrating on the thoroughly contentious is, indeed, simply contentious --in the context of the present question.

H.G. Callaway

It is a Very Correct Observation !

True! I agree.

“ “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." True or false?”

Practically all what history teaches is that the winner is always right and the “winners are not judged”.

And all in accordance with this rule was and will be repeated any times, till humans behavior will be governed by “material interests”, i.e. by needs of humans’ material bodies

When on the body in human the fundamentally non-material consciousness resides, which has non-material needs and uses the body only as a stable residence and source of energy. Just that differs humans from, say, bacteria.

And till humans will not understand this fact, all will be as it was and is, i.e. humans’ behavior will not differ from a bacteria colonies behavior.

More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1116209

Cheers

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Shevchenko & readers,

I think we have heard this all before--and the claim has already been answered. Please see above.

Practically, your doctrine functions to encourage acquiescence in the powers-that-be (whoever they are) until the "great change' --which never comes.

Its all very familiar. In the mean time, reformers are to be despised? This has the perceived advantage of "being on the right side," --while never effectively challenging "real existing" power and authority.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Practically all what history teaches is that the winner is always right and the “winners are not judged”.

Dear Callaway & readers

Well written biographies of famous people can give valuable history lessons, sometimes more informative than other histories.

The biography of Malcolm X comes to mind. Written with Alex Haley, in 1965 and continuously in print, it shows a way of life that most people were not aware of, was not well represented by other writers, and for the most part no longer exists. It teaches some history lessons that people might use to avoid situations.

Other writings become history lessons although they were intended for other use.

In this category are books on war by three famous names from different countries and time periods. Under the name Sun Tzu (fugitive warrior) a book about war dates from about 2500 years ago and is still quoted widely. Niccolò Machiavelli. wrote a book about war 500 years ago which is little quoted because his faction lost. Carl von Clausewitz wrote about war 200 years ago and still influences contemporary thought. All of these have become history lessons about how to gain advantage and avoid loss both in war and in other competitions.

Persons who have not learned the history lessons are at a serious disadvantage and may well repeat the loses of previous generations.

Dear Callaway & readers,

“…Practically, your doctrine functions to encourage acquiescence in the powers-that-be (whoever they are) until the "great change' --which never comes. ….”

-? In the doctrine [see the SS post above and the paper that is linked in the post; the paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720 is useful also] there is nothing from what could follow the quoted inference above.

What follows from the “doctrine” is:

(i) – “a human” is some [informational, there cannot exist something other than some informational patterns/systems, that is rigorously proven fact] system, which is composed from two main sub-systems: the practically material body [with the brain] and the sub-system “the consciousness” [more, besides the linked papers, see for example the last SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Chalmers_so-called_hard_problem_in_consciousness_real#view=5d1355be0f95f13ceb2f7a1e ]

(ii) - the fundamentally non-material informational system consciousness uses the body only as a stable residence and the energy source; and practically for sure Life on Earth appeared as the result of the “deliberate” action of some “truncated BIOS” consciousness’s version, which further – as that seems evidently follows from Life development on Earth – modifying bodies structures has built now the utmost developed “homo sapiens sapiens” version.

(iii) thus it is incorrect to say “human has consciousness”, more correct is “consciousness has human”, however consciousness of all living beings till now, including humans practically till last few decades, had/have the main aims [besides “sub-conscious” “background mode”, see the linked papers] to have stable body; i.e. to have enough food, safety, defense from climatic impacts, etc., i.e. in all cases the non-material consciousnesses govern by practically material bodies aimed at satisfaction of the bodies’ needs.

(iii) here is an important difference, though, of humans and other living beings; the last as a rule consume the resources in the environment rather limitedly; if a beast has eaten, it, as a rule, doesn’t eat more than is necessary to become be full, when humans seek for more and better food, comfort, safety, etc., etc., etc.; including – as that Adam Smith pointed – the main aim that determines a human’s behavior is to get more prestige.

And, again, till the material interest will determine humans’ behavior there will be concurrence between humans, groups, countries, etc.; people will consume/produce more and more wealth, including those that are principally unnecessary; when [V. Lenin] “politics is a concentrated manifestation of economics”, and wars are quite natural as be “continuation of politics by another methods”; again, etc.

Again, till humans will not understand that human’s indeed natural and main needs are needs of non-material consciousness, the concurrence will continue, and some hopes that some “reformers” can to change something in rather dirty humans’ history are only some utopias.

Cheers

Although true, some people can learn from history such as the Framers of the US Constitution. Others from that era did not learn and so repeated the mistakes.

Overall, the size of nations has grown. Humanity has learned (at least a few have learned and others followed) to organize into larger groups and to reduce war.

Then we have those who want to return to the past or to emulate failed strategies such as the idealization of the aboriginal life and relation with nature. The socialists re another example.

Those who cannot repeat history are doomed to learn.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

1) History is repeated, so, we do not learn from it.

2) People have not been changed - our technologies became different, thus our mistakes have worser and faster consequences.

3) Abudance and availability of historical information does not mean its correctness and proper analysis, and even more - correction of currect politics to evoide the "doomed repeatition"

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ignatov & readers,

I do not doubt that you see the matter that way. See the replies above.

General acquiescence (e.g., in hope of personal advancement) in the existing powers-that-be will tend to produce recurrent cycles.

"History never repeats exactly, but it tends to rhyme."

--Mark Twain

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

1) History is repeated, so, we do not learn from it.

Since people share similar dual-moral outlooks, their aims and ends tend to be remarkably similar.

Personally, they want an affectionate relationship, usually with children, they want to raise their children well with birthday parties and graduation ceremonies. To love and be loved and to be respected.

It is a mistake to think of "history" as only social history. There is the "personal" and "familial" history of families where so many things seem to repeat themselves across generations. By grandchildren's birthday parties are much more elaborate than my parents were, but the emotional sentiment is the same.

Concerning SOCIAL history: Our assorted taxes, wars, and regulations on behavior find similar parallels throughout history, as we try to shape social life to conform with a shared "human" moral outlook.

When we are easy and democratic and somewhat libertarian our moral-focus is on individuals, should they be treated the same or should some be treated better or worse than others?

When we act in authoritarian fashion we shift our outlook from individuals to that of groups... and we strive to prove that all groups should be equal or that some groups of people are better or worse than others.

So the leftist authoritarians use extreme tactics to equalize groups just as the rightist authoritarians use extreme measure to distinguish their group from others.

But the fundamental dichotomy of moral action remain the same, with our liberal and left leaning outlook strives for equality while our conservative and right leaning outlook strives to be distinguished and worthy.

An interesting addendum to this question might be:

WHAT ARE THE GREAT LESSONS THAT HISTORY HAS TAUGHT US?

WHAT (if anything) HAVE WE ACTUALLY LEARNED FROM HISTORY?

Maybe, I''ll' ask that independently of this thread and see if I get many responses.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

Try the following quotation,

"Knowledge is power." --Francis Bacon

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

---Lord Acton

(Both have been subject to some prior discussion and clarification.)

It would seem to follow that we should be wary of the social, economic and political power that arises from mass surveillance; and more generally, wary of concentrations of social, economic and political power arising from great concentrations of wealth --and related international, economic-political competitions.

H.G. Callaway

---you asked---

An interesting addendum to this question might be:

WHAT ARE THE GREAT LESSONS THAT HISTORY HAS TAUGHT US?

WHAT (if anything) HAVE WE ACTUALLY LEARNED FROM HISTORY?

Maybe, I''ll' ask that independently of this thread and see if I get many responses.

Great lesson - when an individual's or society's morals differ from natural law, they die. Natural law is closer to tooth and claw (capitalists - losers die) than the kinder, gentler society desired by socialists.

If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean the less knowledge we have the less corrupted we will be?

If power corrupts should we reduce the accumulation of power in the hands of the few. If so, will we ever agree on who these "few" are?

Should we reduce size of government, where ultimate social power and authority is found?

There was a big push to eliminate the entire Departments of Education and Departments of Energy back in the 1980s. Should we have done so?

Politicians love to create new bureaucracies. George W. Bush created the latest and greatest DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY. I thought "homeland security" was the responsibility of the Dept. of Defense. Did we need a new agency?

Then again, the folks who fear the private sector more than the public one demand we break up the big corporations.

Which ones should go?

When we move past the "slogan" stage into the real world implementation stage, things get a bit tricky.

Dear readers,

The concept of "eternal recurrence", the idea that with infinite time and a finite number of events, events will recur again and again infinitely, is central to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche.

(Wikipedia)

Regards ...

Dear readers,

Moreover, according to the Gospel, a truth is going to redeem humankind. However, if the truth is suppressed, then humankind is doomed to eternal recurrence.

Regards ...

To quote a fictional, TV series character - Dr. House - people are generally motivated by three things: power, money or sex. Of course, this is not entirely true, but history does repeat itself when the power elites focus solely on these three issues. Just look to the Brexit tragicomedy

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Here's another example:

Ethnic nationalism is particularly dangerous in Europe.

H.G. Callaway

“…people are generally motivated by three things: power, money or sex….”

Again – see Adam Smith, and not only, though, that is indeed true, i.e. humans' behavior till now mostly is determined by practically the material body needs – see SS posts above.

Moreover, a large part of humans seems frankly thinks that such situation is quite natural, as, e.g.

“…Great lesson - when an individual's or society's morals differ from natural law, they die. Natural law is closer to tooth and claw (capitalists - losers die) than the kinder, gentler society desired by socialists.….”

“…The concept of "eternal recurrence", the idea that with infinite time and a finite number of events, events will recur again and again infinitely, is central to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. ….”

Etc., etc., etc.

Though those, who understand that human isn’t reduced to some quantity of C, H, N, O, and a some quantity of other Mendeleev table items, which are “non-materialists”, including “non-Marxists”, understand also, that the just natural aims of human are non-material, here example

“…Moreover, according to the Gospel, a truth is going to redeem humankind. However, if the truth is suppressed, then humankind is doomed to eternal recurrence. ….”

- that is so, however that requires, of course, to have the answer on the other Gospel’s question – “What is truth?”.

Again, the rational answer on this question is possible only in framework of the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904. , where it is shown that in human the fundamentally non-material informational system “consciousness” is the main system, and the indeed natural are needs of the consciousness, which aren’t “power, money or sex”, prestige, etc.

The “material” needs were indeed naturally dominating in first thousands of years after homo sapiens sapiens appeared, and practically up to the last hundred of years, when providing of the material needs occupied practically 100% of human’s life time..

However in last years the consciousness made her job, providing for humans conditions, when providing sufficient food, safety, defense from environments hazardous impacts, etc., for human occupies much lesser time; and humans, if want to satisfy indeed natural, i.e., the consciousness’s ones, needs, have for that “free time”.

That is another thing, that to make that correctly it is necessary to understand – what is truth?, i.e, what are these indeed natural consciousness’s needs?, and that is utmost fundamental problem/subject for study by the indeed philosophy and other sciences, what, again, is possible only in framework of the conception above.

In other case history will repeat again and again; with the essential difference, though – because of the technological breakthroughs the essentially unlimited now, and practically unlimited in near future, concentration of power in more and more closed elites is practically possible, from what any consequences can follow for those, who don’t belong to the elites…

More see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts.

Cheers

Dear Dragos, dear Sergey and readers,

To quote a fictional, TV series character - Dr. House - people are generally motivated by three things: power, money or sex. Of course, this is not entirely true, but history does repeat itself when the power elites focus solely on these three issues. Just look to the Brexit tragicomedy.

Well, human nature is somehow promiscuous, it might be noble as well. Why? Simple, because a natural selection at least in a certain extent operates also on the level of social groups either.

“What is truth?”

This is the Pontius Pilate's question, which reflects relativism and consequently decadence.

Regards ...

“History cannot give us a program for the future, but it can give us a fuller understanding of ourselves, and of our common humanity, so that we can better face the future.” (Robert Penn Warren)

History teaches nothing, but punishes for the lessons not learned.

In this sense, a true statement, concerning history repeating.

True. History is crucial for the future.

I can not consider it an original thought. There are many similar popular sayings (the Russian version - "smart learn from someone else's experience, and fools - on their own" has a modern sequel: "... this means that fools teach of smart" - a very deep thought, if we start to think). Even if you do not remember Aeschylus, Ovid, Caesar, and many others, then Otto von Bismarck said: "Fools say they learn from their own experience, I prefer to learn from the experiences of others." Santayana addressed it to a specific - historical experience (I'm not sure that he was the first, but I am too lazy to look for ...).

But applied to the history, the experience of others doesn’t work. Partly because the conditions change every time, at least a little (nobody can enter the same river twice ...), and partly because the winners write history, and this one does not contain any useful conclusions for the defeated (except vulgar words about weakness, underdevelopment, tyranny (or anarchy), etc.).

Firstly, why doomed and not blessed - is history always that tragic? Secondly, in a complex Universe as the one we live in, the probability of repeating the exact same string of events within several thousand years (which is the time horizon of reliable historical data according to optimists) is extremely low, so we might safely assume that it would be much more likely to obtain this intentionally, i.e., with a clear account of historical facts. On the other hand, there is the Poincare lemma asserting that in a closed Universe governed by Hamiltonian mechanics history is bound to repeat itself regardless of whether we learn from it or not. Now we know that our Universe is not as predictable in all aspects, but there are still periodic processes, e.g. the planetary motion governing the change of seasons on Earth, and this slogan applies to them - one is more likely to suffer the winter chill if he or she is ignorant of the existence of seasons. So, it is true in this very narrow context - after all, studying the cycles of Nature provides us with a huge advantage, that is what kept both astronomy and astrology alive for ages.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Here is a slight correction of the Santayana quotation, from The Life of Reason, with a bit of surrounding context:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

---End quotation

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." is actually a later saying of Winston Churchill.

In context, Santayana was disputing the notion that "progress" can be equated with endless change.

Sorry if the original formulation of the question has mislead anyone. But I think the sense of the question remains substantially the same.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Gorshkov & readers,

I think the defenders of the Santayana quotation are generally willing to stipulate that history never repeats itself exactly. See above the similar quotation from Mark Twain: "History never repeats itself exactly, but it tends to rhyme."

Whether or not we can enter the same river twice, depends upon what we count as "the same river." (We consult the geographers.) No one seriously believes that "new waters flowing in" always makes for a different river. It would be more like a different temporal part of the same river.

Regarding your claim that "the winners write history," this claim has already be considered and substantially rejected. See above. "The winners" may sometimes write a history, but there are many cases in which the non-winners write their own history. For example, the history of the American Civil War has been written both in the north and in the South. Again, I am sure that we could find German-authored histories of WWI. See above.

Maybe in your experience only "winners" write the history--and everyone goes along?

None of this is to say there can be no prejudice or bias in the writing of history. But on the other hand, when different historians agree on anything, it will re-enforce the point of interest. There are many points that no one disputes: say, WWI started in 1914, and the U.S. entered the conflict in 1917; the war ended after it started, etc, etc. There are historical facts, and politically prejudicial history is regularly rejected by most historians.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

But applied to the history, the experience of others doesn’t work. Partly because the conditions change every time, at least a little (nobody can enter the same river twice ...), and partly because the winners write history, and this one does not contain any useful conclusions for the defeated (except vulgar words about weakness, underdevelopment, tyranny (or anarchy), etc.).

Dear H.G. Callaway and readers,

Do not agree. It is even worse. The History is erased in Orwellian manner. For instance, even for the American Civil War, I am convinced that we do not know all dark backgrounds. We also do not know much about Dark Ages, Slavic migrations ... Were Hunnic rides just an interference in a civil war within Roman Empire ... October Revolution, who assisted it ... Did Friedrich Nietzsche and Bavarian King Ludwig know each other, etc ... etc ...

Regards ...

“…Anyone else sees how we are about to not-see (to repeat historical mistake)?…”

And to not repeat a historical mistake to send to China a couple of hundreds of nuclear weapons?

Cheers

H.G. Callaway

Winners write history.

Today, the liberal movements are trying to erase the South's side - remove statues and paintings and vilifying the South. This is the winners rewriting history by labeling the losers as BAD.

When the Spanish came to Mexico, the priests destroyed the writings and culture of the indigenous people. Today little remains.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Sorry, "the winners write history" seem clearly a hasty generalization from known but contentious cases. How do we know, e.g. that anyone tried to rewrite history to glorify their own "victory" --except that someone has exposed it?

Orwell warned against ideological rewriting of history, of course; and no one doubts that there were cases he had in mind. But such cases exposed amount to a contrary history.

What would better be said is that "the winners" sometimes write history to flatter themselves. To universalize the claim creates an absurdity.

H.G. Callaway

H.G. Callaway

Other than than the simple claim of absurdity to reject without reason, would you accept "the ability to learn from the stated history of losers is nil and winners accounts are biased to favor themselves(so exaggerated)".

Another account from Japan: Did the Emperor order the attack on Pearl Harbor? And the rape of Nanking (sp)? Or was his role just a US myth to aid control.

Aleš Kralj

This exception was created by US actions. First, the use of nuclear weapons (August 6 and 9, 1945) three weeks before Japan’s surrender (September 2) was not caused by any military necessity (See, for example, The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Mark Selden, Kyoko Selden; ME Sharpe, 1989). It was actually a test of such weapons in real conditions. It is nessecary to pay for everything, so the United States did not prevent the creation of the image of "forced but not defeated", victimized Japan. Those more that US was (this is the second) are interested in a strong ally against the USSR. But ask the Chinese, Koreans or Vietnamese about their attitude both towards Japan and the self-representation that the government of this country cultivates. I am afraid that you will be disappointed.

The US with respect to History I would like to draw into the Gulf war 1 and 2 where in the second instance the US actions against Saddam Hussein's regieme has never been justified as they have never found any chemical weapons I suppose. Yet the war occurred and none have questioned it till date. The history doesn't repeat in a way that had happened in the past but the case of war will always be seen as an oppressor being using all his force to suppress the rebellion which may be in the form of a dynasty, a tribe, state within the country, a country (as an enemy to the aspirations of another country) or a group of countries against another. This generalised condition is seen to repeat continously right from the past in every part of the known or unknown world making humans more like animals with the prevailing of the Jungle Rule of Survival of the fittest.

Aleš Kralj

It is very pleasant to communicate with a humanist! For reference: Total US casualties in World War II (both theaters of war): about 506,000 military, including missing and dead prisoners of war. Including: Iwo Jima - 6.8 thousand, Okinawa - 12.4 thousand and the Battle of Peleliu - 2.3 thousand. The total losses of Japan (mainly civilians) in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 150,000 - 246,000 (according to various estimates).

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

It seems to me that some people do not recognize a compelling argument even when they see it. To "reduce to absurdity" means to show something false.

So, if "the "winners (always) write history" implies that we could know of no valuable alternatives to the "winners" accounts, and we do, in fact know of alternatives, then "the winners (always) write the history" is false.

That we can learn nothing from history written by "losers" is another absurdity. Consider, e.g., histories of the American Revolutionary war, written by the British--who lost the war. Such writings can be very informative on the subsequent attitudes and policies of the British Empire, and the subsequent history over the course of the 19th-century.

What I see here is a simple cynicism on the value of history for the humanities or for policy studies. The only thing of value is to know how the "winners" won and then do more of the same? That in fact will only exaggerate any possible conflict.

H.G. Callaway

---Hodge wrote---

Other than than the simple claim of absurdity to reject without reason, would you accept "the ability to learn from the stated history of losers is nil and winners accounts are biased to favor themselves(so exaggerated)".

Concerning LEARNING FROM HISTORY and the implied question:

- WHAT IS IT THAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM HISTORY...

A case can be made Mahesh T S that violent invasions of the territories of weaker cultures by stronger cultures opens their markets and people to ideas they are not experiencing and might not, on their own, develop for centuries.

So the British occupation of India or the forceful cultural impositions of South Africa, Japan and China by the west accelerated their becoming part of the global trading and ideas network.

We can speculate that if these nations were not forcefully introduced to western trade they might still be far behind the west in technology, and still suffering the widespread disease, famines and starvation that was rampant in these places for centuries.

Had these imperialist incursions not taken place the populations of these nations might be much smaller than they are today - while some might still be suffering in near stone-age level poverty.

The moral question becomes, "Can it be right to kill thousands today if it allows millions to live tomorrow who might otherwise never get a chance to be alive?"

Aleš Kralj

Learn history? In any case it is fruitful, but not using the American textbooks only (in terms of the degree of indocrination, these are superior to Soviet textbooks, like everything that made in the USA). I prefer to read different sources, then the picture becomes clearer, and the consciousness of exclusivity does not appears. As about humanism, I have no illusions - it is an export commodity.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Gorshkov & readers,

What makes you think that anyone here on this thread only reads American textbooks? Thanks for the compliment to them in comparison to Soviet-era textbooks, but keep in mind that I lived in Europe, off-and-on for about 25 years. I worked in the German universities, and I also taught the G.I.'s who were once stationed there.

Reading different sources is enlightening. There are differences for sure, but there is also a lot of factual agreement. That is not to say that it is easy to comprehend and reconcile all of the differences in perspective, but neither is it impossible. As I say, where significantly different perspectives and sources line up, you get a kind of confirmation --in relation to those sources. That can be something useful to work with.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Learn history? In any case it is fruitful, but not using the American textbooks only (in terms of the degree of indoctrination, these are superior to Soviet textbooks, like everything that made in the USA). I prefer to read different sources, then the picture becomes clearer, and the consciousness of exclusivity does not appears.

Look at all the re-writing of history happening in just the last few comments.

H.G. Callaway

Your case is absurd. If things have to be either true or false, the "winners write history" is more true than false.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hodge & readers,

I don't hold that every claim or statement on offer must be true or false. Sometimes we even throw out the very concepts employed to make a claim.

I would hope that "the winners write history" --ambiguously quantified as it is, may simply be thrown in the dust-bin of history. Its unclear what it is supposed to mean.

"Winners sometimes write history to flatter their own interests" is true.

"Sometimes self-flattering histories are exposed for what they are and rejected." is also true.

How much of each there may be available is a different question. That various people disagree about history (above) surely does not show that its impossible to get it straight --or that there is no better and worse in written histories.

On the other hand, answering the present question does not depend on settling every possible controversy. Some things just aren't controversial. Consider again: WWI started in 1914 and ended by armistice in 1918. Or, the U.S. was founded long after the voyages of Columbus; again, Columbus was Italian but made his voyages in the service of Spain, etc., etc.

H.G. Callaway

True

"Regardless of whether they are conscious or learned implicitly within cultural contexts, biases have been part of historical investigation since the ancient beginnings of the discipline."

"Early attempts to make history an empirical, objective discipline (most notably by Voltaire) did not find many followers. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, European historians only strengthened their biases. As Europe gradually dominated the world through the self-imposed mission to colonize nearly all the other continents, Eurocentrism prevailed in history."

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldcivilization/chapter/historical-bias/

Dear Stephen Martin Fritz

Imperialism especially with respect to India had been a very negative effect as it had been contributing around 30 percent of world GDP before invasion while it was at the level of 1 percent or less at the time of independence. Indian culture, medicine, technology, etc had a very serious setback due to the invasion and imperialistic rules that resulted for around 8 centuries. So it is wrong notion that the west imperialism had resulted in the development of East especially with respect to India. Infact the history also takes the privilege of mentioning that Indian empires were well connected to different empires all over the existing world along with flourishing trade relations. It doesn't mean that the British Imperial rule in India didn't contribute anything. They do have contributed some of the very important things like Railways, Postal network, English language, etc but at the cost of lots of destruction to indigenous activity. Even today Indians have a hangover of the slavery that had ravaged this country for 8 centuries which we have to admit. History has been distorted by the writers to highlight the achievements of the imperial masters and make feel down of our own culture and traditions by labeling it as highly superstitious and unscientific. But as H G Callaway mentioned that the truth surfaces in bits and pieces when strictly analysed and understood. Hence my first comment was Knowledge of False history is much more dangerous than being ignorant of history itself. Indians are slowly coming out of the false history which is not a easy job either as the greats with false and appeasing history had taken the forefront stands right from centuries.

Look at all the re-writing of history happening in just the last few comments.

The British worldwide trading network Mahesh T S brought nations (created them actually) from around the world into productive cooperation with each other.

From the USA to India to Australia, to Hong Kong, to Canada, Egypt, Israel, etc... a better term for democracy is "Commercial-Democracy" as one reliably follows on the heels of the other.

There is a romanticism about "indigenous cultures" that every technologically advancing nation struggles with.

Here in the USA the folks who hold jobs which are part of the modern economy are happy to travel around and visit poverty stricken Native Americans trying to eek out a living selling traditional hand-made beads and traditionally woven blankets to city dwelling tourists talking on cell phones made in Korea while driving cars made in Japan and drinking coffee grown in Columbia.

The question becomes, would you rather your child look forward to a life of weaving blankets, handcrafting clay pots and stringing beads or would you like rather they learn aircraft mechanics or automotive engineering?

If the Europeans had not pushed into India, where do we imagine the Indian subcontinent would be right now?

India certainly would not be the big democratic nuclear armed nation. It would likely still be the fragmented jumble of principalities and sultanates.

Would that be preferable? Are there many Indian people who wish they could be living in that way?

The founders of modern India (Gandhi & Nehru) as well as the founder of Pakistan (Jinnah) were all trained in British legal schools. They brought their people into the modern universe of nations.

Gandhi did it by wearing home-spun cloths to try to remove the fear in the hearts of his people. He was an Indian "nationalist" trying to create a country that existed in the "international" community of nations.

The problem for all people is a MORAL one as well as an economic one. How many traditional practices can be held onto when economic betterment demands we abandon them and change our ways?

To paraphrase Churchill.... Invariably, most people come to believe that the unequal sharing of blessings is to be preferred to the equal sharing of miseries.

Is there a historic lesson to be learned in the spreading of British liberties around the world?

Will the people in Afghanistan be better off if the west pulls out and the Taliban return to power?

What lesson does history have to teach us concerning Afghanistan?

Stephen Martin Fritz

Of course, British trade was extremelly beneficial ... Especially for both China and India. When the opium produced in India was imposed for China (see the history of the Opium Wars). This is irony, of course. If we compare the current state of the mentioned India (former British colony) and China (it has never been formally a colony, despite multiple attempts), Kenya and neighboring Ethiopia, Burma and Thailand, Iraq and Iran, Egypt and Turkey ... Where are the traces of "beneficial influence"? I am think that these exist only in the imagination of the theorist of colonialism.

Dear Callaway, H.G.

The quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" is most likely due to George Santayana, and in its original form it read, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I think we need to move with the original statement.

The statement " Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ." is given by George Santayana; a great philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist. The aforesaid statement is full with the usability of common sense of learning and modification of behavior in our day to day life since the beginning of Human evolution. The word "history" represents all of the past, and if we failed to learn from the past then the future will be costlier. As a resultant, we will fail to make any future progress at the cost of the past, which is very opposite to the progressive nature of Human being.

So in my view, it is very contemporary beyond the time and having a very abstract meaning; full of practicality.

Happy Researching...

yes, that is true

I would like to mention that like any other national disintegration too the country was in shambles with the imperial Islamic or Mughal rule in India that doesn't mean that it was the British rule that united India even though incidentally it did.

Regarding the nations past it should be observed that there are many examples of great empires ruling India like the Mauryan empire, Gupta empire, etc who ruled the whole country for centuries and were intact with lot of developments even much more forward than which europeans were at that point of time. Hence technology difference due to time is only a way for development that has open the doors of globalisation and not the result of Imperial rule for sure. It is the emergence of IT that has made technology transfers much more faster and easier than the past.

India and China in the past were the most connected countries to rest of the world. Infact even the European powers have fought against each other to take control of this rich and prosperous nation out of which eventually the British succeeded. If the British imperial rule is to be considered as driving force for unification of India then it should also be considered as the driving force for the permanent split of India into three nations that exist today.

I am interested to know you advice on Afghanistan Mahesh T S ?

This thread was about learning from history, so, in your opinion, what should we have learned from our dealings in Afghanistan and what should be done today?

If we keep in mind that democratic trading nations tend to cooperate and not war with each other... it might be in everyone's interest to find ways to bring the Afghanis into the worldwide trading network.

The economist Frederick Bastiat (c. 1850) is credited for suggesting: "If goods don't cross borders, soldiers will."

Afghanistan seems no further down the path of production, trade and eventual commercial-democracy today than it was in 1890 when the British army fought there, and when Rudyard Kipling wrote:

When wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains

And the women come out to cut up what remains

Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

And go to your God like a soldier.

Seems Marx said that “History repeats itself - the first time as a tragedy the second time as a farce”, though that isn’t so, there happen next tragedies. And, next time, that will be always till humans will behave having as main aims the satisfaction of needs of their practically material bodies; and that will be changed only after humans will understand that just the non-material consciousness’s non-material needs are really indeed scientifically natural aims, and so must have priority comparing with the body’s needs.

When such allegations

“…If we keep in mind that democratic trading nations tend to cooperate and not war with each other......”.

- are no else than some utopian allegations, in this case that is even quite evident - practically all wars in last few hundreds of years, including WW1 and WW2, were just between "democratic trading nations"…

Cheers

Stephen Martin Fritz

Lesson not yet learned about Afghanistan and British rule:

Do not interfere in the internal workings of other nations, do not be the world cop. The cost is very high. So high that it drains the cop's treasury to collapse or causes the cop to be brutal (humanitarianism causes collapse). It does not prevent war but changes war to violent conflict for ejection of the intruder. The reason Gandhi succeeded was the British had become humanitarian decades earlier. The Westphalia Sovereignty worked and British, US, UN, USSR, intrusion created revolution. Without the "enlightened" rule of those who like to tell others what to do, the 3rd world must go through the learning cycle themselves.

History never repeats itself. Man always does. (Voltaire)

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Abbas & readers,

Its hard to beat Voltaire for witty quotation, of course.

But you say nothing by way of evaluation of this one in particular.

I think we already have pretty much general agreement that "history never repeats itself exactly" (Mark Twain) --which implies that "history never repeats itself." Yet, if it does, in spite of that tend to "rhyme," as Twin has it, then this seems quite as significant as an exact "repeat" as we ordinarily understand the matter.

In the ways that we care about it, then, history does indeed tend to repeat itself. (Consider the repeating tendency toward large-scale wars alone.) What, then, does it mean to claim that "Man always does."? More over, if "man always repeats himself, what would it possibly mean to say that history doesn't?

The Voltaire quotation seems a bit of a puzzle or paradox. What seems particularly difficult in the quotation is the idea that "Man" always repeats himself.

What would this mean--on your account of the matter--and as relates to our question? Does this mean that "Man" in general always repeats himself, or that some people do? --everyone?

Notice that if this all comes down to "Man" in general tends to repeat himself, then the Santayana warning seems to stand. Right?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

History never repeats itself. Man always does. (Voltaire)

Dear Callaway,

I think that Voltaire means that "Man" learns from the history and tends to repeat some of its successful aspects. History never repeats itself if "Man" has no idea about it.