Does history truly teach us anything or do we choose to manipulate and ignore it?

[G-Megas-Doux]

It is a simple thread; I am not going to take a poll. This is a discussion designed to see if a consensus of thought can be reached. There are the paradigms or possibly clichés that, “We must learn from history” and that “History is written by the winners”. These first seems reasonable but the second seems to limit the usefulness of the first in its educational value. Others completely give history short consideration and move on elsewhere such as the realms of self analysis.
What is your standpoint on the matter?

[Tiberius Tosi]

We ignore it because we have no other options. Honestly, no two situations are the same, and no two situations can be dealt with the same way. Some may say we can prevent future mistakes by looking at the past, but the truth is no solution to current problems can be derived from past situations, only mere concepts can be taken from them. No solution in the past will work now or in the future, as things are always invariably different, so we have no option but to ignore the past. So really, only ideas can be taken from the past, no solution or plan can, and therefore we ignore the past and repeat it because past solutions simply do not work as no two things are ever the same.

[G-Megas-Doux]

only ideas can be taken from the past, no solution or plan can, and therefore we ignore the past and repeat it because past solutions simply do not work as no two things are ever the same.

We are aware when we repeat something negative but believe we cannot learn from it so instead of analysing we repeat the mistake. Yet the mistakes we repeat are not the same.

Surely this is a paradox?

[El Brujo]

People can easily learn from history. Myths, tribal chauvinism, tradition, oral history, traditional songs, national heroes, folk tales, etc. are all part of the process by which humans learn from history. Looking at something like the American Civil War with the aid of letters, textbooks, and records is fairly new, and only a tiny minority of people have the time, resources, and inclination to learn enough by this route to actually come to useful conclusions. Most just look at vague similarities between the events in their high school history textbook and the news and think "Oh no, we're just like Rome!", and use that to vindicate their political beliefs.

[G-Megas-Doux]

People can easily learn from history. Myths, tribal chauvinism, tradition, oral history, traditional songs, national heroes, folk tales, etc. are all part of the process by which humans learn from history. Looking at something like the American Civil War with the aid of letters, textbooks, and records is fairly new, and only a tiny minority of people have the time, resources, and inclination to learn enough by this route to actually come to useful conclusions. Most just look at vague similarities between the events in their high school history textbook and the news and think "Oh no, we're just like Rome!", and use that to vindicate their political beliefs.

How does this allow society to learn as a whole when people are unable to confirm what the new research teaches them, if they do not seek the answers or have the time and resources to seek the answers?

[Thalassocrat]

Learning and acting on the knowledge are not necessarily related.

"break-throughs" refer to acts whose results have defied historic precedents.

[Morkonan]

"..Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no discussion 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..." - George Santayana, The Life of Reason (1905), Volume I, Chapter XII

In other words, remembering history is completely necessary for progress. If we don't learn from and remember history, how will we make improvements? How will we know what to improve? If we simply ignore it we are doomed to repeat it, over and over again.

That is, of course, a more philosophical way of looking at history. Yet, it is entirely correct no matter how elusive that explanation seems.

We can, however, use history in a much more utilitarian way than simply remembering it by rote. For instance, a lot of hypothetical situations get raised from time to time. "What would happen if we instituted a new policy concerning xxx?" or "How would two dissimilar peoples react to each other if situation yyy occurred?" We certainly can not go into a laboratory and simply mix up a group of PeopleA and PeopleB and then see how they react! But, what we can do is look back into history to help us draw some conclusions that may be relevant to a present day situation.

How would a nation react to a segment of their population who had performed a necessary service that was suddenly rendered insignificant due to a recent discovery or cultural revolution? Could we go back and examine the spice trade in Europe, the consternation of the merchants there and the monopoly certain peoples had on it and then follow that history through to the eventual discovery and exploitation of new spice-trade routes that were no longer a monopoly by another people? Sure, we could. What about the Church's Usury Laws and the Jewish community that provided lending services when no proper Catholic could? Surely we could examine such a situation. Would it lend itself to viable answers? It might. At the least, it may open up paths of inquiry that would have not been expected otherwise.

The point is that History is also more than just a list of progressive achievements. It's a giant repository of information and human interactions that we can actively learn from. Learning from History does not always have to be a passive act.

Winners DO write the history books. However, Scholars find out where they've made mistakes. The Human History that we know may be filled with factual errors, here and there. But, overall, it's an excellent classroom.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Morkonan- This is exactly why I opened the thread to get in depth views as such on the subject. In the other side to what you say. The quality of the judgement, through revisionist and counter revisionist views may cause conflict. People have been known to argue bitterly over the placement of punctuation never mind the lessons of history. Can such lessons be worth the value of potential dogmatic conflict in research spilling over into politics where history is deemed most useful?

[Morkonan]

..Can such lessons be worth the value of potential dogmatic conflict in research spilling over into politics where history is deemed most useful?

History is a teacher, not a recipe book. History is just a list of "What happened." It is not definitive of anything other than itself. All too often we simply do not know enough to make judgments regarding easy topics like "Cause" and "Effect" in History. We can know some of what happened and how it appears to have been affected. That's it.

People do craft History to fit their particular ideology. But, anyone can do that. I think the most important thing is that while one may believe History supports their ideology the FACT is that History doesn't even believe in their ideology, much less support it!

History simply "is." It's a big book written by one giant hand with spastic fingers attempting to explain human behavior over time with one eye closed and the other eye half-blind. Anyone who believes it is the ultimate answer to any current problem doesn't really understand History at all, in my opinion.

Yet, that doesn't mean it is useless. True, scholars will argue their points until their faces turn blue. They'll pummel each other to death over how many troops Darius had or what were Napoleon's last words. The problem is even if they're right, we'll probably never, ever, ever possibly be able to know. So, what's the point in arguing to the extent that the argument overshadows the actual History? We take what we can from it and try to use it to make something better just as mankind has done for tens of thousands of years.

History is full of truths. But, nobody really can ever say they know what they truly are.

[Kjertesvein]

Offcourse we glorify how powerful we kicked those *** asses up to heven and down to hell, but history does not manipulate how we kicked those *** asses. Tactic, governmental institution, military infrastructure, weapons of war, tactics of war, etc.

If we are unsure how things went down, then it only takes a while to check more sources.

[El Brujo]

How does this allow society to learn as a whole when people are unable to confirm what the new research teaches them, if they do not seek the answers or have the time and resources to seek the answers?

It doesn't.

[G-Megas-Doux]

It doesn't.

But why would we want to be in such a possition if we need to be able to overcome these obsticals?

Offcourse we glorify how powerful we kicked those *** asses up to heven and down to hell, but history does not manipulate how we kicked those *** asses. Tactic, governmental institution, military infrastructure, weapons of war, tactics of war, etc.

If we are unsure how things went down, then it only takes a while to check more sources.

It has been known for the eventual winners to hide ineptitude during times of both conflict and peace and for information to be destroyed. Sources can be rare. So the mistakes that have been learnt from previously may be forgotten and thus the mistakes made again. History is more than just the warfare of states it is the governance of people and the societies within. Relations between groups are just as important as warfare even the Mongols had to maintain tribal relations.

[Kjertesvein]

It has been known for the eventual winners to hide ineptitude during times of both conflict and peace and for information to be destroyed. Sources can be rare. So the mistakes that have been learnt from previously may be forgotten and thus the mistakes made again. History is more than just the warfare of states it is the governance of people and the societies within. Relations between groups are just as important as warfare even the Mongols had to maintain tribal relations.

True, that's why proper archive is vital, quality and quantity:

As an example close to me, the Icelandic records of the Norse medieval ages. Heimskringla, the Kings Saga, is a historical document which contains stories of all the Kings 900's - 1225. A classical example is how King Sverre emerges from Faroe Isle's in the middle of the Civil War era, after his mother tell's him that he infact is the (ilegitimate) son a King and the 300 year old Norse dynasty. His mother tells him that he is the most rightful heir to the throne. He does come to the main land: Starts out with 70 raiders, and ends with the Kingdom, an army, excommunication, aid from Sweden and Lance(King from robin hood), killing of close to every single aristocrat in the country(which could be felt for the next 6 centurys), lengthen the war with a man age and kills of what is left of the actual royal dynasty.

Trubleshoot:
-We can then look at when this was written: It was written by a man who grew up the same year as this King Sverre came to Norway and claimed the throne. This was/is been a heathed subject ever since - And it's widly discarded as bullocks like the many other pretenders during the Civil war era.
-That the fact is true, jet there is no other document or Saga of this event: No no-
-Is it likly that a young priest from Faroe Isle is the son of the Fairhair Dynasty, and that it is not romanticist: Well... take a guess.

The other facts we can draw from the Kings Saga is all the 'little' things, like how the Ting(Law assembly/court) worked. How europe was administrated by serfdom, while Norway by strong kinship, giftgivers and freemen(farmers and burgonies). How the King could not simply take more then his fair share from a sack, then his Noble men. How the Nobles had more freedom, how there was the same laws for the freemen as with the nobles. How the King was only first among equals. How the laws were abit socialistic (kill, and you and your family must also pay florins for your crime). How the womans had the right to divorce. Etc.

The thing is that we have to take the most heathed arguments with a grain of salt, and judge it by context and other documents.

Wiki can also explain abit:

Heimskringla has continued to be used as a historical source, though with more caution. It is not common to believe in the detailed accuracy of the historical narrative and historians tend to see little to no historical truth behind the first few sagas, however, they are still seen by many as a valuable source of knowledge about the society and politics of medieval Norway.[4]

[Koelkastmagneet]

History, like all things, is relative.

[G-Megas-Doux]

History, like all things, is relative.

In this instance attempts of profound vagueness are not useful. Help your fellow intellects and bring specifics about aspects of history to the discussion so we can come to a useful consensus. I challenge you to do this in a profound way.

[Koelkastmagneet]

Aw, but I like profound vagueness

People will never, ever agree on how to interpret history, as their ego prevents it, Islamic incursions into Europe are romanticised by some Arab and Turk nationalists because of their supposed intellectual worth, while Spaniards, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians etc. generally see them as violent occupation, nothing more.

Another great example is the Armenian genocide, what is deportation and genocide to one, is resettlement and civil war to others.

[G-Megas-Doux]

@TheUnknownEntity
So then ego is the problem with historical interpretation causing manipulation. Such ego however does not cause others to ignore the statements as they fight back causing revision due to dissatisfaction of biased viewpoint. You discount the people who are unbiased to the issues and only look at things as a riddle. There are historians who can be classed as neutral, for example an atheist Japanese Historian may take the time to research the example subject and devote their life to finding the truth of the position. Just because there is opposition does not mean that a majority consensus would not stand above it. This is after all how history is made and accomplishments are achieved.

[Warhammster]

History is fake, any guy with a pen, paper and good imagination can make history. After all how many historical documents are actually verified?

[Ludicus]

Obviously, history is written by the winners (Michel Foucault, Ricoeur, and Orwell -"he who controls the present, controls the past"
Anyway, I particularly like Gerda Lerner (former President of the Organization of American Historians) approach:
"We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events"

[Koelkastmagneet]

@TheUnknownEntity
So then ego is the problem with historical interpretation causing manipulation. Such ego however does not cause others to ignore the statements as they fight back causing revision due to dissatisfaction of biased viewpoint. You discount the people who are unbiased to the issues and only look at things as a riddle. There are historians who can be classed as neutral, for example an atheist Japanese Historian may take the time to research the example subject and devote their life to finding the truth of the position. Just because there is opposition does not mean that a majority consensus would not stand above it. This is after all how history is made and accomplishments are achieved.

I would argue that most people are biased in one way or another, even if they don't notice it.