"Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It." Really?
By Nicholas Clairmont
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
The quote 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.
The phrasing itself certainly is catchy.It's a big one, not only because it is so common, but also because if it is true and if history is ugly (hint: it is), then this saying ought to guide our public and private policy.
Its hard to disagree with. Over our history, wars ended with confiscatory terms of surrender inevitably breed more wars. Revolutions that give an individual absolute power inevitably end up as brutal dictatorships. Even individuals are subject to this advice. Couples who do not learn from their fights break up. People who dont learn from their mistakes dont mature.
So it is the ruling of The Proverbial Skeptic that this saying is true, but
But, it doesnt really have any power. Why?History shows that both those who do not learn history and those who do learn history are doomed to repeat it. If it's also true that those who do learn history are doomed to repeat it, then the sayingdoesn'treally add anything at all.
So is that the case?
After repeated wars between Germany and France, France still demanded that confiscatory terms of surrender be imposed on Germany after The First World War. Then The Second World War happened.
After failing to invest in education and infrastructure in Afghanistan after arming the Mojahadin against the invading Soviet Union in the 80s, America neglected to make the same investments after later Middle Eastern military campaigns. Then rose The Taliban and Al Qaeda.
After Stalins brutal regime of secret police and leader worship, Cuban revolutionaries allowed their charismatic revolutionary leader to seize absolute power. A Castro still holds a seat of dictatorial power in Cuba.
It may be that all of the good things and all of the bad things about people and the way that we organize ourselves are simply going to breed patterns as we continue to make history as a species. It may be that we are simply given to a certain irrationality which leads us down paths, some disastrous, again and again.
Tags
Who is online
496 visitors
Interesting thought - even if we do learn history, are we still doomed to repeat it ?
Will Obama once again make idle "Red Line" threats to other countries, assuming he will always have Congressional backing, and Full Faith and Credit of the United States military at his disposal?
I don't know. What do you think? Do we learn, or do you agree with the author, " It may be that we are simply given to a certain irrationality which leads us down paths, some disastrous, again and again. " ??
Actually, the correct quote is;
The former suggests that if you do not pass your history course, you'll have to take it again. Still, the point is very topical.
lol... So, they learned from what happened - and they 'want' to repeat it!
APax, Yes, it is.
I do see his point, though, which I take is that learning from history [especially in government--my own thought] isn't part of rationality or logical thought... that human nature -emotions- can override logic?
..would've been nice.
Harry Truman once said "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know" ,
which I like but it certainly isn't true in the scientific/technology field.
Twain's "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
is awesome. I hadn't heard that before. Thanks.
Hello Cletus! I remember you and enjoyed you on the Vine. Thanks so much for commenting on this article. Very interesting thought of Truman's that you linked. I understand your point that it's a relative statement; so much seems to be "relative" to have meaning. Also, I thought Twain's quote was cool, too, and hadn't read it before, either.
I was impressed by many of Truman's quotes, and thank you for linking them. Here are a few that caused me to think:
" I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. "
I must admit that I struggle with that concept, basing my thoughts on recent history in the ME, not so much that of the long ago past. Perhaps that quote is relevant to today in the context of this article?? What we [leaders/representatives] learned is that we can deceptively appear as though we are helping them, when in reality, we are actually using them to help ourselves [financially] ?
Wow, I really like this one :
" Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination. "
Here's one that reminds me of something I learned on the Vine - Pyrrhic Victory :
" There is a right kind and wrong kind of victory, just as there are wars for the right thing and wars that are wrong from every standpoint. The kind of victory MacArthur had in mind victory by the bombing of Chinese cities, victory by expanding the conflict to all of China would have been the wrong kind of victory."
How incredibly insightful in this next one, but I do believe a "statesman" can also be a result of ideology and fanaticism at the on-set, rather than the pragmatism and economic common-sense of a true politician :
" A politician is a man who understands government, and it takes a politician to run a government. A statesman is a politician whos been dead 10 or 15 years. "
Thanks again!
Friggin MacArthur. His actions of bombing Yalu bridges resulted in China invading North Korea, as they had warned, and kicking our ass (for awhile, anyway)
WHY TRUMAN FIRED GENERAL MacARTHUR - Plans to Drop Atomic Bombs Would Have Caused WWIII
Another quote along the same lines, without specifically naming history:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein, (attributed)
Thank you for that one, too. I'm not a historian, but am more interested now than I ever was in the past, so it is appreciated.
I might add that when Mao heard about the U.S. wanting to use the ''bomb'', his retort was, so you kill a million here and a million there, we have many millions.
We can call ourselves "students of history".
Thank you for adding that, Kav.
I'll throw this in:
I read many of SLA Marshall's books on Korea, my favorite was The River and the Gauntlet.
An Army historian, Marshall wrote about small units in combat, trying to put together what happened at that level by interviewing the soldiers involved shortly after the action.
I read it so long ago, I checked out some reviews
I don't remember any "lessons". Anybody know what that's about, other than some estimate he made about how often soldiers just sprayed rounds around without really aiming?
I don't remember any lessons either Cletus.
A book that I enjoyed is, ''The Korean War'' by Max Hastings. He also wrote, ''Overlord: D-Day and the battle for Normandy''.
Oh, there was more to that review:
Maybe Marshall thought the newspapers should be more nationalistic?
Wrong, maybe, but not idiotic. (yet)
Yeah, he didn't even mention it, thus no 'lessons' by Marshall.
In the books I read, it seemed that Marshall was just trying to do his job documenting combat. He supported his commander, that comes out.I got the impression many times that the Chinese Army earned some respect from the troops he interviewed.
In one case, the Chinese were crossing a river (one of the tributaries to the Yalu), to attack an artillery battery, 105s. In the freezing cold the Chinese took off their clothes to cross the river and assaulted the artillery naked. The artillery fired into them with canister. Some of the artillery men musta gotta away, otherwise I wouldn't have read about it.
There was a very extensive study after WWII which found that historically since the invention of firearms that only about 15% of combat infantrymen actually fired their weapons in combat with intent to kill. That statistic was more or less accurate from Napoleon's time to the Civil War to WWI and WWII. Beginning with the Korean War the rate exceeded 50% and with the modern professional armies it is now over 90%. Much of it due to simply training infantrymen with repeated practice shooting at human silhouette targets rather than bulls-eye target as done previously. Very interesting book "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Grossmen lays out this thesis.
Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command
I note the last two sentences in particular.
Thanks, pokermik.
Yes, this is one 'lesson' that the reviewer I was quoting might have been thinking of. I'll provide a link and some quips about the controversy shortly.