Written Within the Pages

 Greetings,

If you do not read the books, you do not know what is contained within the book. Thus, you have no right to assume to know what the author thinks or has written. This can be applied to those who love to quote aphorisms from authors and then go on to attack them, as much as it is to those who claim that this or that writer is of this or that particular political leaning, due to what they have written. How would a person know what their political leaning is, if they have not read what the author has written?

People need to open their eyes. They need to open their eyes and realise that if they do not at least look at these books and authors they hate so much, they will be unprepared for those who use the writings within them. 

The Nazi Party in Germany did not just sprout from the ground, its popularity did not just grow over night it took time and persuasion of people. It was only when people's rights were being infringed upon, when people were being attacked and murdered that some people realised that something was wrong, but the mass of people didn't. The actions that the Nazis took were legal, they were passed by law. Think about that for a moment, those who hid Jews were breaking the law, those who murdered them, homosexuals and disabled people, were doing it legally according to the laws of their country.

How can you defend against a political standpoint if you don't know how it grows?

How can you defend against an ideology if you don't know what its tenets are?

How can you prevent the same things from happening if you don't know how it all started?

Erasing history because it's ugly, or because it makes people uncomfortable is not a good thing. It is criminal because it leaves people unprepared for the same to happen again. They are unprepared because they don't see the warning signs. The threat is not from the idiot skinheads in the streets marching about, it is from those who keep their feelings hidden, who keep their ideologies to themselves, but make small changes to our society to gradually twist things their way.

People complain about eugenics programs. How about the eugenics program by default that is happening in the world right now as a result of price increases? What happens when the poor cannot afford to eat? What happens when people even on benefits from the government cannot afford to keep themselves alive and eat? They die. The prices go up, more people die. It is eugenics by social class, by wealth. If you are not healthy enough to work, or do not have employment, you are priced out of LIFE.

Sounds crazy? Well who controls the ability to change inflation? Who controls the ability to give people on payments enough money to live rather than having them on the poverty line, or below it? Yes, that's right the government. Who do they act in the interest of? Their rich friends, no the so-called "people". Tax breaks do nothing for people on benefits.

What are the policies of these people? What are their true ideologies? How many of those match up to the ideologies of the fascists that people claim to be fighting by preventing people from reading books? Our oligarchical society, I say oligarchical because it takes thousands of dollars to run for office and not everyone has that money, only the top of the money piles, makes pitiful concessions to those below them while hoarding the riches to themselves. 

They complain about the cost of welfare, that the people on payments are not giving back to society. Well have a look at the Nazi policy and how they felt about the disabled, it is pretty much the same. The problem with the budget does not come from those from below, it comes from those from above. If the billionaires and millionaires actually paid any tax, rather than getting tax breaks, the budget would be a lot healthier. Our politicians look at things from the top, they have no clue about the people they represent. They are the enemy that, so-called politically-enlightened people, are ignoring because they foolishly believe we live in a democracy.

They would understand our actual state if they actually read some of the books they are so frightened to read. They would understand what's happening to their society, and what's happening to the people that they are supposedly defending while they are failing to do so, if they picked up the book and read it and understood what's actually happening.

Read the book. 

Yes, it will be ugly. 

No, you won't like it. 

That's not the point.

Get an education.

Learn how you can actually do some good.

Cheers,

Henry.

A Wasted Time?

 Greetings,

Supposedly I wasted years of my life doing a History degree and Honours because it is useless in today's society. It is not worth anything because we have too many historians out there already. The fact that I finished my Degree and Honours in 2002 is beside the point.

First, I could've studied something more suited to "the market" but I decided to study something which aligned with my passion. Something that was my goal in life, rather than something that was "fiscally sensible". Can you claim to have done the same?

Secondly, there is a quote from Winston Churchill and it is certainly as relevant today as it was when it was first said, "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I would prefer to learn from history than repeat it, or at least point it out to people so they understand that we have been here before and we still have not learnt our lesson.

Thirdly, to all the historical reenactors and budding historians, I simply ask you, where do you think all that wonderful information that you are using as "evidence" for your "arguments" came from in the first place? It did not simply pop out of the ground, it was discovered, researched and interrogated by trained historians for its veracity before being placed in the same sources that you use. 

Fourthly, "History offers the best training for those who are to take part in public affairs" from Polybius in his Histories. Evidence can be found for this in many a statesman who studied history, including John F. Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Winston Churchill. I would never put myself among those people, but maybe if more leaders had studied history then they would know where they are going and where not to go.

Fifthly, only through a study of history do you have the tools to interrogate history, to discover what is hidden behind the history, to discover the what, the wherefore, the true meaning of the events. Such can not only be applied to events of the past, but can also be applied to events of the present, with a knowledge of the past. "Not to know what happened before one was born is to remain a child." Cicero: De Oratore XXXIV

With these five points in mind, and likely more that I could raise, no I don't think I did waste my time studying history, and I don't think I waste my time studying history. I believe it gives me a better understanding of the world around me, a better understanding than those who have not studied history, or those who have given it a cursory glance. I believe that my years of training in history puts me ahead of those amateurs who study history, for I already know how to interrogate sources, I already know how to write an argument, I already know how to sort the relevant from the irrelevant when examining my sources, because I was trained to do so.

Cheers,

Henry.

Define: History

 Greetings,

I have already had my discussion "About History", but I did not give any sort of definition of the term. It would be expected that this process would be reasonably straight-forward; go to the dictionary, pull out a definition, have a nice discussion about the term, all done, right? Not to be so, because like the content, people like to bend it to suit themselves, adding in and leaving out bits to bend it to their particular preferences. The result is that below will be presented some definitions of "history" and some discussion about them.

Dictionary Definition

Noun, “the study of past events” or “a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes” or “a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events” Merriam-Webster (2022) “history” in Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The Merriam-Webster provides three definitions of the same noun, the first two describe history as a thing in and of itself, while the third points toward history a branch of knowledge a means to an end. These definitions point toward a simple collection of events as the main part of the definition, with a slight aspect of discussion of explanation of their causes. The purpose of this collection would seem to be self-fulfilling, recording history to record history.

Noun, “the study of or a record of past events considered together, especially events of a particular period, country, or subject” Cambridge University Press (2022) “history” in Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The Cambridge University Press definition is similarly simple, focusing on the collection of a record of past events, the only addition in this case is that it might focus on a particular focal subject area, being time, place or subject. This definition indicates that history might narrow the focus to a particular area of interest, but the focus is still on the collection of past events.

Noun, “the branch of knowledge dealing with past events” or “a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle” or “acts, ideas, or events that will or can shape the course of the future; immediate but significant happenings” Dictionary.com (2022) “history” in Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/history, [accessed 7/1/22]

The definition from Dictionary.com has multiple definitions, like the Merriam-Webster. In this case it starts with branch of knowledge, history as a subject, then examines history as a collection of past events, but focuses it on a particular subject area. The last part of the definition indicates some significance to the events, that they shape the future, that the events are significant in some measure. This definition implies that the history will have an impact on the present and future. It is this impact which tends to be the focus in our current age, rather than a simple cataloguing of events.

Post-Modernist Definition

“History is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world, the past, that is produced by a group of present-minded  workers (overwhelmingly in our culture salaried historians) who go about their work in mutually recognisable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically and practically positioned  and whose products, once in circulation, are subject to a series of uses and abuses  that are logically infinite but which in actuality generally correspond to a range of power bases  that exist at any given moment and which structure and distribute the meanings of histories along a dominant-marginal spectrum.” Jenkins, K. (1991) Rethinking History, Routledge, London

There are a lot of words in Jenkins (1991) definition and there is a lot to work through to understand what it means and the effect that it had and is having on the study of history. The meaning of the definition, in individual parts: "present-minded" meaning that their evaluations of past cultural norms are often based on contemporary norms, not those historically-contemporary norms; "mutually recognisable" meaning that most of their work is recognisable to other historians on the basis of knowledge, ideas and method, not so much to the public; "practically positioned" meaning their location in time and space; "uses and abuses" meaning that their work is usually taken by others and used as evidence to support or deny some other theory or position, which may or may not relate to what has been researched, often carried out by other historians or social groups; "power bases" relating to the "dominant-marginal spectrum" usually based on ethnicity or gender/sexuality, depending on the subject-matter which has been produced by the research performed; and "meanings of histories" which is interpreted by individuals depending on what suits them at the time, regardless of the actual intent of the researcher and author of the history.

The post-modernist definition highlights the method in which history and research into history is taken from the simple recording of events and discussion of the causes as recorded in the dictionary definitions above and twisted about until it can be used for some socio-political purpose. There is no more simple recording of history, there has always got to be a purpose behind it, some sort of cause that can be served, and even if there was no intent for such, then some other person will imply it once it has been published, or use it for such a purpose. The Wikipedia also discusses the subject of history and it will be broken into several parts to show its relationship to both the dictionary definitions and also the definitive argumentative Post-Modernist definition presented above.

Wikipedia

"History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation") is the study and the documentation of the past." Wikipedia (2022) “History” in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation Inc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History, [accessed 7/1/22]

First is a simple definition which goes back to its Greek roots, and is more like the dictionary definition, indicating the study and documentation of the past. A very simple definition of history as a collection and documentation of the past. There is more, as the entry also discusses how history is collected.

""History" is an umbrella term comprising past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of these events." Wikipedia (2022)

The definition is expanded to include not only those events which have documentation, but also those events which live on in memory, these are also collected and form part of history, there is all the aspects of history present, collection and analysis before presentation of the events in some complete form. Each individual who studies a series of events will interpret them in a different way, resulting in different histories, the academic version of this collection prides itself on the analytical process.

"History is also an academic discipline which uses narrative to describe, examine, question, and analyze past events, and investigate their patterns of cause and effect." Wikipedia (2022)

 History is an academic discipline, regardless of whether it is practiced inside the halls and classrooms of some academic institution or not. The same level of rigour which is applied to the analysis of evidence which is present in any other area of the humanities applies, or even indeed the sciences. What must be recognised, and often is not is that the creating of a history is selection of events which are recorded and not, depending on their impact on the history. It is a question of qualitative evaluation,  does this event make a significant enough impact to be worth being present in this history? This is affected by the individual's cultural background and the material presented.

"Part of the historian's role is to skillfully and objectively utilize the vast amount of sources from the past, most often found in the archives. The process of creating a narrative inevitably generates a silence as historians remember or emphasize different events of the past." Wikipedia (2022)

Different histories will emphasise different things, it depends on the prime subject matter which is present. There is an unbelievably enormous amount of historical data available on many different subjects, an historian has to choose what they will use and what they will not use. This results in some histories being left behind. 

Does this men that the historian buried or silenced those histories? No, it does not, it just means their emphasis was elsewhere in that history. It certainly does not stop another historian from following the same path, or even politely asking for the material so they can find the path. Acts of recrimination just result in historians being defensive about their sources, and denying access to such sources, this helps no one. 

Why does it matter?

The way we define history is important as it defines our approach to it. If we define it as a search for significant events in history with the purpose of recording those events for posterity, then there is likely to be a much more open approach. If we approach history as a weapon to be used in some socio-political battle where the histories already written are to be abused, and shredded for evidence, historians abused for denying the presence of some aspect because they did not happen to write it, then there is always going to be a problematic discourse with the discipline. Your thoughts on a subject heavily effect your relation with that subject.

I like the Wikipedia's definition of history as it encompasses many of the aspects of history and tells home-truths about the way history works. I appreciate the dictionary definitions as they are simple approaches to the subject and tell simply what the subject is about. I grow concerned about the Post-Modernist definition and approach to history as it deliberately creates a battleground where researchers are more likely to hoard than to share their knowledge and this cannot be good for the discipline overall.

New discoveries are important. Re-writing histories which are incorrect is important, but there is a way to do this which does not put others off-side in the process, a way which encourages a co-operative approach that encourages all to participate in the discourse, rather than having people fight over the resources to prove that they were more right than the other. I will leave you a quote to think about in regard to historical "truth".

“Historical truth, … is elusive, disorderly – and often downright uncomfortable.”
J. Christoph Amberger The Secret History of the Sword

Together we can make them just a little bit more comfortable if we can agree to work toward the same goals, the collection and interpretation of those "truths" to find out which ones are really worth keeping and which ones do more harm than good.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

 

Buried and Forgotten

 Greetings,

One way that we try to forget about things is that we collect things together and then bury them so they can be forgotten. This approach is sometimes accompanied with the burning of the objects and then burying of the associated ashes of the objects. In any case, the concept is to remove the thing from thought, to remove it from sight and from thought. This happens with history, and all sides do it.

Burying History

There have been complaints throughout history in society about the ruling elite burying other people's history, especially when this history is inconvenient for them. Most often this is directed by people of colour against those historically in power, in regard to the slave trade, or appropriation of their native lands, or similar issues. There has been a lack of the recording of the history of those who are not in power, a lack of the recording of their histories in the past. There are historians who are trying to correct this, but the pendulum should be centred, not completely swung in the opposite direction.

The almost reverse is occurring now in some situations where people are tearing down monuments to those of the former ruling elite, because they were involved in historically-incorrect activities such as slave trade. What they do not realise that they are doing is that they are also burying the history that goes along with it, and buried history, is forgotten history. Things that cannot be seen are forgotten, the reason that the monuments are being torn down is because they remind people of what happened. Is this not a good enough reason to leave them where they are?

An Example

Tearing down of Saddam's Statue Firdos Square 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firdos_Square_statue_destruction

Here is an example of a statue that was torn down, some almost twenty years ago now. Without clicking on the link, do you remember who did it? Was it the US troops or was it the Iraqi citizens? What was the result of this act? Now, read the article attached to the link, read what was thought by someone who was there during this pivotal scene in world history, then think about what has come after-ward. Have a look at the news in Iraq, news that is not currently reported, and see how settled things still aren't.

A Reminder

When something is destroyed, torn down and nothing is left, or put in its place to remind people what was there before, people forget. Go down town, find a block where a new building has just been built, try and remember what the building which stood in its place previously looked like, it's the same thing. We build monuments to remind us of things. We build war monuments not to remind us about the wars, but the sacrifices made by the people who fought in those wars. We have ANZAC and Remembrance Day in Australia, not to glorify war, but to remind us of those who served, and those who still serve.

For your history to be known it needs to be brought into the light. In the tearing down of a monument, all people remember is the tearing down of the monument, and that memory will fade, and quickly. People remember that a group were offended and they destroyed something. Build something that people can walk by, and remember and people will remember it. Then people will remember that someone built something, and they did it for a reason.

Build Don't Destroy

If you go to most cities you will see statues, in some older cities you will see statues that have stood for centuries. They have stood the test of time because they were built, not because something was destroyed. The memories of people in history last because they are brought into the light, not because some other person who opposed them was buried. We remember Leonidas not because he was buried, but because he stood, we remember Xerxes because he stood against Leonidas. We remember him not for what he fought against, but for what he fought for.

Tell your truth, but remind yourself that it is one truth among many truths. History is replete with truths; each person has their own story and own truths to tell. Individuals perform actions and individuals tell the stories, it is something that is often forgotten. Each truth needs to be told, as there is always multiple sides to each story that is told. Build don't bury, this is the way to be remembered and have the stories which are important remembered.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

About History

 Greetings,

Having seen a lot of things about showing "history that should not be forgotten" I have decided that it is time that I make my comments about history and its writing and its importance. Just to set the record straight; from some one who has actually studied the subject for most of my life, from someone who is actually qualified in the area. Yes, I am one of those rare people who did the course and finished it, hell, I went back and did Honours just to make sure I had it straight. 

Frankly, I am surprised I have not written on this subject sooner considering it is my subject area, more than politics, though much of politics is explained by history, but I suppose we will get to that eventually. I was the kid who decided he wanted to be an historian early in their schooling career, so I have been studying history in some capacity ever since. What does this mean? It means that I have been pawing through old books, comparing incidents then with incidents now. I can say for sure, people have not learned a lot overall.

"Alas! Hegel as right when he said that we learn from history that men never learn anything from history." G.B. Shaw - Preface to Heartbreak House

The Economy

We have a great standard of living in the "First World" (depending on where you look), we have great access to information (again, depending where you look), great access to health-care (again, depending where you look), and amazing technological advances at our finger-tips (do I have to say, "depending where you look"?). What's all this "depending on where you look" business? Well, all of these advances are available to the upper echelons of society for sure, in the First World, but as you go down the social hierarchy, not so much; in some cases very not so much. Why am I pointing this out?

Some couple of centuries ago, in the same equivalent "First World" nations, there were those at the top who lived well, and there were those on the lower rungs who did not live particularly well. No change there. The date has changed, the technology has changed, the economics are all the same. Push it back more centuries you have the same thing. So what has the human race learned over the past several centuries: Greed is good, because it puts you at the top and gets you the best things. So, some will claim that our political system has changed, and improved.

Politics

"POLITICS. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." Ambrose Bierce - The Devil's Dictionary

In most of those same "First World" nations, people enrol to vote, once every four years (depending on the system). They vote for someone who claims that they will do things for them that will improve their lives. Most of these Candidates are members of Parties, who then decide what the individual will actually do if they are voted in. Independents, most often do not have much say, unless they happen to hold the balance of power, and then they choose to follow one side or the other. Once the candidates get into office they become Politicians, who are primarily interested in keeping their position, more than serving their constituents, because the job pays well (go back to the economy bit above because it places them instantly in the upper echelon). The individual gets a choice once every four years, unless there is some special circumstance that causes it to occur earlier.

The most representative democracy was in Athens and only male citizens were allowed to vote. This is held up to be the most representative democracy, the birthplace of democracy, the basis of all democracies which followed it. "It's now better than it was." How? In Republican Florence the noble families were represented in their Republic and decided what would happen in their city and its surrounds. "That's an oligarchy and not representative." Really? How is it any different to the rich families who present their Candidates for elections, or give fat campaign contributions to influence Politicians? How is our supposedly representative democracy any different? Because we get to elect our representatives. See how much funding that costs and see how many "average individuals" could afford it and see if it is truly "representative." They represent whoever gives them the biggest donations, for which they also give big fat tax breaks. Politics is a rotten system that is up for sale to the highest bidder, look at how they vote on social issues.

"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." Attr. Simon Cameron, Republican Boss of Pennsylvania (1860)

Social Issues

Social issues abound in our contemporary era. It is not like they have suddenly appeared, several have always been there, they have only more recently been more highlighted. Issues of sexuality are present in the Bible giving indication of their ancient origins. Questions about feminist ideals have been present throughout history with many strong female figures being present throughout history, though many of their histories have been denied, or re-told to suit male historians. Racial issues have been an ever-present issue throughout history, along with religious ones, and the cause of many of the greatest wars of history. It is true that in the last few centuries we have damaged our planet more than in all the centuries previous, and there is something that needs to be done about it, but even this is not something new, the evidence has been there for sometime, with pollution irreversibly damaging and changing environments.

The concept of political correctness, or being politically correct (PC) has been around now for about fifty years, at least according to Wikipedia. This idea has changed our language and changed how we address subjects and also people. It involves the use of inclusive language and so forth to ensure there is no offence given to individuals when speaking. This has been pushed into other areas rather than just language. It has been used to address many of the social issues which were mentioned above to increase the level of tolerance toward people, and reduce friction.

There has been a point where this concept has been pushed to a point where people have, in some situations, become gender-neutral. I will give an example. In a previous time it was polite for a gentleman to open a door for a lady. Now, a female might take offence at this action for its potentially condescending nature. This is a simple example where an act of assistance, of politeness previously has been reversed. The act of assistance may be performed for any individual out of politeness, regardless of gender or other defining feature, it's just a polite thing to do. The reduction of such actions reduce politeness due to the potential of offence that may be caused; an ironic reversal of the inclusive intent of being PC.

Historically, politeness was expected in many different ages and it can be traced through different ages through manuals of the period. This is an aspect which seems to be missing in our current age, a lesson that we have lost. The problem is that we are too busy focusing on our differences to notice the aspects that are the same. It is difficult to convince people to unite against a global threat, such as pollution, or a pandemic, when we are too busy being shown our differences, through the highlighting of historical and present situations of difference. 

Unity

Humanity. This is an important word and one that should unify us all. It is a lesson from history that throughout all of the conflicts and other horrible things that have happened throughout history that we have seen that we have forgotten. Why was the United Nations formed? To bring the world together. How is this possible with all the different religions and races? Because they are all focused (or were focused) on the same thing, a global threat. Unfortunately that has gone for many. We have lost the lessons of history... again.

COVID-19 was a chance to bring the world together again. Instead the nations of the world used it as a chance to fracture the world, to show our differences again. A unified front against the virus would've helped a lot, and likely reduced its effects, but we were too busy looking inward, comparing "us" and "them"... again.

Too often we see people showing the pieces of history which fracture, rather than those that bring us together. They show the ones that "must not be forgotten" because they are shocking; because they show how someone did something bad to another human being, or one group against another group of human beings; because they show our differences; they do not show pieces of our histories where people came together and helped one another, assisted one another, showed their humanity.

The greatest lesson that we can learn from history is that: we all do horrible things; we all make mistakes; we all live on the same planet; we share the air we breathe; we all have people we care about, and who care about us; we all have the capacity to do good things; we all have the capacity to help one another and improve others' lives; we all have the capacity to work together with those who are different to us; we are all really not that different; we are all human beings.

Maybe, just maybe, if we can learn that lesson from history, then this world might have a hope.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.