History Does Knowing History Shape Our Understanding of the Present?

[SW VandeCarr]

every country tries to hide something from its history

I agree. For the US, there's no hiding slavery and its aftermath, or the "manifest destiny", or the "trail of tears" and the general attitude toward native Americans. But few people know about the brutal suppression of the Philippine Insurgency by none other than Theodore Roosevelt. He was a in many ways an important reformer, but this side of him has been successfulley shoved under the rug.

For the UK the "Bedchamber Crisis" was unknown to me before I saw the ITV drama "Victoria". Wow, the young queen actually refused to surrender the ladies of her bedchamber upon the demand of the prospective PM! I'm surprised the whole British Empire didn't collapse on the spot! Now Queen Mary the First burned 300 protestants alive, but that was perfectly legal. Nothing to hide there.

 

[Evo]

It's amazing that many people tend not to be aware of the thousands of years of white slavery, or refuse to admit it. Yes, many/most of the black slaves in the US were treated badly, but that is no reason to deny reality. I've spoken to people that have basically told me I was a liar when I spoke of the history of white slavery.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

BTW, April 10th is the 100th anniversary of the US entry into WWI. Heck, I was just a kid...

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

In general I don't read much history any more. I spent lots of time on it when I was growing up. Most of the history I've studied since then is related to my family history, for example the saga of the early Puritans on Long Island as well as the patriots of 1776. In school I was not taught about the growth of America from 1600 to 1776, except for a brief mention of John Smith and Pocahontas, and the Mayflower pilgrims. That's a period of 176 years which I doubt most Americans know much about.

Currently what little time I have for history is related to the history of mathematics, science, and technology. It is fascinating to see how these areas have developed since the dawn of civilization. When it comes to physics, which is my main study, I like to understand how the great scientists worked. It is not only a great story, but it provides insight into the process of scientific discovery.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

p.s. If you are interested in the history of science and technology, try to see the British TV series Connections, by James Burke. As the title implies, he shows how progress is connected to many, sometimes unexpected, advances. It's a very entertaining series.

Another excellent series is Longitude, which dramatizes the life of clockmaker John Harrison and his invention of the marine chronometer.

There was also the excellent series Marie Curie. I enjoyed the portrayal of one of the great women scientists very much.

These are all British productions and are very well done.

By the way, I just realized I can't think of a single movie or TV drama about Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, and so on. Come on BBC, do something about that, why don't you?

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Burke's connections are sometimes rather disconnected.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

BTW, April 10th is the 100th anniversary of the US entry into WWI. Heck, I was just a kid...

Ah yes, WWI, or as President Wilson liked to say, "The War to End All Wars."

I just heard a figure today about WWI that surprised me. Based on what I learned in school about it, which was very little of course, I was led to believe a few companies of Infantry went "over there" and beat the Germans in two weeks, with few casualties on the American side. But I learned today that in reality America lost many more. The figures from Wikipedia are 53,402 combat deaths and 116,708 total military deaths. Of course we did enter late and got off quite easy compared to the major players. Wikipedia gives the grand total of combat deaths for all sides as 8,042,189.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

We still do not have a WWI national memorial in Washington, D.C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_World_War_I_Memorial_(Washington,_D.C.)

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Ah yes, WWI, or as President Wilson liked to say, "The War to End All Wars."

And it was, ….until WW2 (except for the Russian-Polish War (1920), war in Turkey (early 1920s), Russian Civil War (1918-1921), Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931), Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1936), Spanish Civil War(1936-1939), Japanese invasion of China (1937).

WW1 was for sure the war that ended WW1.

https://forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=48727
This is a forum for history geeks. I found it much better than the Wikipedia article on the interwar period. Any inaccuracies are quickly identified and corrected.

 

[Dr.D]

I find the history of Europe in the period roughly 1880 to 1920 to be absolutely fascinating. During that interval, the world turned upside down. It is complex, with many misconceptions spread about, but it is also quite relevant to our present day in many ways.

 

[gleem]

I find the history of Europe in the period roughly 1880 to 1920 to be absolutely fascinating. During that interval, the world turned upside down. It is complex, with many misconceptions spread about, but it is also quite relevant to our present day in many ways.

It is interesting that WWI has been brought up. NPR is currrently broadcasting on the progrm "American Experience" a 6 hour documentary on WWI "The Great War" It is particularly relevant today for issues as; It isn't our business (neutraliy, pacifism), anti immigration/intolerance, nationalism, erosion of freedom of speech and personal liberty and a sluggish economy . So if there is an interest in history that is relavent today this is a good place to start.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I find the history of Europe in the period roughly 1880 to 1920 to be absolutely fascinating. During that interval, the world turned upside down. It is complex, with many misconceptions spread about, but it is also quite relevant to our present day in many ways.

One man, Kaiser Wilhem ii of Germany, was not totally responsible for a "world turned upside down" but he certainly wasn't an innocent bystander. He acceded to the throne in 1888 and fired Bismarck in 1890 in order to make his own foreign policy. He quickly destroyed Bismarck's delicate system of alliances designed to prevent war on two fronts and alienated both Britain and Russia. He was an extreme nationalist. He was bellicose, ill informed and given to outrageous statements in interviews. Some considered him "unhinged"at times.

He was the grandson of Queen Victoria of Britain by her first born daughter and Kaiser Frederick William iii who ruled for only 99 days before dying from throat cancer. Wilhelm ii was born in 1859 as a breech delivery which permanently damaged his left arm. As a child he was subjected painful quack medical treatments and rejection (he believed) by his mother in favor of his younger siblings. As an adult he was said to hate his British mother but to have adored his grandmother who showed him affection when he visited England as a child. After the Queen died in 1901, the Kaiser's antipathy for the British had no barriers.

It can't be said the Kaiser was solely responsible for WW1. He had allies in the German government for his aggressive policy of challenging British naval superiority. Ultimately the powers were drawn into conflict because their system of alliances.

http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/kaiser-wilhelm-ii

 

[Dr.D]

I don't think anyone has proposed the idea that Kaiser Wilmem II was solely responsible for WW I.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I don't think anyone has proposed the idea that Kaiser Wilmem II was solely responsible for WW I.

It was the assumption of the victorious allies at the end of WWI that Germany, and its leaders, were responsible for the war and the Treaty of Versailles reflected that. Current thinking is more nuanced. Nevertheless Bismarck's carefully constructed system of alliances was designed to prevent war and the Kaiser's "diplomacy" wrecked that system. Obviously we can't know if Bismarck's system would have averted war but that was the intension.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

It's amazing that many people tend not to be aware of the thousands of years of white slavery, or refuse to admit it. Yes, many/most of the black slaves in the US were treated badly, but that is no reason to deny reality. I've spoken to people that have basically told me I was a liar when I spoke of the history of white slavery.

You are correct of course. There are many examples. Here are just some of them.

Slavery was common in ancient Greece and Rome. Ancient Greek societies enslaved other white people. The movie Spartacus is about white European slaves of the Romans. Spartacus was said to be Thracian, a group from southeast Europe. British people were enslaved by the Romans, as portrayed in the story of the British wife of Spartacus.

The Turks enslaved young white Christian boys for various reasons. One of these was to raise them as Janissaries, an elite military group. The Janissaries were paid a salary even though they were slaves. They were not allowed to marry.

In general, the Ottomans enslaved many white people for many purposes. This included men, women, and children. I say "for many purposes" so as not to get too explicit.

In more modern times, White Slavery has been used specifically as a term for slavery of white women. It seems to survive even to this day.

On the other hand, some people confuse white indentured servants in the American colonies with slaves. The indentured servants from the 1600s onward voluntarily hired themselves out for a fixed period of time. Some did so in order to learn a trade and eventually become free men. Some of these were very willing and capable but poor young men who used indentured servitude as their way out of working-class poverty in Britain. Once an indentured servant became a free man, he could become a full-fledged citizen.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

If you are truly interested in the history of the 20th century read Hope and Tragedy by Carroll Quigley. Quigley provides insight to historical events that have not been revealed previously. He had access to documents from Chatam House, the Royal Institute on International Affairs and many other institutions of world power brokering.

I have been wanting to read this, but it is very long.

However, I saw the movie: The Capitalist Conspiracy, narrated by G. Edward Griffin. Quigley is one of his main sources.

I tend to be very skeptical of conspiracy theories. But I did find the video interesting. My favorite quote was from the fellow from the Bank of England who explained long ago that "the bank hath benefit of interest on money which it creates out of nothing."

It's funny in a way. In physics we say energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Money used to be tied to a gold standard. Now it's so-called fiat currency. As in "fiat lux" (let there be light). Is this what the bankers mean when they say they are doing God's work?

Please excuse my random thoughts. I just paid my tax bill online and I'm still a bit stunned.

 

[epenguin]

Currently what little time I have for history is related to the history of mathematics, science, and technology. It is fascinating to see how these areas have developed since the dawn of civilization. When it comes to physics, which is my main study, I like to understand how the great scientists worked. It is not only a great story, but it provides insight into the process of scientific discovery.

p.s. If you are interested in the history of science and technology, try to see the British TV series Connections, by James Burke. As the title implies, he shows how progress is connected to many, sometimes unexpected, advances. It's a very entertaining series.

Yes the Science we learn and use is congealed history. Other peoples experiments and thoughts. Except that we can repeat them, well a few of them that we have time for. But in teaching and textbooks the historical aspect is really stripped down and dumbed down, perhaps necessarily. Programmes like you mention give a lot of lateral connections, with technology and other drivers of the time of discovery for instance.

 

[gleem]

Niels Abel produced a huge amount of outstanding work in mathematics in a very short time. Asked how he did this he said, "By studying the masters, not their students." So by studying history.

Time, like the relentless effects of wind and water on a landscape, tend to smooth out and obscure the past. Without good historical records we would never know what had actually occurred and what could be valuable in the solution of problems today. An technique that was of no use in the past might have application now for totally unrelated problems. History is not recorded for entertainment but to preserve knowledge.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

If anyone thinks we didn't have a lot of casualties in WWI have them look up "Belleau Wood". I recently OCR'd a book on "Distinguished Service" covering the USN in WWI as well.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

I have been wanting to read this, but it is very long.

However, I saw the movie: The Capitalist Conspiracy, narrated by G. Edward Griffin. Quigley is one of his main sources.

I tend to be very skeptical of conspiracy theories. But I did find the video interesting. My favorite quote was from the fellow from the Bank of England who explained long ago that "the bank hath benefit of interest on money which it creates out of nothing."

It's funny in a way. In physics we say energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Money used to be tied to a gold standard. Now it's so-called fiat currency. As in "fiat lux" (let there be light). Is this what the bankers mean when they say they are doing God's work?

Please excuse my random thoughts. I just paid my tax bill online and I'm still a bit stunned.

Quigley is tedious, but his perspective is enlightening. Jump in, the water's deep.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Quigley is tedious, but his perspective is enlightening. Jump in, the water's deep.

It's a time issue. I can post to PF while eating a sandwich. Maybe there is an audio book version of Quigley?

Besides, I already know the world is messed up. I see that every day for myself. What is the solution? Ah, but that leads us into politics. Another topic for another forum. I prefer to spend time on a physics forum.

:)

 

[quickrp]

.

It's funny where the study of history might take one.

My interest in the history of physics began in 2009 when I read The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. I purchased it because I study military history. My period of interest is generally between the Elizabethan era and the Vietnam War.

I quickly became absorbed by the scientific content of the book, and my military interest was subordinated to the story of the birth of quantum theory.

I was fascinated by Rhode's detailed narrative of post-Newtonian science, and he made the development of quantum physics understandable to me. I was not a good math and chemistry student, yet I was able to follow the incredible path between JJ Thompson's discovery of the electron and the first nuclear reactors and weapons, a period that spanned just 65 years.

Since my reading of Rhode's Pulitzer Prize winning effort, I have worked on expanding my knowledge of physics by reading other books whose basis is a historical study of the topic. That's much easier than a textbook study of the subject, in which I would become totally lost.

I might try to work on my math and chemistry weaknesses by taking courses at my county community college. My interest in history has turned into pursuing an entirely different path.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

quickrp, ibiblio.org/hyperwar and ibiblio.org/pha might be of interest.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm fascinated by history. Some stories are better than any work of fiction.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

I'm fascinated by history. Some stories are better than any work of fiction.

Read about Noel Coward's role in WWII espionage.

 

[nuuskur]

I am interested in history relating to math [read: physics and math]

 

[1oldman2]

Does anyone here find Howard Zinn's study of American history an interesting departure from the routine perspective?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060838655/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[BillTre]

I have long had a interest in the history/philosophy of science (especially biology), as well as in the US Civil War.

Because of this, I find the period of time around 1860 interesting.
Not only was the Civil War and the complex politics leading up to the war, but
also Darwin's Origin of Species was published in the end 1859 (don't forget Wallace also found came up with the same idea in 1958 forcing Darwin to publish), and
by 1855 cell theory had it complete set of tenets:

1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells
   
2. The cell is the most basic unit of life
   
3. All cells arise only from pre-existing cells

Also around this time (1866) Gregor Mendel figured out the basic rules of Mendelian genetics (but his publications were not noticed until around 1900).

It was a time of great changes in thought.

 

[1oldman2]

(don't forget Wallace also found came up with the same idea in 1958 forcing Darwin to publish),

I thought I had missed something in the history until my dyslexia kicked in and I figured a couple of digits were transposed.

 

[BillTre]

I thought I had missed something in the history until my dyslexia kicked in and I figured a couple of digits were transposed.

LOL, must be my dyslexia!

 

[BillTre]

OK.
I think I should clarify:

don't forget Wallace also found came up with the same idea in 1958 forcing Darwin to publish

Should have been:
don't forget Wallace also found came up with the same idea in 1859 forcing Darwin to publish