Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
"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."
He was referring to Progress (with a capital P) but IMHO, it also applies to politics.
[1 point]3 years ago by dauguyReplyEdited 3 years ago by dauguy
Yes. But all history, if not actually, propaganda is going to be slightly biased in one direction or another. Reading several different accounts of the same period or event helps.
Question: is bad history - eg the recent Hollywood movie about the bomb attempt on Hitler - better than no history?
Depends. Was "The Man in the High Castle" bad history, or penetrating social commentary? To use a Hitler example. Most people who are familiar with Dick's oeuvre would say the latter.
On the other hand, consider "The 300." Was it simply a meaningless gore-fest, thinly justified by some incidental relationship to the hitorical Spartan sacrifice that stopped the Persian Empire, or an historical revisionism that showed another take on the meaning of that sacrifice? Most people who actually know the history the movie is based on would say the former.
You could always argue that the bomb-fest might spur some people to read up on what actually happened, but to my mind it is just trash.
Depends on who writes the history, or in this country, who is buying it. Interesting book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" that was written by a man who writes textbooks for a living, and his struggle to introduce actual history rather than propaganda. (My favorite examples include Helen Keller and the war of 1812.)
I take it the the version of the War of 1812 about it being an underhand and shameful US attempt to grab Canada, while the British were otherwise engaged in fighting the tyrant Napoleon, is not the one taught in US schools.
No, it is taught as a fight about "English/US maritime rights". They neglect to mention that most of the fighting happened on land, on the Canadian border.
United States
"Those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them"
"Those who fail to learn from the lessons of history get an F on their report card"
What Santayana actually said:
"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."
He was referring to Progress (with a capital P) but IMHO, it also applies to politics.
I can't remember last Thursday night. Will that happen again?
it will be like in "Groundhog Day" movie XD
LOL!
Yes, it is but the first stop on the path to complete degradation...
Oops, sorry, channeling Lillian Roth again...
I thought I was already on the fifth stop on the path to complete degradation. :(
Sorry, sweetie, it takes years of debauchery just to make it to the third way station.
Aww. I thought I was making progess. :(
If it did, how would you know?
I wouldn't.
How can you know where you are if you don't know where you've been?
That sounds like it should be a line from a song, maybe a 60's protest style one.
Nope. Just one of the many pithy aphorisms I have penned.
:)
OK Dauguy, so you lisp.
As long as it is actual history, and not propaganda.
Yes. But all history, if not actually, propaganda is going to be slightly biased in one direction or another. Reading several different accounts of the same period or event helps.
Question: is bad history - eg the recent Hollywood movie about the bomb attempt on Hitler - better than no history?
Depends. Was "The Man in the High Castle" bad history, or penetrating social commentary? To use a Hitler example. Most people who are familiar with Dick's oeuvre would say the latter.
On the other hand, consider "The 300." Was it simply a meaningless gore-fest, thinly justified by some incidental relationship to the hitorical Spartan sacrifice that stopped the Persian Empire, or an historical revisionism that showed another take on the meaning of that sacrifice? Most people who actually know the history the movie is based on would say the former.
You can go back at least as far as the Battle of Kadesh, wuth both the Egyptians and Hittites claiming a great victory.
You could always argue that the bomb-fest might spur some people to read up on what actually happened, but to my mind it is just trash.
Depends on who writes the history, or in this country, who is buying it. Interesting book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" that was written by a man who writes textbooks for a living, and his struggle to introduce actual history rather than propaganda. (My favorite examples include Helen Keller and the war of 1812.)
I take it the the version of the War of 1812 about it being an underhand and shameful US attempt to grab Canada, while the British were otherwise engaged in fighting the tyrant Napoleon, is not the one taught in US schools.
No, it is taught as a fight about "English/US maritime rights". They neglect to mention that most of the fighting happened on land, on the Canadian border.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI am learning at, at my "distance learning" and it is partly interesting so I've voted 4 "not sure".