Is it better to learn from history or are some things best forgotten?

Sparks · Mar 22, 2009

Amnesia

If we could learn from our past mistakes, I would be much more hopeful that horrendous attrocities we have seen committed in the twentieth century might not be repeated.

But consider, if you will, that only twenty years passed between WWI and WWII. A hundred years from now, they may well be considered the same conflict. And we have had plenty of incidents of genocide that were barely noticed by the larger powers. Cambodia, Rwanda and the Darfur are either fairly contemporary or ongoing. No one wanted to lift a hand while "crimes against humanity" were being committed, even though we had the lesson of Nazi Germany only a couple of decades previously.

I am both hopeful, because humans are ever so inventive, and pessimistic, because we generally take the short term view of whatever problem we are faced with. I suppose we will continue to swing back and forth between remembering and ignoring as it suits us.

GekiDan · Mar 23, 2009

History tends to repeat itself. But we can prevent this from happening if we try to remember our history and learn from our experiences. Hence, "experience is the best teacher."

But I can say that there are thing that needed to be forgotten like hate, and other things that can lead to war or fighting of countries with each other.

deanhills · Mar 24, 2009

I wonder whether we really ever learn from our history. Problem is are limited lifespans. People have already forgotten World War II almost for example. Other reasons are short-term crises and people tending to be focussed on greed.

If our leaders can be wise men, I genuinely believe they can learn a lot from history, but then perhaps those who stand for election are not necessarily wise, and nor are the people who choose their leaders. So history is rarely taken into account. What is always taken in account is the media and ratings.

GekiDan · Mar 24, 2009

deanhills said:
People have already forgotten World War II almost for example.

But what happened on World War II was written in history books that students study in schools. And I think people tend to do their best to prevent this on happening again.

deanhills said:
What is always taken in account is the media and ratings

Well... I definitely agree agree to this. Besides, most politician or leaders tend to focus more on ratings. And when the election comes, most of the higher rated politician will run for position thinking that people do love him. take for example an actor who turned politician. Being an actor will give you an advantage since many people do know you. The problem is they always, the people/voters, tend to do the same without thinking that this man can do the job.

alexmike · May 23, 2010

I think we must learn from our past conflicts. I mean every cause of mass destruction by man has been due to some kind of war. The reason that we learn from history is to avoid these problems.

Dirk · May 23, 2010

Something my family taught me, because of my heritage, never ever forget.

I think that's understandable, all things considered.

reader · Aug 3, 2012

We have to learn about the shape of learning firstly. There should be no political manipulation in it. Like marketing an event of a century ago as a genocide now or creating a hero from a killer like in the Balkans, etc.

Supposn · Aug 3, 2012

Omej, I agree with the adages, “Cheat me once, shame on you; cheat me twice, shame on me”
And
“those that do not profit from history are doomed to repeat it”.

Respectfully, Supposn

David · Aug 3, 2012

reader said:
We have to learn about the shape of learning firstly. There should be no political manipulation in it. Like marketing an event of a century ago as a genocide now or creating a hero from a killer like in the Balkans, etc.

Life is politics, you can't have 1 without the other unless we all live as hermits.

Also, it was a genocide. The faster you own up to it, the sooner people will stop bringing it up. We Americans learned this quite some time ago as did the British and Germans and aside from the Germans most people don't hold it against us anymore.

reader · Aug 4, 2012

David said:
Life is politics, you can't have 1 without the other unless we all live as hermits.

Also, it was a genocide. The faster you own up to it, the sooner people will stop bringing it up. We Americans learned this quite some time ago as did the British and Germans and aside from the Germans most people don't hold it against us anymore.

I don't think it was a genocide with many reason. Beside of this, I would just respect to the people who prefers to call it as a genocide but refuse anything about legalization of it, as opinion of a group of people.

David · Aug 4, 2012

reader said:
I don't think it was a genocide with many reason. Beside of this, I would just respect to the people who prefers to call it as a genocide but refuse anything about legalization of it, as opinion of a group of people.

Legalization of genocide? I'm thinking you didn't say that right.

reader · Aug 5, 2012

David said:
Legalization of genocide? I'm thinking you didn't say that right.

Maybe, my English is bad but I'm working on.

I mean this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16677986

David · Aug 5, 2012

reader said:
Maybe, my English is bad but I'm working on.

I mean this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16677986

Ah, okay. It's still genocide because an entire generation was decimated (WW1 was a war of genocide as well, it just wasn't on purpose, rather a side effect of the war). Denying genocide will end just as badly for you as it did for the Germans after WW2, for the Brits when they ignored their genocide of the Bores (Dutch Africans) and ourselves when we did the same as yourselves and pretended wiping out entire civilizations wasn't genocide. We owned up and people don't bash us for it anymore, accepting it as a bad chapter in history but you (the Turks) keep the Armenian Genocide a current event in peoples eyes by trying to brush it under the rug. The day Turkey owns up and pays reparations is the day people (aside from the Armenians, the victims of genocide will never forget) will stop using it to bully the Turks.

Danial is 1 of the main obstacles to your joining the EU, I'd think this fact would make my point clear.

reader · Aug 7, 2012

There s a lot main obstacles to joining the EU. İt is a never ending process, because simply, main members of it do not want us to take advantage of membership economically and politically.

So, it's a wrong way to prove the accuracy or the necessity of one thing. Also as another EU member states didn't, like Bulgaria, Denmark, formally rejected such a recognition in their parliments but asking us to join ? Something like a joke.

As I said, one gruop of poeple or a state can call it whatever they want but, can not intervene in someone else's ideas.

David · Aug 7, 2012

reader said:
There s a lot main obstacles to joining the EU. İt is a never ending process, because simply, main members of it do not want us to take advantage of membership economically and politically.

So, it's a wrong way to prove the accuracy or the necessity of one thing. Also as another EU member states didn't, like Bulgaria, Denmark, formally rejected such a recognition in their parliments but asking us to join ? Something like a joke.

As I said, one gruop of poeple or a state can call it whatever they want but, can not intervene in someone else's ideas.

And refusals to legally recognize something doesn't change the definition of the thing.

reader · Aug 7, 2012

David said:
And refusals to legally recognize something doesn't change the definition of the thing.

For those people who agreed on this definition. Not others.

Legally recognize and making it a criminal offense is restricting the freedom of expression of other people including historians, politicians and ordinary citizens.

David · Aug 7, 2012

reader said:
For those people who agreed on this definition. Not others.

Legally recognize and making it a criminal offense is restricting the freedom of expression of other people including historians, politicians and ordinary citizens.

An entire generation was decimated, that's genocide. Extermination may not have been the goal, as it wasn't in WW1, but genocide it still is. Own up or you're going to have this conversation a few million more times.

reader · Aug 7, 2012

David said:
An entire generation was decimated, that's genocide. Extermination may not have been the goal, as it wasn't in WW1, but genocide it still is. Own up or you're going to have this conversation a few million more times.

Who says 'an entire generation' ? The numbers are used by Armenian instituties and Ottoman state population records is quite different. Turkish Historical Society has these documents and all open to public. And the official asked for the establishment of a common historical commission on this issue with Armenia and other interested countries. No positive answer.

Because İ don't think they care about that. The genocide term has become a political tool for them, the only thing is uniting Armenian diaspora from Lebanon to USA and Armenian state's official ideology just based on this events.

That's what I wrote firstly in this topic. Manipulation of historical issues in the name of ideology causes hate and disagreements between people. Only thing we should not forget while discussing, so many people had killed, no matter what you call it as long as you respect their suffering and memory. But this is not happening in recent years.

mogur · Aug 8, 2012

omej said:
The Holocaust, Saddam Husein's regime, eg.

Saddam's regime is equivalent to the Holocaust? I think that is insane. Iraq is not a nation, it is a collection of tribes. Saddam used some brutal tactics to rein in opposition to his minority Sunni affiliation. But he did it as mainly a non-secular tyrant. As such, for Christians, he was a fantastic balance between warring religious factions. Little Bush decided that nation building was more important than respecting the delicate balance between religious sects.

The result? Like Vietnam, many dead, many families grieving, many on both sides wishing that a frivolous venture into nation building wasn't the bottom line for war companies.

I bet you also bought into the idea that Kuwaiti pre-mature babies were torn from their incubators and thrown to the ground by invading Iraqi troops. The same people that brought you wood-chipped dissidents in Saddam's Abu Ghraib... oh, that's right, that was US...

Road Warrior · Aug 10, 2012

jessika said:
I think the sole purpose of the existence of word history is to teach. It is a testimonial of time which gives us an insight in to various actions and their consequences. History should never be forgotten rather it should be remembered as a learning.
There is a saying "Those who do not learn from past are condemned to repeat it."

Agreed 100% with George Santayana's famous quote. It's a learning tool. If someone simply wants to use the past to keep open old wounds and to seek revenge, then they are not learning from the past.

I also like this Eleanor Roosevelt quote:
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself."

Is it better to learn from history or are some things best forgotten?

Similar threads