Many feel that the study of the past does little to inform the present while others believe it can help aid understanding. In my opinion, past certainly holds insights, but they are so deeply woven into a specific context so as to be as misleading as enlightening.
Those who argue in favour of learning from history can point to the importance of understanding a civilization. A frequently cited example of this is the war between Vietnam and the United States in the mid 1960s to early 1970s. Both before and during the war, the United States President and his advisors understood little about the past of Vietnam with its successive invasions from foreign nations including China and Japan. A deeper understanding of the unity and resilience of Vietnam might have led them to make a compromise regarding splitting the country in half and the escalation of ground troops. Mistakes born of ignorance take place all the time in international relations and even domestic politics.
Regardless, the past only holds lessons for the keenest observer. Every historical moment passes through a complex set of circumstances, many of which are hidden from the history books, and cannot be reduced to simple lessons. For example, the Vietnam war is often summed up with the platitude that it is impossible to invade and occupy a foreign nation. This ignores the myriad reasons that led to defeat and supposes that other conflicts are identical. After the invasion of Iraq proved to be a quagmire, many relished the historical lessons of Vietnam without considering the very diverse set of circumstances that led to failure in each country. There are certainly insights to be gained from studying past conflicts, but they will rarely result in fixed, black and white rules apply to every new situation.
In conclusion, antiquity is not a simple road map for the future. Those who are too avid to accept seemingly apparent lessons are doomed to lead themselves astray and make new mistakes.
Many
feel that the study of the
past
does
little
to inform the present while others believe it can
help
aid understanding. In my opinion,
past
certainly
holds insights,
but
they are
so
deeply
woven into a specific context
so as to
be as misleading as enlightening.
Those who argue in
favour
of learning from history can point to the importance of understanding a civilization. A
frequently
cited example of this is the war between Vietnam and the United States in the mid 1960s to early 1970s. Both
before
and during the war, the United States President and his advisors understood
little
about the
past
of Vietnam with its successive invasions from foreign nations including China and Japan. A deeper understanding of the unity and resilience of Vietnam might have led them to
make
a compromise regarding splitting the country in half and the escalation of ground troops. Mistakes born of ignorance take place all the time in international relations and even domestic politics.
Regardless, the
past
only
holds
lessons
for the keenest observer. Every historical moment passes through a complex set of circumstances,
many
of which
are hidden
from the history books, and cannot be
reduced
to simple
lessons
.
For example
, the
Vietnam war
is
often
summed up with the platitude that it is impossible to invade and occupy a foreign nation. This
ignores
the myriad reasons that led to defeat and supposes that other conflicts are identical. After the invasion of Iraq proved to be a quagmire,
many
relished the historical
lessons
of Vietnam without considering the
very
diverse set of circumstances that led to failure in each country. There are
certainly
insights to
be gained
from studying
past
conflicts,
but
they will rarely result in
fixed
, black and white
rules
apply to every new situation.
In conclusion
, antiquity is not a simple road map for the future. Those who are too avid to accept
seemingly
apparent
lessons
are doomed
to lead themselves astray and
make
new mistakes.