Skip to main content

Does History Repeat Itself?

The appearance of a repetitive history — or, as Mark Twain might describe it, a rhyming refrain — may strike witnesses this way only because this is the exclusive manner in which they may individually integrate or relate the new material to already-fastened ideas of the world. 

Much as it is difficult to read script not printed upon a page or to accurately interpret intentions, witnesses to history may only perceive and translate information through the lenses of prior experience and the limits of language  of course far removed from relevant time and circumstances in space  which expediently allow them to usefully yet incompletely comprehend, report and personally respond to these events. 

Due to the ubiquity of such likeminded, nearly diluted and simplified conceptualizations of the world, we will often thus encounter individuals of similar, incomplete yet thematic dispositions regarding worldly affairs. Our respective incapacities to relate or digest alternative scenarios, foreign customs, and sharper tellings of history, however, remain insufficient to effectively reduce the world’s many characters, various behaviors, and their near-infinite outcomes to practical terms on a timeline. Their many nuances prove unwieldy and, therefore, commonly elude general consideration to yield to the convenient condensation of material which, by nature of superficial description, only appears to resemble everything else that has been sterilized in the same manner for ease of reporting and remembrance.

Ultimately, this may prove that history’s semblance of repetition is nothing more than a function of the popular desire to observe and preserve it that way, removing or adding blemishes where useful, and forgetting, dismissing or editorializing where convenient.   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

One of Every Three American Adults is a Criminal

Earlier today, the Wall Street Journal posted an article on the growing epidemic of criminal records. The article reports that nearly one out of every three American adults has a criminal record — a statistic corroborated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose records show 77.7 million individuals on file in the organization's master criminal database. Is this an indication of a society which is becoming more violent and criminal, or of one which is becoming ever-populated with needless and overreaching laws, ordinances, and regulations? In a country whose growing majority depends upon government for salary or entitlements, this is indeed the mechanism through which the dependency is enabled. Some are apparently more than willing to surrender increments of freedom for the promise of free stuff.    

Along with the extensive and pervasive development of laws in the United States, their execution has become more vile and horrid; and the experience of police brutality, along wit…

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters. 

In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity. 

Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility. 

Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue.

What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the final keystro…