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

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

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 …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…