Am I Too Focused on History?

[Fiddytree]

It occurred to me that for some reason, whenever anyone wants to bring up legacies, or the past by saying "history will", "in the future we will see this time" I immediately revert to my studies of Historiography rather than from a political standpoint.

Then again, I revert to history on a regular basis for many of my posts, in order to explain what I thought whatever small amount of insight I would have into a contemporary problem...or to be skeptical of a contemporary issue that has a great deal of focus on an appeal to history that I find wanting in thought.

So, am I as a poster just too obsessed with History for the likes of most of you? Do I smell like moldy cheese...the old professor who is too boring and out of touch?:lol::mrgreen:
This is an invitation to discuss the validity of History for analysis of politics, war, and society and whether or not I am far too obsessed.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think your perspective can provide an insight that many of us are missing. Keep it up.

 

[Fiddytree]

I didn't mean for it to sound like a back-scratching thread, but more of a meta-discussion on the relative merits or demerits of my approach or of history in general. Because there is an intellectual rift between political, social, or military historians and the political scientists, sociologists, and so forth.

 

[WI Crippler]

Are you a history professor, or is history just a passion of yours?

Sometimes, through professional education people begin to view the world through their scope of education/practice. An economist might see the merits(or demerits) of war through the lens of net benefit to their society, or the societies engaged in combat. A sociologist is going to be looking at impact in large, macro perspectives and impacts on populations and ethnic groups. Etc....

There is nothing wrong with your perspective of using history. No one person can encompass all the varying angles that need to be considered even with simple political discussion. Its the combination of expertise and knowledge contributed from many people, rather than the myopic knowledge of one professional that leads society to make better decisions.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

It occurred to me that for some reason, whenever anyone wants to bring up legacies, or the past by saying "history will", "in the future we will see this time" I immediately revert to my studies of Historiography rather than from a political standpoint.

Then again, I revert to history on a regular basis for many of my posts, in order to explain what I thought whatever small amount of insight I would have into a contemporary problem...or to be skeptical of a contemporary issue that has a great deal of focus on an appeal to history that I find wanting in thought.

So, am I as a poster just too obsessed with History for the likes of most of you? Do I smell like moldy cheese...the old professor who is too boring and out of touch?:lol::mrgreen:
This is an invitation to discuss the validity of History for analysis of politics, war, and society and whether or not I am far too obsessed.

You and I have discussed this before. History is your specialty and I can completely understand why you look back through history to make some of your posts. It's an intregal part of obtaining information in order to make sense of some of our current situations - politically and otherwise.

I think history is extremely important for many different reasons and if that's what your 'thing' is, then by all means.. go on with your historical self.

 

[samsmart]

It occurred to me that for some reason, whenever anyone wants to bring up legacies, or the past by saying "history will", "in the future we will see this time" I immediately revert to my studies of Historiography rather than from a political standpoint.

Then again, I revert to history on a regular basis for many of my posts, in order to explain what I thought whatever small amount of insight I would have into a contemporary problem...or to be skeptical of a contemporary issue that has a great deal of focus on an appeal to history that I find wanting in thought.

So, am I as a poster just too obsessed with History for the likes of most of you? Do I smell like moldy cheese...the old professor who is too boring and out of touch?:lol::mrgreen:
This is an invitation to discuss the validity of History for analysis of politics, war, and society and whether or not I am far too obsessed.

I think Psychohistory should be a full field of study.

 

[Fiddytree]

Are you a history professor, or is history just a passion of yours?

Sometimes, through professional education people begin to view the world through their scope of education/practice. An economist might see the merits(or demerits) of war through the lens of net benefit to their society, or the societies engaged in combat. A sociologist is going to be looking at impact in large, macro perspectives and impacts on populations and ethnic groups. Etc....

There is nothing wrong with your perspective of using history. No one person can encompass all the varying angles that need to be considered even with simple political discussion. Its the combination of expertise and knowledge contributed from many people, rather than the myopic knowledge of one professional that leads society to make better decisions.

I'm just a serious student of it. I may return to get a Masters and then some with History. I'm still very young.

You are right that it is a valuable contribution. Nevertheless, I think some people do also rightly argue that the historical perspective has quite the limitations with the here and the now.

 

[Fiddytree]

I was reared into History and Historical research with the philosophy that we are quite weak in predictions (see Robert K. Merton for details). We are also skeptical, at times, in the uses of History for current or future purposes. For instance, in the Pentagon last fall, there were two books about the Vietnam war that were circulating the halls. They were trying to use each of their respective judgements for guidance into the current conflict in Afghanistan. Now, the Machiavellian in me would say that is exactly what needed to be done. Meanwhile the more modern historical or sociological analysts portion of me asked "are they even going to learn anything?"

 

[digsbe]

History is important. I think historical evidence is a strong statement that validates debate points.