Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ahhh… the hindsight of a historian ;DHaving ridden out Hurricane Hugo at Parris Island back in 1990, I too kind of "poo-poo'ed" all the hoopla over a Cat 1 storm, but having experienced Hurricane Camille in Virginia in 1969 and witnessing the staggering amounts of rainfall that came with it (up to 27 inches overnight in Nelson County), I worried about rainfall totals in New England as all that tropical air collided with those mountains as the first substantial landfall.They are saying now that Irene will go on the list as one of top ten most expensive storms in US history. From a flooding, property damage, and power outage perspective, at least. Last count I heard was 45 killed. Oh, and the earthquake -- shook us pretty good in Manassas, and one of the aftershocks woke us up dark and early the next morning. Not quite like the quakes when I lived in San Diego, but hell, this is Virginia and they're pretty rare here.
I read a study a few years ago (afraid that there is near zero chance I can find it again, so you'll have to take this as an undocumented source :-X – or seek to research it yourself) that stated that it is equally plausible from the DNA evidence that Randolph Jefferson (Thomas' younger brother) was the Jefferson ancestor who contributed DNA to the Hemmings line. I seem to recall that there was (naturally) some controversy around this, and some sources even claimed that it was likely. Regardless, it seems that the Randolph Jefferson theory is plausible, and therefore, interjects "reasonable doubt" should there be any inquiry held to a legal standard.
So does the divergence of interpretations and biases mean that there are no "objective" truths to take from history?
No, it means that those objective truths are hard to find... and even more difficult to apply appropriately to today. Too often, people look to history for a "cookie cutter" lesson or solution to today's problems or situation. Good history is hard work.
To go back to your original statement - I think that you are employing too many absolutes in your argument. Briefly restated, if I may, your argument is:1. Man is supposed to learn from history.2. Man still makes many of the same mistakes that have been made throughout history.3. Man does not effectively learn from history.4. Therefore, there is no need to study history.If we assume that the statement in number one is correct (BTW, who says man is supposed to learn from history?) then we can restate it as "Man is supposed to learn from his experiences and the experiences of others" - whether those experiences are observed or recorded and accessed at a later time.The second statement above indicates that man has made mistakes throughout history and continues ot make them today.The third statement assumes a perfect knowledge -- that in order to avoid making the same mistakes that have been made in history, man must learn all of the pertinent lessons from history.Assuming that man did somehow learn all the lessons of history, is there still not a role for judgment, both good and bad? Could it be that man acts even though they knew better?Studying history does not equate to learning from history. Likewise, since history is so open to various interpretations, learning from history is not enough… learning the RIGHT things from history is what is important. But why do so many not learn the “right” lessons — primarily due to those various interpretations and biases… not to mention faulty logic.
Actually you just know that at this very moment somewhere across America, some school board member is reading that article and thinking of ways to ban the Smurfs from the classroom.
Nazis or no Nazis - I'm not sure that anyone can make a case that the Smurfs belong in classroom anyway...
Reading this, I'm drawn to a quote from Admiral William “Bull” Halsey:"There are no extraordinary men, only extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men have to deal with." (or words to that effect 🙂 )
10 Questions – a couple were multi-part “matching” of events, places or names… so, let's say 16 answers total.That meant, in my case, 16 scientific, well thought out, wild-assed guesses (as I know absolutely nothing about Viking history). I received a score of 20% - driven mainly by an absurdly lucky guess of who killed which Viking gods.
Wow, what a great collection… a interesting mix of propaganda photos and authentic “candids”. It's great to be able to see some of these after conducting so much research on the war in the East.
It is interesting to keep the signal corps in mind when driving through the Shenandoah Valley. Many contemporary accounts of Jackson's Valley campaigns refer to “Wig-Wag” stations — these were signal stations on prominent points up and down the valley where signalmen would “wig-wag” their flags to send messages of Union troop movements. Even the prominent peak above the Cedar Creek battlefield is still known as “signal knob”.
From my studies (and from my spotty memory ;D) – the Germans largely tolerated the Japanese as a necessary partner in their war against Great Britain and the United States. I say “tolerated” because the Japanese ambassador and the Japanese delegations were not always taken seriously in Berlin (although what little I have found about Japanese officers as observers with the German army in the field indicates a level of respect not afforded to the diplomats).The Nazis had a strong racist propaganda campaign going against the Jewish-Bolsheviks and Asiatics of the Soviet Union by 1940, so it was difficult to dismiss the Asiatic nature of their Japanese allies. That being said, the German high command had hoped that the Japanese would distract Soviet forces in the Far East as well as tie down British resources and keep the Americans focused on the Pacific and China rather than Europe. Also, part of the "tolerance" had to do with Nazi war aims -- they didn't seek world domination as much as they did European domination, and as long as the Japanese stayed in their sphere, there would be a balance of power. Hitler had eyed conquest of continental Europe (to include Russian Europe, the trans-Caucuses, Iraq, and Persia. Strategically, he didn't want / need North Africa but was sucked into that theater to bail out his Italian allies.There was even exchange of technology and resources by late in the war, but one has to wonder if shipping jet engines to Tokyo was a sign of alliance or a desperate gambit to increase Japanese pressure on the Western Allies in hopes of lessening pressure on Germany.So, largely I agree with Scout -- it was a marriage of convenience, and as long as their national / imperial ambitions did not come into conflict, it could be mutually beneficial, and racial issues were tolerated.
I opened a thread specifically for discussion about Monte Cassio here: One thing to keep in mind about Cassino - Italy had already surrendered and made a separate peace with the Allies. Political considerations had to be taken into account concerning the reaction and support of the Italian populace. Likewise, many Allied soldiers were first generation Italian immigrants. Support of the local populace would require fewer troops assigned to occupation duties as the advance pushed northward.To bring the discussion back to Rome and Roman ruins - the Libyan leader obviously thinks that the ruins will offer his forces some additional protection from NATO attacks, or if nothing else, offer some limited propaganda value should NATO destroy or damage the ruins. Could the same propaganda value be gained by placing "dummy" positions amongst the ruins? What damage could be done to the support of hte NATO efforts if the ruins are damaged or destroyed? If ground forces were being employed it would be feasible to bypass and isolate the site, leaving the forces there to "wither on the vine", so to speak?Clausewitz debated the role of having military strategy subservient to policy aims - obviously destruction of the enemy's forces are consistent with whatever policy aims support going to war, but I guess the question is, should policy aims such as protecting cultural resources - perhaps in hopes of winning the propaganda war of public opinion - subvert purely military aims and objectives?
We can start a new discussion about the bombing of the Abbey at Monte Cassino in another thread – I offered that as an example. The real debate here should center on the bombing of the Roman ruins in Libya – as well as in a more general sense what needs to be considered when weighing military decisions with preserving culturally important sites.Military expediency call for striking the enemy regardless of where he is - political and moral considerations should address the impact of collateral damage as well as the loss of culturally or historically significant resources. Are there alternatives to be had and at what costs? Should historians and cultural antropologists have input in to target lists?
Very nice list of sources. If I were a professor, I would be getting aroused *cough* well you know what I mean. 🙂
I know what you mean -- was a lot of reading though, then distilling my thoughts and interpretations as well as supporting statements into the word/page limit.... but, that's why not everyone does it. Learned a lot in the process, though.
