History is Bunk

Or so said Henry Ford, though other sources indicate what he actually said is "History is more or less Bunk"; a subtle but perhaps crucial difference.

But that illustrates an important point about History, that it is often simplified, dumbed-down, or otherwise confused by people with ideological axes to grind, or who just don't care about historical accuracy.

Which brings me to the point of this post. While reading American Realpolitik (yet another somewhat-to-the-right Blog I regularly read and admire), I was directed to this quote from Sterling Rome.

In a continuing effort to discredit or minimalize inconvenient facts that obstruct their world view, many "progressives" have embraced revisionist history. It is not enough to shape the politics of today; they also must erase any knowledge of the past that might not correspond with their current argument.
...
Revisionist history in arcane publications or remote debating societies is a danger to no one in particular, but when the teaching of history is watered down to the point of obsolescence, teenagers get their history from only one source - the establishment media.

Although there are many wonderful and expert sources for accurate historical information in our society (like the library!), the establishment media does little to offset the growing trend of disregarding our past.

For every 'History Channel' there are ten channels devoted to music videos or celebrity gossip. For every thousand who deem a series like "The American President" entertainment, there are millions who deem Oliver Stone's film "JFK" a documentary.

The crux of the dilemma over teaching, understanding, and honoring history is the inherent difference between liberal and conservative.

Many conservatives have great regard for history as a guide and as an indication of what to expect from the future, while many liberals have a utopian view of society that requires a suspension of disbelief in order to be seen as practical.

Because much of current liberal politics is built on theory rather than practice, history can be an awful inconvenience.
So-called 'Progressives' can ill afford an electorate versed in political and cultural history, so their only option is to debunk historical truths that contradict them, or to argue that history is always relative to interpretation.

Herein lies the real danger to society as a whole. Questioning history in an effort to uncover the truth is healthy. Refuting a truth (regardless of its validity) because it doesn't support a political theory is the death-knell of liberty.

If he's right, I'm a conservative. I always tell my students "At least be original with your mistakes." As I teach safety-critical software development, programming where (quite literally) lives are at stake, the concepts of checking the literature and avoiding the problems other poor devils have encountered is ingrained in my very being.

But today, I see the punditocracy constantly being surprised by events that have been perfectly predictable. Consider the current Crisis in the New World (Dis)Order, including the Psychotic North Korean Nuclear programme, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Anthrax attacks, and the recent war with Iraq involving Cruise Missiles. Well, have a read of this

May there not be methods of using explosive energy incomparably more intense than anything heretofore discovered?

Might not a bomb no bigger than an orange be found to possess a secret power to destroy a whole block of buildings - nay, to concentrate the force of a thousand tons of cordite and blast a township at a stroke?

Could not explosives even of a conventional type be guided automatically in flying machines by wireless or other rays, without a human pilot, in ceaseless procession upon a hostile city, arsenal, camp, or dockyard?

As for Poison Gas and Chemical Warfare in all its forms, only the first chapter has been written of a terrible book. Certainly every one of these new avenues to destruction is being studied on both sides of the Rhine with all the science and patience of which man is capable.

And why should it be supposed that these resources will be limited to Inorganic Chemistry? A study of Disease - of Pestilences methodically prepared and deliberately launched upon man and beast - is certainly being pursued in the laboratories of more than one great country. Blight to destroy crops, Anthrax to slay horses and cattle, Plague to poison not armies only but whole districts - such are the lines along which military science is remorselessly advancing.

The author? One Winston Spencer Churchill. In his book, "History of the Second World War", written in the late 40's, he repeats these words, asking why we haven't learnt from them. Because they were first published in 1925. That's 78 years ago from the time I'm writing this.

Let's at least be Original in our mistakes.