Margaret MacMillan on "The Uses and Abuses of History"
In this provocative examination of the ways in which we use and abuse history, Margaret MacMillan passes along a story originally told by the writer Susan Jacoby. She was in a New York bar on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, and eavesdropped on a conversation between two "bewildered" men. First man: "This is just like Pearl Harbor." Second man: "What is Pearl Harbor?" First man: "That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War." To which MacMillan responds:
"Does it matter that they got it so wrong? I would argue that it does, that a citizenry that cannot begin to put the present into context, that has so little knowledge of the past, can too easily be fed stories by those who claim to speak with the knowledge of history and its lessons. History is called in . . . to strengthen group solidarity, often at the expense of the individual, to justify treating others badly, and to bolster arguments for particular policies and courses of action. Knowledge of the past helps us to challenge dogmatic statements and sweeping generalizations. It helps us all think more clearly."
Or, as she says elsewhere, history "helps us to understand: first, those with whom we have to deal, and, second, and this is equally important, ourselves." Had we possessed a clearer understanding of the difference between a nation's acts of war and a group's acts of terrorism, we might have been less susceptible to the various arguments advanced on behalf of undertaking a "war on terror" and an invasion of Iraq. "Wars are made on enemies," MacMillan writes, "not on ideas; wars have defined goals -- usually forcing the enemy to capitulate -- but a war on terror has no clearly defined end."
MacMillan, who is professor of history at Oxford University and the University of Toronto and author of the much-honored "Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World" (2002), appreciates what too many do not, that "if you do not know the history of another people, you will not understand their values, their fears, and their hopes or how they are likely to react to something you do." She cites the late Robert McNamara's heartfelt, if belated, acknowledgement that U.S. policies in Southeast Asia reflected "our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area," and George W. Bush's use of "crusade" in the wake of 9/11, since "Muslims, even moderate ones, tend to react viscerally when reminded of much earlier attacks from the West." ...
Read entire article at Jonathan Yardley in the WaPo
"Does it matter that they got it so wrong? I would argue that it does, that a citizenry that cannot begin to put the present into context, that has so little knowledge of the past, can too easily be fed stories by those who claim to speak with the knowledge of history and its lessons. History is called in . . . to strengthen group solidarity, often at the expense of the individual, to justify treating others badly, and to bolster arguments for particular policies and courses of action. Knowledge of the past helps us to challenge dogmatic statements and sweeping generalizations. It helps us all think more clearly."
Or, as she says elsewhere, history "helps us to understand: first, those with whom we have to deal, and, second, and this is equally important, ourselves." Had we possessed a clearer understanding of the difference between a nation's acts of war and a group's acts of terrorism, we might have been less susceptible to the various arguments advanced on behalf of undertaking a "war on terror" and an invasion of Iraq. "Wars are made on enemies," MacMillan writes, "not on ideas; wars have defined goals -- usually forcing the enemy to capitulate -- but a war on terror has no clearly defined end."
MacMillan, who is professor of history at Oxford University and the University of Toronto and author of the much-honored "Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World" (2002), appreciates what too many do not, that "if you do not know the history of another people, you will not understand their values, their fears, and their hopes or how they are likely to react to something you do." She cites the late Robert McNamara's heartfelt, if belated, acknowledgement that U.S. policies in Southeast Asia reflected "our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area," and George W. Bush's use of "crusade" in the wake of 9/11, since "Muslims, even moderate ones, tend to react viscerally when reminded of much earlier attacks from the West." ...