We are all haunted by George Santayana’s famous statement: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” We say it often, but is it true?
I welcome others’ opinions, but I have my doubts. Let me offer three reasons:
First, do we ever really understand the past? Could the Civil War—the most deadly war in American history—have been prevented? Possibly. But if so, how would slavery have ended? Avoiding one tragedy might have perpetuated another. So what have we learned about the Civil War that could possibly guide us in the future?
Second, let’s suppose we understand the past. Can we know where to apply that understanding and where not? Nearly everyone agrees that World War I was a pointless war and a horrific tragedy; in contrast, historians generally agree that World War II “had to” be fought, and it was the Allies’ finest hour.
The Economist has just published an article decrying the decline of history as an academic discipline.[1] Dwight R. Lee, a respected econonomist who is also known as a witty popularizer, offers a comment.
First, the excerpt from the Economist ‘s July 20, 2019, “Bagehot” column:
“Even as history itself has become more dramatic, the study of history has shrivelled. The number reading it at university has declined by about a tenth in the past decade.
“At the same time, the historical profession has turned in on itself. Historians spend their lives learning more and more about less and less, producing narrow PhDs and turning them into monographs and academic articles, in the hamster-wheel pursuit of tenure and promotion. . . .
“And historians increasingly devote themselves to subjects other than great matters of state: the history of the marginal rather than the powerful, the poor rather than the rich, everyday life rather than Parliament. . . . These fashions were a valuable corrective to an old-school history that focused almost exclusively on the deeds of white men, particularly politicians. But they have gone too far. Indeed, some historians almost seem to be engaged in a race to discover the most marginalised subject imaginable.”
Dwight Lee responds:
I don’t know much about what most academic historians do, but I suspect the Economist has described them pretty accurately, and I doubt there is much difference between the British and American variety. Furthermore, I don’t think I am all that biased in my view because my criticism applies in general, if not in particular cases, to academic economists.
I used to say that if someone asked me what they should do to acquire some broad information about economics I would tell them the last thing they should do is take a college economics class, with exceptions of course. What I would suggest is to read some books by journalists who are not overly ideological and who have the ability to write well. For example, The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley; Knowledge and theWealth of Nations: A Story of Economic Discovery by David Warsh; and Keynes and Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics by Nicholas Wapshott. And let’s not forget Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and “The Petition” and other works by Frédéric Bastiat. All these authors are journalists who learned some economics. (Also there is Common Sense Economics,[2] to which a journalist I know made a huge contribution.)
[1] “Bagehot: The End of History,” Economist 432, no. 9152. (July 20, 2019), 24. (Behind a paywall.)
[2] Authors are James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, Dwight R. Lee, Tawni Ferrarini, and Joseph P. Calhoun.
Steve Beller discusses the history of anti-Semitism among political leftists. In History Today.
A summer theater highlight: the story of Alan Freed, the 1950s DJ who invented the term “rock and roll.” Reviewed by Bruce Chadwick for the History News Network.
Are analogies to the Holocaust appropriate? No, says the Holocaust Museum. Yes, say 600 scholars. In the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Does the Declaration of Independence include God? And if so, whose idea of God? Paul Seaton deliberates the question on Law and Liberty.
Brian T. Allen offers new insights into Norman Rockwell’s Four Freedoms paintings. In National Review.
Young people can’t study AP history in China. It doesn’t conform to the Chinese Communist Party’s view of history. In Inside Higher Ed.
“Juneteenth” commemorates June 19, 1865, when Texas slaves learned they had been freed and began celebrating “the “other American Independence day.” By Zuri Davis in Reason.
University of Cambridge will investigate its ties to slavery. In History Extra.
“Rosie the Riveter” in Ireland, in the Napoleonic Wars. From JStor Daily.
“Africa’s Lost Kingdoms”: Howard W. French reviews five books about stunning African civilizations. In the New York Review of Books.“Africa has never lacked civilizations,” he writes.
Enjoy a pithy interview with Niall Ferguson by History Today.
The tide turned against Hitler in 1941, not 1944, says Andrew Nagorski, in the Daily Beast.
Rebuilding Notre Dame “will reopen the theological-political problem people believe to have been settled by the laicization of 1905 and will thus renew a great political quarrel in France,” warns Titus Techera on Law & Liberty.
The Russians also launched a major campaign in June 1944. Howard Tanzman describes it (with a map). on his website.
Mackubin Owens explains the complexity of D-Day. “All military operations are complicated but none more than an amphibious assault against a defended beach,” especially when Clausewitz’s “friction” sets in. On Law & Liberty.
Tony Williams reviews three new books about D-Day. On Law & Liberty.
Note: During the summer, I won’t be adding my own posts (I have to build up an inventory for the fall), but will be linking frequently to others’ articles about history. (And there are more links in the righthand column.)
Norman Rockwell, disdained by art critics, loved by many Americans, was the person who made FDR’s speech about “freedom from fear itself” famous. Before that, Roosevelt’s 1941 inaugural speech was a dud. Brian T. Allen writes the first of two articles on “Normal Rockwell, Realist” in National Review.
Great Britain’s Queen Victoria was born May 24, 1819, became queen at age 18, and ruled for over 60 years. For the 200th anniversary of her birth, BBC’s History Extra tells many stories about the woman for whom an era was named. One feature is about whether she was pretty or not.
Lighten up, and read about “16 Facts that Will Warp Your Perception of Time” in the Reader’s Digest. For example, the tenth president of the United States, John Tyler, has living grandchildren.
Jeffrey A. Tucker compares today’s effort to bring back protectionism to the counter-revolutionary processes at work just before World War I, when the state began to grow after a century of increasing freedom. On AIER.
Naomi Schaefer Riley of the Wall Street Journalinterviews Wilfred McClay, author of a new history book, Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story (article is subscriber-only).
Ross Douthat compares The Avengers to Gothic cathedrals. In National Review.
Rebecca Onion attacks David McCullough’s new book. Pioneers, as the kind of book you find at Costco and Target but not in academe. On Slate.
