It is important to remember as much history as possible, since it gives us an understanding of the range of human activity, and the outcomes of pursuing particular policies. The mistake is to take it personally.
Not taking it personally is probably the important take-away.
I always recall Frank McCourt in Angela's Ashes talking about "the English and the terrible things they did to us for eight hundred long years" as it summed up much of the logic and reasoning [I mean that ironically] that led to thousands of murders in Northern Ireland. (edit: For clarity, I think Frank McCourt understood that very well and that's why it wrote it as he did.)
Young and impressionable people are prone to learning about historic injustice and they trying to right the wrongs by perpetrating new injustices. That's not what learning history is supposed to do - an understanding of history is about learning how society ended up the way it is now and trying to use that to improve society without repeating terrible mistakes that lead to death and mayhem in the past.
It's vital to learn history, but it's vital to learn context and the bigger picture too. Without that, it becomes the source of hatred that undoes the evolution of society (sadly there are too many examples readily available of that happening).
800 years is a bit of a stretch, but history can very well be personal.
My Chinese great-grandmother was an opium addict who got kicked out of her village along with my grandmother and her sister after my great-grandfather died. That opium was imported by British merchants who the Qing government desperately tried to stop in the mid-1850's but failed and lost the wars.
My great-grandmother, raising my grandmother as a single parent, was unproductive as an opium addict even during the best of times, could not support my grandmother and her sister during the Japanese invasion of China. First she abandoned my grandmother's sister, and then my grandmother was left in the orphanage for a few years.
Later my grandmother was picked up by her relatives, but her sister never seen again. The lack of interaction with a father during my grandmother's upbringing meant when my grandfather had an accident working as a technician, and could not return to work, he did not receive the emotional support he could have received from my grandmother at the time, took it too hard on himself, and ended his life.
That is why when I was growing up my mother treated me as both father and son at the same time. As her children we were supposed to look after her emotional needs, while our own were neglected.
Listening to my grandmother's stories of having to hide every time the bomb siren went off because the Japanese were bombing the city, her starvation in the orphanage, children dying everyday, abandonment by her mother, loss of her sister, having an opium addict mother, how can I not be empathetic?
It doesn't mean I have to take action or hate people for it, but how can history not be personal when it affects me and my family so deeply?
Hell, I probably even wouldn't be here today if not for the turmoil in China's early 20th century causing many specific migration movements.
I don't think that's what was meant by not taking it personally. If you were "taking it personally" in the sense being discussed here, you would be holding modern-day British citizens accountable for the opium imported by the British merchants in the 19th century, maybe even actively plotting their demise.
Everyone is personally affected by history, but this article is more about holding grudges against people or nations for centuries after the events that spawned those grudges. We need to understand history to understand how it shaped us and how we can avoid repeating events that we don't want to repeat, but we also need to resist the urge to allow injustices of the past to become an emotional impetus for present and future conflicts.
No, that is fundamentally wrong. Every self-respecting nation holds grudges, and bids her time until the time is ready to avenge them. Also, 100 or even 200 years are the blink of an eye in a nation's history.
I'm particularly distressed by the fact my country doesn't do so, which is in great part why I find it much easier to identify with my Chinese ancestors (even though I only have partial Chinese ancestry) than my fellow countrymen (who are a spineless bunch).
"Every self-respecting nation holds grudges, and bids her time until the time is ready to avenge them"
Why would you cherish irrational vengeance instincts. Psychologically, I understand long term grudges from any slight are considered pathological personality traits. It's much more healthier and productive to forgive.
As a society, people can be totally clueless and immoral - but this is no-ones fault, it's a species trait. Political leaders can use their position to drive their societies to do any silly thing.
One can hold political leadership morally and legally responsible for their countrys action. Nationalities are an abstract layer on the tribalistic basic mode of our psyche - where we ask, what is our team - and who is our big chief.
In general, we need to feel part of a group. But the need for vengeance is totally not necessary for a healthy psyche.
> Why would you cherish irrational vengeance instincts.
It's very much a calculated thing, not an “instinct”. Social systems are driven by the signals the involved parties send each other. If you tell them “I won't retaliate”, they will act accordingly.
> Psychologically, I understand long term grudges from any slight are considered pathological personality traits. It's much more healthier and productive to forgive.
Why is it “pathological”? Are there any observable negative effects? Nobody is saying “don't think about anything else” or “stop being productive”. Just “bide your time and take revenge at the most appropriate time”. This is perfectly sensible.
> One can hold political leadership morally and legally responsible for their countrys action.
No free nation can have an unpopular leader for a long time. In the long run, the actions of a free nation, good or bad, can be entirely attributed to its people. If you don't want to be responsible for what your leaders do, move to North Korea or something.
> Nationalities are an abstract layer
Nonsense. Nationhood is as concrete as is your mother tongue and culture.
> Why is it “pathological”? Are there any observable negative effects?
Yes: decreased happiness, productivity, and mental health.
> Nobody is saying “don't think about anything else” or “stop being productive”.
That's not how long-term grudges work in the real world.
> No free nation can have an unpopular leader for a long time. In the long run, the actions of a free nation, good or bad, can be entirely attributed to its people. [...] Nationhood is as concrete as is your mother tongue and culture.
Thas is a very, very, simplified opinion about complex matters. People with strong, oversimplified opinions about complex matters are dangerous to the rest of society. Please don't vote.
> That's not how long-term grudges work in the real world.
I can hold a grudge against you and still do business with you, simply because it's so damn profitable. That doesn't mean I'll hate you any less.
> Thas is a very, very, simplified opinion about complex matters.
If you want to attack my argument, give concrete evidence of its falsehood. That is, give me an example of a free nation where an unpopular leader managed to hold power indefinitely.
Just saying “there is more nuance to it, and you're too dumb to grasp it” is counterproductive.
> Please don't vote.
I have no choice. Where I live, it's compulsory. (Don't worry, what my country does has basically no consequences on world affairs.)
"It's very much a calculated thing, not an “instinct”. Social systems are driven by the signals the involved parties send each other. If you tell them “I won't retaliate”, they will act accordingly."
Uh, in dysfunctional settings this might be a valid strategy. Sure, I understand swift reprisal when the social code requires it for the individuals survival. But it's still a pathology - on the scale of the society. And luckily, not present in a modern civil society. If you live in such an environment then I am truly sorry for your current status.
And I claim we are partly at least talking two different things. Grudges spanning centuries between populations, and intra-population social dynamics are on two different levels.
Any way, if one needs to be vengeful to survive in a society I admit the root cause might not be the attitude of the agent-of-vengeance but deeper dysfunctions on a societal level.
The vengeance intent still produces absolutely no benefit to anyone.
" In the long run, the actions of a free nation, good or bad, can be entirely attributed to its people"
This would be a situation where the majority of population is actually driving the policy of the nation, instead of reacting to policies of the governing body. Usually it's the latter - the political elite and their network driving the political train. If there ever was a situation where the political leadership was simply enacting the "average will of the people" I would enjoy any references you can provide.
If the population is not driving the policies then it cannot be blaimed for the policies. Blaming the children of the perpetrators of any foul act is quite irrational (although practiced, yes, but still irrational and considered as such in civilized nations).
"Nonsense. Nationhood is as concrete as is your mother tongue and culture."
In general, nationhood as we understand it in the modern world is a fairly young concept politically. It's just one more football club to support. Mother tongue and culture are far more deeply rooted. For instance, Italy was a rambling collection of political entities after the roman times ended until Napoleon came and decided that governing the peninsula under one government was far more convenient. New club - one government.
>No, that is fundamentally wrong. Every self-respecting nation holds grudges,
Every rational nation doesn't hold grudges, and merely does what is beneficial at the time. Trying to avenge wrongs done to your grandparents or farther back is one of the dumbest things you can do.
Reciprocation is a fundamental concept in keeping social systems healthy and balanced. Read up on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (or any number of the copious academic research on this subject; but PD is a great entry point).
"Merely doing what is beneficial at the time" is just bad advice, both on personal and social (national) level. "Spinelessness" is only a part of it; worse, such greedy strategies lead to poor socioeconomic results in the long run.
Reciprocation is a fundamental concept in keeping social systems healthy and balanced.
Very likely. But...
Read up on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (or any number of the copious academic research on this subject; but PD is a great entry point).
I am not a game theorist, but I have a passing interest in this topic and have done some reading on it over the years. And offhand, I'm not aware of any research that shows that IPD strategies, developed using computer simulations that run over the span of hours, are applicable to time-spans on the order of decades or centuries or that they apply at the level of nation-states. If you are aware of that research and could share a reference or two it would be much appreciated.
Note that I'm not saying it doesn't exist or even necessarily disagreeing with you. I do a feel a mild degree of skepticism, just because in these scenarios you're talking about reciprocating against people who weren't the enemy in previous iterations... indeed, people who weren't even alive in previous iterations. I don't think it makes any sense to treat, say, "1650 England" and being synonymous with "2016 England", or to say that Germany circa 1917 is the same country as Germany today. As such, I question if "tit for tat" or similar strategies apply in the same way as they do in the simulations.
You are not your nation, you are you. You are not even your family, you are you. Whatever groups you were born into, cherish them as appropriate but not to the point where you are no longer you. Otherwise it's just a neverending cycle of bloodletting where everyone is avenging everyone avenging everyone else for events that none of the current participants had anything to do with. It's a pointless neverending cycle of shit and you would do well to break it, as would we all.
Ehh not some much. The attempted crushing of the Civil Rights movement by the then sectarian government of Northern Ireland and the subsequent esclation on all sides is much more "responsible" for the decades of troubles there than lingering memories of 800 years. If you found your street under attack by the police, homes burned out and forced to become a refugee (as was happening with State backing in NI in the late 60s) it's not so easy to dismiss it as "history"
Easy to say now. If you were a Catholic in Northern Ireland in the recent past, subject to arbitrary harassment and systematic discrimination, you might feel differently.
In a sense, every day you wake up is one more day tacked on the those 800 years -- dozens of generations of abuse.
> If you were a Catholic in Northern Ireland in the
> recent past, subject to arbitrary harassment and
> systematic discrimination, you might feel differently.
That's why you don't let your feelings dictate your actions. Listen to your feelings, sure, but if your feelings tell you to do something stupid, shake your head and wake up.
My grandparents were born in Ireland and were children during the 1920s. They were more live and let live, but my older uncles who were of military age and more aware of what was going on had a distinct distaste for most things British.
You mean like a significant amount of the 'social justice' movement, that seem to be hellbent on attacking people based on their ancestors being such and such hundreds of years ago? Some of the exact people who the Guardian itself seems to like appealing to?
That's not even close to what social justice is about; the issue isn't what anyone's ancestors did, it's about the lingering effects of their prejudice that are still embedded into our systems and culture thus still affecting people today. No black person alive today was a slave, but they're still suffering the cultural prejudice that came from the slave era, things like mandatory minimum sentences that are much harsher on drugs common to the poor and black than the white an well off is one of many such examples. Bigotry is alive and well even today and minorities still suffer constantly from it; that's what social justice is about, recognizing that things like slavery may no longer exist, but it's effects still do and so it's still a problem that needs addressed.
What about those who seem quite happy about such recent incidents as students literally burning 'colonial' artwork or asking for statues to be removed? That seems pretty extreme.
No one's saying the legal system is fine (though that said, it should be pointed out that it's biased in more ways than one and on more than race), but there's definitely a bunch of people trying to tar everyone with the same brush, and thinking that certain things are the only differentiators.
One could argue the English could have held a grudge against their subjugators in the manifestation of the Normans who took all the English lands and made it their own as well as foisted their new-to-them old French influenced Norman language. They could have held that grudge but they didn't. They subjugated and were coöpted by the Normans and then forming this new hybrid identity went on to become one of the greatest empires on Earth. Had they gone with the precursors and the likes of Winstanley I'm not certain they'd have accomplished so much and the English the Anglosphere begot by said empire would not exist today nor the world we enjoy today.
The world would be much more fragmented, if not more Frankish and perhaps Spanish.
No, but empire did set the stage for the world we have today and the set of people we have today. In other words the rebirth of the West and the focus away from state (serf-lord) and religion to science and advancement (progress) results in us (the whole set of people alive today), the product.
It's not the memory that is the problem, but the collectivist mentality. I "remember" a lot of history but I know better than to associate myself with dead people of the past or to hold my contemporaries responsible for anything that happened before they were born. Sounds easy enough, right? Apparently not when you have pack animal genes and a bunch of politicians eager to exploit it to their benefit.
I take the stance of my Jewish friends, when they say never again. That's what history is suppose to teach us, NEVER AGAIN! Yet we still have not worked out how to make that happen for all these government based power plays. All power needs to be distributed far and wide so that no one has power. That's a very good way to ensure people can't bring harm to others at every level of society/.
This topic is the subject of Kazuo Ishiguro's book "The Buried Giant" where a long-married couple explore medieval England to understand why everyone has forgotten their history, and discover that it was probably for the best.
This shameful piece could have only been written by someone who has forsaken their own human condition, reducing their sense of purpose in life to the biological imperative to “survive”. In the interest of “surviving”, people can do all sorts of dishonorable things, like adopting a servile attitude with those who covet (or, even worse, have already stolen!) what is rightfully yours, while turning a blind eye to the plight of your own kind. Fortunately, throughout history, there have always been people with a sense of duty to the collective to which they belong, and will prioritize that duty over opportunities for self-advancement. So not all hope is lost.
I don't know who has wronged you or how, but all the bloody vengeance in the world won't make you feel any better, nor will it undo what has been done to you.
Punishing the individuals responsible for specific acts is all well and good within reason, but collective punishment is wrong.
Nope. Identification with those who share your language, culture and history... this is very much acquired during the socialization process, not something imprinted in our genes.
What this guy is getting at, in a necessarily stupefying way to confuse and tire the reader, is that we should remember certain events and not others. No doubt the lists of things to be forgotten and propagated will be determined by people as enlightened as himself. But on that count he's calling for the status quo making the article that much more dull.
The gist of this article is misleading. Instead of forgetting, one should be ruthlessly open, but also meta about memory. There is a relatively new historical research area, that shows how important historical events are remembered, not what really happened. It is phenomenological, interested about how people really feel. In modern geography, you have the same strain of imagined spaces. How is Kosovo as a place? The power of that place over the real administrative boundaries. Combined with the other major boundary of reality time, we can be very meta about this and establish a better understanding of our discourse. I think it is better to fight ignorance than openly practice it.
There's a lot of flexibility as to what you can focus on. If some group attacked your ancestors you can build up a grudge against the group and want to fight back or you can resent war and try to stop that in general. Both positions tend to get campaigned for by political groups.
The problems in the article are not problems of history, rather they are problems of people who refuse to learn from history. People who refuse to learn are doomed, whether they have history or not.
