Failing history

In history class, you read the textbook and listen to the lectures, then get tested. The task is to remember not only facts, but their interpretations in the broader context of history.

We don’t do this (solely) to venerate the past. We teach and study history so that we can avoid past mistakes. However, there’s a hole in this theory.

It’s easy to reprogram the interpretations of facts to lead to future errors. If a caveman goes out on a hunt, and comes back empty-handed, is it because (a) he went during the heat of the day or (b) the camel-god is wrathful?

Let’s stumble through history with humanity:

The Palestinian Ambassador to the United States Maen Rashid Areikat said on Tuesday in Washington that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)opposes the immediate presence of Jews and gays in an independent Palestinian state, according to reports in The Daily Caller and The Weekly Standard.

When asked by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor and columnist for The Daily Caller, whether a Jew could be elected Mayor of Ramallah in an independent Palestinian state, Areikat said: “But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”

Areikat added that “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future.”

In an e-mail to The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday, Weinstein wrote that, “Similar comments coming from an Israeli official would merit worldwide condemnation. But we hear nothing from the world community when the Palestinian ambassador to the US calls for a Jew-free state. – Jerusalem Post

What was the lesson of WWII?

In the public schools, the same places they teach you all sorts of falsehoods, they say that it was a lesson in crushing tyranny.

More astute observers realize WWII was fallout from the French Revolution, and a wave of liberalization across Europe that targeted ethnic states and wanted to make them more like the then-new Soviet Union.

If anything, the lesson of WWII was that our time is defined by a clash between liberals and nationalists.

In Palestine, they are speaking the truth: two ethnic groups cannot occupy the same space.

Oddly, the Israelis are speaking the same truth; they also want to separate from Palestine.

This is the lesson of WWII as well, and the lesson of the ongoing collapse of America.

This isn’t about “black crime”; it’s about our lack of an identity, and a standard of values and behavior held in common, when we get rid of ethnic homogeneity.

It’s not socially polite or politically correct to say that, but it’s more honest than blaming minorities for the failing of a stupid concept: diversity.

Maybe this time we will learn from the past.

12 Comments

  1. Erik Nordman says:

    This article seems to suggest that there is no qualitative difference between the races, and that Blacks and other “colored” groups would function quite well, perhaps as well as Whites, were they to left to rule themselves in a nationalist State.

    Such a suggestion is, of course, inaccurate. No amount of of resources will ever change the inherent differences between the races.

    I will agree, though, that when one examines WWII, the Liberalism vs. Nationalism context is quite valuable. Not only was Roosevelt a liberal, but the “good” old 19th century Tory Democracy concept seems – to this amateur history student – to be embodied in Baldwin, Chamberlain and Churchill. Of course, only the latter was a rabid war-monger with personal failings too numerous to describe.

    On a related note; while reading a biography about FDR, I learned that he spent many summers in (Imperial) Germany as an adolescent, in the spa’s that his class liked to frequent. Evidence, in the form of testimonies, letters and diaries, shows that he was rabidly anti-German and that he and his family spent a good deal of time looking down on the local Germans and making statements of the kind that would probably be considered “Hate Crimes” today, were they made regarding any non-White group.

    1. crow says:

      Of course, only the latter was a rabid war-monger with personal failings too numerous to describe.

      You like the word “rabid” don’t you? it appears again, later.
      Does the usage of “Of course…”, denote the assumption that “we all agree”?
      A “warmonger”? Because he was tasked with taking on Germany in WWII?
      “…with personal failings too numerous to describe.”
      What are you? The Voice Of God? How many personal failings do you have?
      This reminds me of a line in the movie: Battle Of Britain, where the British ambassador takes umbrage at the German ambassador’s description of Churchill, which is curiously similar to yours.
      He says merely:
      “Clearly, you do not know the man!”

      Anyway: I revere the late Sir Winston, as many, many people do, who were actually around, when the results of his influential leadership were still extant. I was eleven, the day he died. The entire country mourned his passing.
      So much for your callous, uninformed dismissal of a great man.

      1. fugitive says:

        Historian Ralph Raico makes him sound pretty “rabid.”:
        http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/churchill-full.html

        But while Winston had no principles, there was one constant in his life: the love of war. It began early. As a child, he had a huge collection of toy soldiers, 1500 of them, and he played with them for many years after most boys turn to other things. They were “all British,” he tells us, and he fought battles with his brother Jack, who “was only allowed to have colored troops; and they were not allowed to have artillery.” He attended Sandhurst, the military academy, instead of the universities, and “from the moment that Churchill left Sandhurst . . . he did his utmost to get into a fight, wherever a war was going on.” All his life he was most excited on the evidence, only really excited by war. He loved war as few modern men ever have he even “loved the bangs,” as he called them, and he was very brave under fire.

        In 1911, Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty, and now was truly in his element. Naturally, he quickly allied himself with the war party, and, during the crises that followed, fanned the flames of war. When the final crisis came, in the summer of 1914, Churchill was the only member of the cabinet who backed war from the start, with all of his accustomed energy. Asquith, his own Prime Minister, wrote of him: “Winston very bellicose and demanding immediate mobilization. . . . Winston, who has got all his war paint on, is longing for a sea fight in the early hours of the morning to result in the sinking of the Goeben. The whole thing fills me with sadness.”

        On the afternoon of July 28, three days before the German invasion of Belgium, he mobilized the British Home Fleet, the greatest assemblage of naval power in the history of the world to that time. As Sidney Fay wrote, Churchill ordered that:

        The fleet was to proceed during the night at high speed and without lights through the Straits of Dover from Portland to its fighting base at Scapa Flow. Fearing to bring this order before the Cabinet, lest it should be considered a provocative action likely to damage the chances of peace, Mr. Churchill had only informed Mr. Asquith, who at once gave his approval.

        No wonder that, when war with Germany broke out, Churchill, in contrast even to the other chiefs of the war party, was all smiles, filled with a “glowing zest.”

      2. Erik Nordman says:

        Having read at least a dozen books about “the man”, including Randolph Churchill’s biography of his father, I am still filled with revulsion for a man who, by all these accounts, was a liar, an opportunist, a warmonger and a drunkard.

        Yes, I do have many personal failings. I am not, however, a public person who is/was responsible for decisions that affect millions. For such a person, any failings must be considered, since his/her entire personality will affect the decisions made.

        The words “of course” denote that the other persons I listed do not (to my knowledge) fall into that category. I’m quite convinced that you understood that, but chose to ignore it in order to make a point, such as it was.

        No, I am not the voice of God, I am merely expressing an opinion, something that – judging from your other posts on this site – often seems to make you quite angry.

        1. crow says:

          I admire Sir Winston. What can I say?
          Such men are needed, from time to time.
          For all the bloody good it did, in the long run.
          He did his best; of that I am certain.
          Would that more people did.

          1. Erik Nordman says:

            I’m sure that he gave his all for what he thought was right. As for you last line: I couldn’t agree more. Most of us, myself most certainly included, fail at that far too often.

          2. Nicholas Marville says:

            Gallipoli, WWI. All I’m saying, other than that his voice might have been very influential in the decision not to give the two ships to the Ottomans as agreed and paid for, which lead to drawing the Ottomas into the war and spreading the conflict beyond Europe.

          3. Erik Nordman says:

            Btw, Crow, I fully share you distaste for people who use “I think we can all agree…”, which is the left’s usual attempt at steamrolling the opposition. It drives me nuts. In that war, I’ll stand back to back with you anyday. :)

          4. crow says:

            That’s the spirit, EN!
            Glad you could see it.
            Relieved you understood.

    2. This article seems to suggest that there is no qualitative difference between the races, and that Blacks and other “colored” groups would function quite well, perhaps as well as Whites, were they to left to rule themselves in a nationalist State.

      If racial differences exist to the degree you suggest, it would be apples and oranges to compare the two, wouldn’t it?

      I think African self-rule would work better than diversity, and preserve the uniqueness of African people.

      Do we need to get into the ugliness of qualitative differences, as you say, when the principle that makes everyone better off is so clear?

      1. Erik Nordman says:

        I don’t agree that it would be apples and oranges, more along the lines of different types of the same product, with distinct qualitative differences. African self-rule would be better for everyone, I believe, and it might make it possible for Whites to wash away the stigma that it’s “all our fault”.

      2. Erik Nordman says:

        Actually pointing out the elephant in the room was probably a naive thing to do. I should have better gauged the general direction of this site.

        My apologies for wasting your time and bandwith. :)

Leave a Reply

41 queries. 0.997 seconds