[CoffeeCake]

double post

[CoffeeCake]

The south had been forming a different identity than the north. The south was agriculture-based society employeeing black slaves as their main source of labor, growing and importing cotton and other crops. Whereas, the north had developed an industrial-based society, excavating coal, and building factories with immigrants from Europe. And as these two different societies had grown increasingly difficult to find a common ground, especially after the British were kicked out in the Revolutionary War, the time had come to them to test their necessity to call themselves Americans, and they decided to wage a war to see if in fact their union was necessary

The American Civil War was a revolution because look at how Southern society changed after the fact. Instead of being on the top of the food chain, the whites had to share power with the former slaves. That would be a revolution in any case.

A total change in society (like what happened in the Southern US) could be considered a revolution. It may have not been the first motive given for the war, but it was successful in changing society.

[Piano Red]

The American Civil War was a revolution because look at how Southern society changed after the fact. Instead of being on the top of the food chain, the whites had to share power with the former slaves. That would be a revolution in any case.

A total change in society (like what happened in the Southern US) could be considered a revolution. It may have not been the first motive given for the war, but it was successful in changing society.

More like Social reform if you ask me, and as a black person who's studied the impact of the Civil War on the South I would have to say that it was a quasi-Social reform at best, Whites and Blacks really weren't on equal terms in the South until after the Civil Rights movement.

[Pablo]

The south was agriculture-based society employeeing black slaves as their main source of labor, growing and importing cotton and other crops. Whereas, the north had developed an industrial-based society, excavating coal, and building factories with immigrants from Europe.

Thesis and antithesis, seems like a recipe for revolution to me.

As i said you would probably have to open up your understanding of 'revolution' a bit to be able to comprehend my stance better.

he war was fought between the south and the north to decide which side was in charge of the American union.

I'm no expert but wasn't the Confederacy trying to remove itself from the Union?

And I have to admit, this site is rampant with so called liberals, revolutionaries even.

Yes, makes a refreshing change doesn't it.

More like Social reform if you ask me,

Ok, so wouldn't you say that social reform from the barrel of a gun could possibly be considered revolutionary? What were the changes in politics and identity after the war, or outward looking policies etc. The fact that a change happenned after a short and devastating period and a new entity emerged from an old one surely puts it in the 'revolution' catagory. It definately wasn't evolutionary.

[CoffeeCake]

More like Social reform if you ask me, and as a black person who's studied the impact of the Civil War on the South I would have to say that it was a quasi-Social reform at best, Whites and Blacks really weren't on equal terms in the South until after the Civil Rights movement.

But in the end, Blacks had a sort of freedom, which is way way different than being enslaved. That is a MAJOR social change. Just look at happened in Russia after the serfs were freed in 1862, they started a revolution 55 years later.

[Diplomat]

Getting back to the original point of this topic, I want to point out that when the Great War broke out, the men all over Europe actually welcomed it, hooraying and saying things like we're going to kick their asses and so on. What does this tell? For one thing, men are a living organism, an animal. After a century of peace, Europeans took the news like they had been dying to hear it for a long time. This clearly tells me that men cannot go on without fighting wars.

Basically this also tells me that history is about wars. You talk a lot of social developments, art history, cultural history and so on, but I cannot quite say that nothing is important as war in history. Yes, the Germans during the times of Bismarck even boasted that war is a progress into a right direction, and mankind must wage wars to further advance their ideals and civilization and so forth.

And I'm at my age that reason relatively is the main source of function, and to read what those Germans were saying at the time quite frightens me, but at the same time, I find nothing that cannot reverse it. And what do I make of this? It's like I have to treat peace and war as one same thing. And no one will take this seriously, but to me, after studying history for a long time and having to come to my own ways of views, it's just better to ignore even some of the lessons of history and just continue with history. I don't even know what I can get out of this, but it just seems to me, there's just no point make something out of history and do something about how we can make our future better.

I guess it just all comes down to what I call the impossibility of making something out of our own history.

[Pablo]

Getting back to the original point of this topic, I want to point out that when the Great War broke out, the men all over Europe actually welcomed it, hooraying and saying things like we're going to kick their asses and so on. What does this tell? For one thing, men are a living organism, an animal. After a century of peace, Europeans took the news like they had been dying to hear it for a long time. This clearly tells me that men cannot go on without fighting wars.

With all the consequences of that over simplified interpretation of events, such as militaristic policies and war, shouldn't there be a better effort to re-evaluate it. I mean you hav'nt really supplied any analysis to your thesis. You may as well say, ' i got robbed by a black man, therefore all black men are robbers', it is as good your argument.

Basically this also tells me that history is about wars. You talk a lot of social developments, art history, cultural history and so on, but I cannot quite say that nothing is important as war in history. Yes, the Germans during the times of Bismarck even boasted that war is a progress into a right direction, and mankind must wage wars to further advance their ideals and civilization and so forth.

Incorrect, it doesnt tell anything of the sort. So what if military history is important, the history of micro-organisms is even more important because it caused the deaths of 100 fold more people than war. Also, it was one of the major factor of the success or failure of wars in history. Go check out how many soldiers died from disease rather than battle. Does this tell me humans can't defeat disease? No, we have beaten many, and are constantly doing so. Just as we have the ability to find alternate responses to security dillemas other than war.

And I'm at my age that reason relatively is the main source of function, and to read what those Germans were saying at the time quite frightens me, but at the same time, I find nothing that cannot reverse it. And what do I make of this? It's like I have to treat peace and war as one same thing. And no one will take this seriously, but to me, after studying history for a long time and having to come to my own ways of views, it's just better to ignore even some of the lessons of history and just continue with history. I don't even know what I can get out of this, but it just seems to me, there's just no point make something out of history and do something about how we can make our future better.

And what do i make of this? Well without using offensive terms that will get me redcarded, i think you are either ignorant by your own nature, misguided, not sufficiently educated (that could stem from ignorance and misguidedness too) or do not have the intellectual capacity to go thurther than these stupid arguments, or all of the above. Sorry, but your conclusions are inept, for some reason or the other.

[Diplomat]

All I wanted to say was that what George Santanya said is really false: Men who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat itself. If men can learn lessons of history, why do they keep fighting? Would you really believe what Woodrow Wilson said, that the Great War was a war to end all wars?

I'm just declaring here that men certainly can learn from the past mistakes and lessons, but most of the time, they don't, and think they can make the future better only if they are in the power. That's been the pattern of history that I have learned, and I don't believe anybody can effectively challenge this argument.

Liberals and idealists think they can make the world a better place. And conservatives believe that it will be a best job if people don't make things worse. Liberals promise paradise, and conservatives show facts and make people understand where things stand and guide them to make their own decisions about what they can do about them now and in the future.

The human nature has never allowed itself to have a paradise. It's basically that the world is down right dirty and can be hellish at times. So, I guess I basically agree with Machiavelli and Hobbes.

[Pablo]

Thanks for the reply Diplomat, i understand what you are trying to say a bit better now, i was worried i may have been a bit harsh. The topic of human nature is often taken as a given in approaching subjects of this nature and those that usually do it don't have much of an understanding of the concept and how it is used in methodology. I still disagree with you, but i see you were trying to move on to another concept, which i'll try to comment on.


Indeed, it is false to say the lessons of history won't be repeated just because we know and understand them. However, a variety of reasons exist why this is so. Look at political ideologies, we all fit in somewhere into one or the other, the lines can be blurred we can occuppy several at once, but the individual who is concerned usually fits in somewhere.

Your view about 'liberalism' and conservatism, while somewhat accurate, is quite biased. Liberals, tend to look for answers by delving into a subject, conservatives seem happy to pass a glancing eye over something and come to some conclusion based on the limitations of reasoning, which is way way too subjective. I don't agree with your classifications here, and i wouldn't say my last comment covered all those in the ideological fields. I think it is a mistake making the classification along political lines, although it does cross them.

So, how do these ideologies and the views of the individual effect interpretations of events in history and how they then go about putting into practice in current policy. Two parties in one country may interpret historical events differently, due to the 'ideological' approaches they use to interpret it. It is the one party in power that has the priveledge of puting their interpretation into action.

Theres also cultural interpretations, no need to go further in this understanding i'm sure you will agree.

Further, what are the aspects of the interpreters knowledge, are they a sociologist, economist etc, these all factor in on the lessons learnt from history.

Epistemological methods, are very diverse and coupled with the limitations of our knowledge on history, we can only come to certain conclusions with all the factors that are present, those in and outside the event.

This is one reason why we can't judge human nature by history, it is far too complex. Many methods are so flawed their conclusions are corrupted before they start.

All we can say is that we are irrational animals and take it from there, we cannot look at history with the beleif that every action comes from some rational aspect of our nature. There is no objectivity to humans, trying to incorporate objectivity, exclusively, in historical interpretation is flawed. I'm not saying throw objectivity out the door, I'm saying it is not enough by itself.

An example, you can use objective analysis to say that when humans are confronted with security dillemas, we tend to revert to violence as a solution. However, this doesn't tell us we are warmongers by nature, there needs to be a more thorough analysis done. We need to understand the aspects of the dillema and the relationship of the actors in the conflict and the route taken before conflict broke out. This will tell us that it wasn't just an aspect of human nature that caused the conflict, but a variety of factors.

We should be more advanced socially and politically and be able to turn dillemas not into wars but into peacefull resolutions. As i said we are irrational, so it won't always be the case, undoubtedly we will always see war, but we shouldn't accept it as a human condition, that will only increase its probability.

We don't always learn to avoid historical mistakes because the factors involved will always allow different understandings of the events. Hence, different actions/policies are formed from each understanding. My interest is in this area and to how we can evolve our epistemology to come up with more accurate conclusions(and getting you stubborn bloody conservatives to understand them). Then maybe we will have a higher probability of avoiding those mistakes.
I'll stop here, and fully expect a few holes in my argument as i quickly wrote it.

[Diplomat]

Yes I agree with you that human nature is far complex to look at it from just a historical way of thinking. Yes, it can be analyzed and looked upon differently if we are to use anthropological, sociological, economical, and even biological and scientificaly ways of looking at it. So it all comes down to present our views here and engage in exchanging ideas about the topic, be it my way of historically looking at it or your view of using other means of methods.

And as you agreed, men really don't go back to history and try not to repeast the mistakes they already have made. So that's where my argument is coming from that men are basically selfish and can't stand having peace all the time. This is very simple, but if we can accept this men's impossibility of keeping peace and order all the time, then, you will be dawned upon a new horizon which I will say is Hobbes' main argument that life is short, bruital, and nasty.

And as for liberal and conservative way of looking at things, I have no problem taking in liberal views. It will be totally empty to have just one view of things in discussions and in this world. Both liberal and conservative views are all trying to make the world a better place. And not always either one of view can be applied to deal with the current situations. Churchchill indeed changed parties many times to suit the changing situations in Britain. So I never would say that liberals should all die and this world must be a conservative place and so on. Both sides should value and take in each other's views seriously and with respect.

[redstarline]

I think the First World War marked the end of Empires and the start of Dictatorships. The final break up of empires started with WW1 and the effects of that are still seen globally today. Obviously the Spanish empire had collapsed before, which led to the rise of USA imperialism which may have affected the US involvement in WW1.
Socially WW1 was incredibly important, both due to the scale of the armies involved and due to the revolutions during and after the war.
The Russian Revolutions were important, without them would there have been the German Revolution or the General Strike in GB or the votes for working class men in the UK, and all the social reform and eventually the Welfare State that followed.
WW1 was, in my opinion, more important than WW2.

[Diplomat]

World War II was just a mop-up operation to finish off what World War I started. It basically ended Europe as everyone knew it. Of course, the main ideas and basic thrust of the European-led history of the previous 2 centuries had transferred to the arms of the Americans, but physically speaking, people witnessed Europe just ending its life as they knew it.

Rome took centuries to decline, it certainly did not end the way Europe did. This collective suicide is unprecedented in history. The US is now carrying on the ideals of the Europeans, and I'd say that it learned to form a centralized power and government, unlike the way Europeans were when they faced World War 1 and World War 2.