For a while a specific point in the ever ongoing debate/spamfest over the Iraq-issue has grown on me. A current thread made me start this one but as I just said, it has been on my mind for a while. I'd like to point out that it's not my intention to take a definite stand on the issue but to bring up a interesting detail. I'm not a big fan of analysing discourses and so forth but when it comes to details I do think it says something.
Some posters and people in general that are more or less pro-war refers to history to make a point. What I'm talking about is of cource (as most of you should have guessed by now) the idea and history of the appeasement-policy. Debaters point to what can be learned from the disaster in München in 1938.
However, my point is, that there might be a serious flaw with a selective way of learning from history. After all, history has and means a lot of things and can also be intepreted in a lot of ways. Is this appeasment-leason really a valid point? What has the history of imperialism and 'the white mans burden' to teach us?
My position is that one should be really careful to think that there's some easy clear-cut leasons from history. History never repeats itself but as a farce.
Discuss!
Some posters and people in general that are more or less pro-war refers to history to make a point. What I'm talking about is of cource (as most of you should have guessed by now) the idea and history of the appeasement-policy. Debaters point to what can be learned from the disaster in München in 1938.
However, my point is, that there might be a serious flaw with a selective way of learning from history. After all, history has and means a lot of things and can also be intepreted in a lot of ways. Is this appeasment-leason really a valid point? What has the history of imperialism and 'the white mans burden' to teach us?
My position is that one should be really careful to think that there's some easy clear-cut leasons from history. History never repeats itself but as a farce.
Discuss!
Comment