History Is Not Linear or Cyclical
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2017, 05:34 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 05:52 AM by Fred Hampton.)
RE: History Is Not Linear or Cyclical
(18-03-2017 07:05 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 04:09 PM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  Which one?

Human.

I've studied many cultures, from Europe to Asia and beyond. It is as Nietzsche called it, The eternal recurrence.

The same shit happens over and over again. Just slightly different.

Stalin differs in no real way to Constantine.

It's all the same. People get into trouble when they study just one period or area. Yes, the Flavians and Julian's differed. But not by much ultimately.

[EDIT]

I should point out I have the advantage of having read histories for 48 years now.
The overwhelmingly vast number of humans that have inhabited this planet have not had their histories recorded. We get mostly the stories of the various ruling classes and how many billions of people(statistics) they've dragged into their ruling class wars and had slaughtered. We need more historians like Howard Zinn(RIP). Also, I call false equivalency on the Constantine and Stalin comparison.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 05:40 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 05:44 AM by Fred Hampton.)
RE: History Is Not Linear or Cyclical
(18-03-2017 06:09 PM)epronovost Wrote:  History in my opinion is raw material. It can be linear if you study a certain element in a certain way. It can be unchanging, cyclical or chaotic if you study other ones. History is full of histories and depending how you look at them, why and who told them and why, you will very different understanding of it.
"Linear" and "cyclical" are just metaphorical models that various scholars use to talk about and or interpret history, at least those are a few particular "schools of thought". And most of the history that is recorded is exclusive to the stories, whether accurate or not, of the various ruling classes. I submit that when you "get down into the weeds", the overwhelming majority of human activity(and the histories, if they were recorded) goes in myriad different directions just as biological evolution/natural selection does, i.e., not "linear" or "cyclical".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 12:18 PM
RE: History Is Not Linear or Cyclical
(19-03-2017 05:40 AM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 06:09 PM)epronovost Wrote:  History in my opinion is raw material. It can be linear if you study a certain element in a certain way. It can be unchanging, cyclical or chaotic if you study other ones. History is full of histories and depending how you look at them, why and who told them and why, you will very different understanding of it.
"Linear" and "cyclical" are just metaphorical models that various scholars use to talk about and or interpret history, at least those are a few particular "schools of thought". And most of the history that is recorded is exclusive to the stories, whether accurate or not, of the various ruling classes. I submit that when you "get down into the weeds", the overwhelming majority of human activity(and the histories, if they were recorded) goes in myriad different directions just as biological evolution/natural selection does, i.e., not "linear" or "cyclical".

That's tautological. Of course, you can study history as a "branching" phenomenon. Social and historical evolution is already a term and a school of study of history. You are not presenting anything new or revolutionnary, not more than saying that there is a science studying the life on Earth. Where were you going with this?

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 01:18 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 01:29 PM by Fred Hampton.)
RE: History Is Not Linear or Cyclical
(19-03-2017 12:18 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 05:40 AM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  "Linear" and "cyclical" are just metaphorical models that various scholars use to talk about and or interpret history, at least those are a few particular "schools of thought". And most of the history that is recorded is exclusive to the stories, whether accurate or not, of the various ruling classes. I submit that when you "get down into the weeds", the overwhelming majority of human activity(and the histories, if they were recorded) goes in myriad different directions just as biological evolution/natural selection does, i.e., not "linear" or "cyclical".

That's tautological. Of course, you can study history as a "branching" phenomenon. Social and historical evolution is already a term and a school of study of history. You are not presenting anything new or revolutionnary, not more than saying that there is a science studying the life on Earth. Where were you going with this?
Alotta folk argue that human history is "cyclical" or "linear" and or "progressive". I dismiss all that, I don't think it is like that at all. Were the "Dark Ages" of Europe "progressive"? Is Drumpf's atavism progressive? Nope. Is a new, "Home Depot" type house with vinyl siding better than a traditional, post and beam, Amish communally built house? No.

Did the slaves of Egypt share a common history with the Pharaohs? Nope. We don't know much of the history of Egyptian slaves, or any slaves except that the vast majority of the humans in civilized societies were/are these things called "slaves" or this opaque mass of things called "serfs" or "peasants" or "workers". We don't know much about the vast majority of humans' history(ies).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: