Take the question of whether or not to invade Iraq. Those who favored invasion argued that we must learn from History and Saddam is another Hitler. Those opposed to invasion argued that we must learn from History and that Iraq could become another Vietnam if we invaded.
The point here isn't to discuss whether or not it was right to invade. The point is that both sides have historical precedents for their positions. If the present is P, then we have to decide whether P is more like X or like Y or like Z before we can know what to do. But in reality P is probably both like and unlike X (and Y and Z). We can't know a priori which historical analogies are more valid and whether similarities or differences with the past will be more significant for our time.
Does that make any sense?
2006-06-29
10:19:17
·
24 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
History