How exactly can having "too much history" affect a country or society's present-day scenario?

Question

In a novel "Riot" set in Indian background written by Mr. Shashi Tharoor, one of the characters, an American businessman says to Indians- "You have too much history. Far more than you can use peacefully. So you end up wielding history like a battleaxe, against each other."

http://www.shashitharoor.com/articles/nyt/indiaspast.html

I did not actually read the novel, and my question is not based on the novel either. It is just a follow-up to my last question-
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20070309223513AAci98X

I hope you enjoy answering!

Answer 1

Obviously, at a highly simplistic level, all countries have histories dependent on their date of foundation. Using such an interpretation countries which have maintained their historical structure the longest - Egypt, Greece, China - can be said to have the most history.

However, this is of course not the point. I will answer your question with an obvious example - that of Serbia.

Serbia has had one hell of a history. Invasion and occupation by the Ottomans, subjugation by the Austro-Hungarian empire, leading directly to the trauma of World-War I, and then violence of World II. And of course the whitewashing of its identity under Tito and the subsequent rise of militant nationalism under Milosevic.

It is not that Serbia has had too much history. It is that Serbia has had too much of the WRONG KIND of history. It is the history of oppression and violence - exactly the kind of history that stays in the collective memory. The kind of history that creates a victim complex that can (and in Serbia's case, has) produce a violent reaction. Serbia's bizarre continuing attempts to hold onto Kosovo are due in large part to a strong emotional attachment dating back to Ottoman times. The nation's overdose of "bad" history has impacted very directly on its present.

Israel is another excellent example of this state of affairs. A people persecuted, and horribly so, throughout much of history see themselves as victims even when the boot is actually now on their own foot.

India's history is an even more complex case - a nation which has had such flux in populations, such a variety of rulers, and consequently so much "bad" history will clearly be weighed down by it. India suffers even more from, in any meaningful sense of the word, not actually being a nation but a willing association of Nations. Indeed to a great extent the various Indian states (let alone those many ethnicities without their own state) have much less in common with each other than the many nations of Europe. Yet they have been bonded together by those selfsame nations of Europe. It is unsurprising that Indians often end up wielding this battleaxe of history against each other. The history of India is not a history of India, but a history of the various peoples and religions of India. India is united and divided by its various histories. And that history continues to make itself very much felt in its present.

Answer 2

The excerpt from the novel you chose was written as a literary method of making a point. It was not meant as a historical fact. It is a form of what we call "poetic license". It is representational, just like saying "Beware the color red, because fire has red in it and you might get burned."

However, to answer your question, having "too much history" does NOTaffect a country. What does affect it is the _inability_ of the people to LEARN from the lessons of history.

Look at countries that have the oldest history that we can study; China and Egypt for instance, or Greece. For that matter, also take a look at some very "new" examples of conflicts, such as the Irish "troubles". Is it really only 30 or 40 years old, or does it stretch back across the centuries?

What about the "gang violence" in American cities? What is there that could be blamed on "too much history"? Their conflicts seem to go back less than one generation. I heard that the sons of the original Crips vs Bloods are now citing "history" as the reason for their continued violence.

Scientists, Philosophers, and Historians are searching for the real answer to your question. They are in conflict with each other, in their work. Scientists will tell you it is the physical makeup of the human body, that hormones rule. The Philosopher will say it is human innate inability to reason that leads us astray. Historians look to the past for an explanation.

You have a lot to choose from. Which is it? Or something I have missed?

Answer 3

it does affect a country, the way it functions, the way it approaches certain promblems, the way it's people think, behave, and act...ancient cultures, wherever they existed do not die out just because the material aspects of that culture disintegrate with time...the culture lives on in it's people, transmitted through generations..history lives on, the past becomes a fixture in the present..too much history here would imply that people hold on to the past too much, resisting the present or the future....there is a constant battle against change, and specially when it comes from outside influences...so, a country's history becomes it's battleaxe against the change...

it is difficult to break set ideas, set notions..which history ingrains into people...wheather right or wrong..they are strictly followed, because that becomes their identity, that is their pride, who they are...nationalism, or maybe it should be called neo-nationalism.

history of a country, whether it's peaceful or violent, only teaches..patience, and the fact that nothing lasts forever..the mighties empires, and the strongest civilzations also end...what remains is change...the people(not in individualistic sense) who survive the longest are the ones who embrace that change and not resist it....whether they choose to learn this lesson from their long history or use history as a way to protect themselves from change depends solely on the people.

it does not mean that the past should be forgotten, that is our heritage, which HAS to survive, everyone needs to know where they are coming from..but they also need to know where they stand, and where they are going...assimilation of the past with our present is what is required to survive in the present day scenario.

and btw...'Riot' is an excellent book...

Answer 4

a history of peace and beauty can lead to more of the same. a long history can lead the citizens of said country to believe that there's no other way to live.

when tendencies are burned into the psyche and folklore of a country and its peoples, the effect is to make it the path of least resistance. a violent people will tend to remain violent. a peaceful nation will remain peaceful until provoked, but may be ill-advised to handle the adversities of war because they had not believed it possible or desirable.

the popular example today is the iraqi people. not one people but several distinct peoples living within the (artificial) boundaries of the political entity known as iraq. their long history of sectarianism will not be bent or broken by the will of western infidels, no matter how many. throughout their long history: it's what they know. it's what they do. can people change? CAN they?

in general, a long history gives a country an identity, a sense of nationalism. it also makes it hard to stray from that identity when times demand it. it can be both a drawback and benefit, depending on the current state of affirs in the world.

Answer 5

I think it's like two people who have been related to each other for years and years and years. They have a lot of baggage between them, so much in fact that they "wield" it like a "battleaxe" against themselves. Too much history. Too much baggage. Too much water under the bridge. And it dosent fit anymore into their day-to-day lives. Their baggage has grown too big to be useful anymore.