Nah, he was thinking of Carlos. Hence the “Charles”.
Well, he was a Southerner. (The Civil War by Ken Burns is streaming on Netflix & I just started back on episode 1.)
I’m not here to state the practical reasons for studying history. But it’s interesting; it makes you a person who is interesting to talk to. It broadens your understanding of the world & puts your own concerns into perspective. It probably won’t increase your income–which is what many people mean by “practical.”
Is some historical writing not 100% true? Of course–for historical reasons. That’s not a reason to learn less history–but to learn more. Might the history curriculum in our early schooling have been a bit sketchy? Of course. But most of us learned to read by first grade–so we’re free to fill in the blanks.
If somebody finds history boring & wants to remain ignorant, that’s not my problem. Well, the fact that they continue to vote causes me concern. The ignorant have chosen to keep re-electing Ricky “Let’s Secede!” Perry without knowing Sam Houston’s opinion on leaving the Union…
And he’s a Republican! Lincoln would be appalled.
Or at the very least bemused at how things turned out 
I feel Mark Twain’s alleged quote covers my opinion on the issue. History doesn’t repeat itself in a one-to-one correspondence. But there are events which happen more than once. A knowledge of history will give you some perspective on the possibilities of what might happen in the future.
jjimm the flipside of that is the many well-wishers who thought the Troubles were as simple as the IRA versus the evil invading English and who provided fiscal and material support on that basis.
I wasn’t singling you out - it just seemed that the majority of the thread were trite truisms rather than actual content. I agree your quote was a good one.
:smack::smack::smack::smack:
That is just embarrassing. At least I got the quote right.
If you have some knowledge of history you can call bullshit on those who cherry pick that which supports their statements.
Well, the vast majority of works do adhere to these standards of objectivity. I read a lot of modern history (and was a history major, too, for that matter) and rarely find any book that’s not making the best attempt possible at presenting the facts. I’m sure there are some exceptions, but to claim it’s all “fiction” or even particularly biased shows a lack of knowledge about the field.
Don’t put words in my mouth; I never said the older accounts were inaccurate. But were they any book-length accounts of the speech? I doubt it; it’s too specialized a subject. One nice thing about modern history is that it goes for entire books on events that have never been covered in more than just an academic paper or maybe a chapter in a general history book. By writing about it in depth, the author can discover sources that have been forgotten and left out of the shorter works. It’s not that earlier accounts were not accurate; it’s that they were more superficial. And by writing a book about it at this time, it not only brings new insights, but also reinforces other works, as well as reminds the public about an important event that has been given short shrift.
True, but a casual reading of the history of Britain (and particularly England) in Ireland would reveal that despite the nuances of heavy Irish participation in the Britain-in-Ireland adventure, we were in fact undeniably evil many times over the centuries. It came as a terrible shock to me when I first read Irish history as an adult. And in that light, I think the best even an apologist could ever say would be “mistakes were made”.
And with that knowledge of the history in mind - while of course never excusing the terrorism - it would at least have allowed British voters to understand its cause and to have exerted political pressure to address more constructive solutions, rather than the staggering lack of comprehension that led to: “These Irish cunts, what do they actually want? Stupid and bloodthirsty - put them all in a field and bomb the bastards”, which was an attitude that I promise you was overwhelming at the time. (The situation reminds me in microcosm of the US reaction to 9/11, where any attempt to understand what was going on was met with accusations of apologetics.)
On the flipside I’d also say that the IRA’s “mainland” actions were counterproductive because they themselves appeared not to realise how ignorant the Brits were about the whole thing at the time (one could say they exaggerated the importance of their politics) - which also prolonged the horrors too for everyone in both islands.
My standard answer to the assertion that history is prone to inaccuracy, distortion and personal agenda is, "Of course, just like everything else. How do you know what’s the most accurate interpretation? Like everything else, the best way is to read as much as you can – even accounts which contradict each other. Typically historians will hash out a “best guess” consensus as time passes, and as new interpretations are put forward, they will be challenged and/or refined. Additionally, wide readers may develop a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of particular historians, schools of thought, or lines of argument, which may help them assess the validity of a particular claim.
That sounds like a lot of work – and it is, like everything else done well. The second-best way is to allow historians to duke it out among themselves and adopt their consensus view.
Over the centuries though. When can we let things rest? The Troubles sprang from very real inequality on the ground in the 1960s, not from the Battle Of The Boyne. Of course English or British actions over the years led to that status quo but in some ways the long reading of history lets many individuals off the hook for their intransigent actions. London should never have left Stormont to its own devices, however, it’s not London’s fault that the Unionist government were such a pack of pricks. I’ve read quite a bit about the Troubles and events leading up to them and the more I read the harder it is for me to spot anyone who comes out of the whole thing untarnished by their actions.
I agree with you to a certain extent. However once the IRA started targeting London’s financial centres in the 1990s, I think it was harder for the authorities to stick with the “acceptable level of violence” notion. A single IRA bomb at the Baltic Exchange in 1992 caused more economic damage than allother previous bombings in Northern Ireland. I suspect, although I could be wrong, that these attacks provided a significant impetus for the signing of the Downing Street Declaration. And it’s indicative that they chose Canary Wharf as a target with which to end their ceasefire in 1996.
I think you dropped this.
"
Fair enough, but I’m talking about people who didn’t even know the Republic of Ireland is an independent country. In the late 90s a friend of mine from Dublin was over working the details of an Irish takeover of a British tech company. They were having lunch and the CEO said “so let me get this straight: is Tony Blair your Prime Minister or not?” That’s why even a cursory glance at the shared history would at least explain something, rather than that Irish were ungrateful, defective British people who had just decided on a whim to start blowing up England for no apparent reason.
I agree too. Again not excusable, but considerably politically more effective than pubs in Birmingham, Harrod’s, Oxford Street or Warrington, which maimed and murdered the innocent - which in terms of British opinion added shovelfuls of hatred to an already steaming pile of ignorance. This is why I generally praise John Major for his courage to step over all of that and negotiate, though it’s clear that the risk to the economy was a large motivating factor.
Ha, my friend moved to England a little over two years ago and has encountered a few people, including a bank employee, who didn’t know the Republic Of Ireland is a separate country and has a different currency to the UK.
I think this point on Ireland/NI alludes to a larger point about the teaching of history - the lies to children method of teaching. Many subjects, of which history is one, is dumbed down and simplified to the point of actually being untrue by the time it’s told when taught to children. They learn that the English civil war was about the roundheads verses the cavaliers, that the former were basically the lower classes and the latter were the upper classes. There is no mention of the massive role that religion played in the situation, or the fact that the war was fought on the fears of the public against tyranny of a ruler and excessive taxation, and how ironically the winning of the war by the roundheads ended up iin the long parliament which included both those things!
If you don’t continue the effort to educate yourself on history as you grow older and as an adult you’re stuck with an incredibly simplistic picture of the world’s history that is so far enough away from what actually happened as to be almost factually incorrect. Ireland is a great example of this and as **jjimm **has explained it has a tangible and extremely negative impact on both Britain and Ireland for decades.
And what’s equally fascinating is that even your (well-reasoned) points are not the whole picture! 
I’m reading some books on this very subject right now and it’s amazingly multifaceted.
Oh indeed - in fact I have a book sitting on my shelf that examines in its entirety the English civil war and it spends a whole chapter discussing just what the components of the war and its aftermath war were, before even turning to which were the most important and what the long term impact turned out as.
Hence why I think it’s essential to try and learn as much as you can about history to understand the context for now. Okay, someone could argue that it isn’t important to understand every iota of the civil war because it’s now centuries in the past. However anyone who HAS studied it will tell you that it was one of the defining moments in the evolution of the English/British constitutional system of government that is relevant to this day (particularly when you have someone like Prince Charles whose behaviour indicates he doesn’t seem to know much about the mistakes of his his previous namesake).
MICHELLE MALKIN?!? You’ve got to be kidding! Michelle Malkin knows about as much about history as Will Durant. That’s because Will Durant has been DEAD since 1981. My dad, a native born American citizen, spent 3 of what should have been the best years of his life at Manzanar after having been forcibly removed from his Masters program at UCLA.
This is exactly why detention without trial at Guantanamo is so heinous, and a classic example of Santayana’s famous quotation.