SHOULD WE MAKE IT A POINT TO REMEMBER?

[rigney]

It was 4 days before my ninth birthday, I was in the 4th grade and that old AM radio of ours didn't get very good reception down in the holler where we lived in Mammoth, W.Va., But between the static and sketchy patches of news we received, Dad told me the Japanese had bombed our Navy at Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii, and war had broken out between our two countries. WAR?!, and I had no idea where Hawaii even was?

The day: Sunday, December 7, 1941. After all this time, is it necessary to remember such a day? I think so.

Edited December 7, 2010 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

Early happy birthday.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, we can't remember every single date that something important happened. Ask a history teacher, there should be plenty for each day of the year. It is good to commemorate some important events, and all peoples I know do so, but eventually they become obsolete. Also, remembering some things can keep hatred fresh, or perhaps patriotism or respect for our troops (depending on the details). Us young whippersnappers haven't lived through it like you have, to us it is just history.

 

My thinking though, is that it is better to commemorate the end of a war than the start.

[Marat]

To answer whether it is important to remember that day we have to ask why we want to remember it? If it is because we feel a sense of outrage and moral self-righteousness with respect to what Roosevelt called "a deliberate and sneak attack," then historical relativists might disappoint us. Some now argue that the U.S. was essentially squeezing Japan into a situation in which they would have to attack us, since Japan needed to import large amounts of strategic raw materials to fight its long-term war with China, and the U.S. had embargoed exports of these vital goods to Japan. The result was that they would have to invade the Southeast Resources Area to get them, which we also forbade them to do, or they would have to give up their hopes of success in the ongoing war with China. So we had them in a box: Either get the resources you need to fight by doing something we say will cause us to declare war on you, or wither away and die as a result of our embargo.

 

Seen from this perspective, some might argue that attacking Pearl Harbor was a defensive move to escape from the cul-de-sac the U.S. had created for Japan.

 

On the other hand, I always find it ironic that Japanese make such a self-righteous, public fuss over the anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb, but Americans never go and stand in the public square in Tokyo to protest the Pearl Harbor attack which was the ultimate cause of the atomic bomb being dropped.

[swansont]

Well, we can't remember every single date that something important happened. Ask a history teacher, there should be plenty for each day of the year.

 

 

Not true for April 11, 1954. The most boring day in history.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/7198

 

 

As to the OP and Marat's followup: those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

[imatfaal]

Santayana

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

But too great a pre-occupation with history can stop innovation and cause society to stagnate; I live and work in central London and the fetishization of tradition and history is palpable and a little un-nerving. As with almost everything - it is a matter for moderation (and not the red banner "this is speculation and has been moved" sort); I would paraphrase Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but those who dwell in the past are determined to repeat it.

[lemur]

Santayana

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

But too great a pre-occupation with history can stop innovation and cause society to stagnate; I live and work in central London and the fetishization of tradition and history is palpable and a little un-nerving. As with almost everything - it is a matter for moderation (and not the red banner "this is speculation and has been moved" sort); I would paraphrase Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but those who dwell in the past are determined to repeat it.

Thank you for revising the first bolded statement with the second. For a long time I scrutinized memorials, commemoration, and historiography generally trying to figure out what the social effects of these rituals is. My opinion is that while for some, it may be a moment of peace or thankfulness that a terrible moment in history is past/passed, for many it is nothing more than a moment of fear for the possibility of such a thing repeating itself. For this reason, I have thought that WWII war remembrances are used as political-economic propaganda for promoting post-WWII Keynesianism. It is kind of shameless to promote spending and economic growth this way, because it basically amounts to a threat, "fix the economy or we'll have more holocaust and war." The essential part of such threatening propaganda is that the social consequences of economic recession are naturalized as if it is not ultimately a choice to resort to violence in response to economic malaise. This is not to say that individuals can't become vicious when tortured by material deprivation - only that there are always other solutions possible than violence, despite the fact that constructive reason may be shirked in favor of taking advantage of people in their desperation.

 

The most striking pattern in EU political-opinions in recent times, imo, is the correlation between economic recession and anti-migration/xenophobia, and this pattern seems to occur in US politics as well. It's as if the moment the economy gets tight, people know to show their nazi teeth because they know that WWII was followed with a strong pro-labor welfare-state social-democracy. This is a big problem, imo, because democracy should be able to achieve economic prosperity without resorting to war and intimidation by reference to historical atrocities. Such atrocities should not be denied out of respect for people who suffered and died, but they certainly shouldn't be used as implicit threats for what is to come if certain kinds of political-economic policies aren't enacted, imo.

Edited December 8, 2010 by lemur

[zapatos]

Thank you for revising the first bolded statement with the second. For a long time I scrutinized memorials, commemoration, and historiography generally trying to figure out what the social effects of these rituals is. My opinion is that while for some, it may be a moment of peace or thankfulness that a terrible moment in history is past/passed, for many it is nothing more than a moment of fear for the possibility of such a thing repeating itself. For this reason, I have thought that WWII war remembrances are used as political-economic propaganda for promoting post-WWII Keynesianism. It is kind of shameless to promote spending and economic growth this way, because it basically amounts to a threat, "fix the economy or we'll have more holocaust and war." The essential part of such threatening propaganda is that the social consequences of economic recession are naturalized as if it is not ultimately a choice to resort to violence in response to economic malaise. This is not to say that individuals can't become vicious when tortured by material deprivation - only that there are always other solutions possible than violence, despite the fact that constructive reason may be shirked in favor of taking advantage of people in their desperation.

Used by whom?

[rigney]

Thank you for revising the first bolded statement with the second. For a long time I scrutinized memorials, commemoration, and historiography generally trying to figure out what the social effects of these rituals is. My opinion is that while for some, it may be a moment of peace or thankfulness that a terrible moment in history is past/passed, for many it is nothing more than a moment of fear for the possibility of such a thing repeating itself. For this reason, I have thought that WWII war remembrances are used as political-economic propaganda for promoting post-WWII Keynesianism. It is kind of shameless to promote spending and economic growth this way, because it basically amounts to a threat, "fix the economy or we'll have more holocaust and war." The essential part of such threatening propaganda is that the social consequences of economic recession are naturalized as if it is not ultimately a choice to resort to violence in response to economic malaise. This is not to say that individuals can't become vicious when tortured by material deprivation - only that there are always other solutions possible than violence, despite the fact that constructive reason may be shirked in favor of taking advantage of people in their desperation.

 

The most striking pattern in EU political-opinions in recent times, imo, is the correlation between economic recession and anti-migration/xenophobia, and this pattern seems to occur in US politics as well. It's as if the moment the economy gets tight, people know to show their nazi teeth because they know that WWII was followed with a strong pro-labor welfare-state social-democracy. This is a big problem, imo, because democracy should be able to achieve economic prosperity without resorting to war and intimidation by reference to historical atrocities. Such atrocities should not be denied out of respect for people who suffered and died, but they certainly shouldn't be used as implicit threats for what is to come if certain kinds of political-economic policies aren't enacted, imo.

 

I don't think we should get overly excited about any special days except "holidays". People throughout the world have their own special days. Dec. 7, 1941 just happens to be mine.

[lemur]

Used by whom?

Good question. The only way I have to answer this without propagating wild conspiracy theories is to just say that it is possible for people to arrive at the conclusion that economic malaise necessarily/naturally leads to violence. This is a political assumption that can be found in all sorts of ideologies, from the view that crime and/or civil strife is likely to increase in hard economic times to the (Mertonian) view that difficulty (strain) in finding institutional employment leads to "innovation" in the form of criminal pursuits of income/wealth. Essentially, it comes down to a deterministic view of violence where individuals are seen as having no choice but to victimize others when they're suffering economic deprivation. Such determinism ignores the examples of individuals who do not resort to violence under similar circumstances. It also contains the view that economic wellbeing basically is something that is distributed by central authority instead of something that is created through decentralized processes. This also reflects, imo, an underlying political debate between whether to accept central authority as a reality and therefore accept the impossibility of (social economic) life without submission to such authority; or whether to view economy as decentralized fields of production and distribution that can, will, and do function without central command-control. By establishing one ideology or the other as popular belief, certain approaches to government/governance come to seem more natural/preferable/logical than others.

[rigney]

Good question. The only way I have to answer this without propagating wild conspiracy theories is to just say that it is possible for people to arrive at the conclusion that economic malaise necessarily/naturally leads to violence. This is a political assumption that can be found in all sorts of ideologies, from the view that crime and/or civil strife is likely to increase in hard economic times to the (Mertonian) view that difficulty (strain) in finding institutional employment leads to "innovation" in the form of criminal pursuits of income/wealth. Essentially, it comes down to a deterministic view of violence where individuals are seen as having no choice but to victimize others when they're suffering economic deprivation. Such determinism ignores the examples of individuals who do not resort to violence under similar circumstances. It also contains the view that economic wellbeing basically is something that is distributed by central authority instead of something that is created through decentralized processes. This also reflects, imo, an underlying political debate between whether to accept central authority as a reality and therefore accept the impossibility of (social economic) life without submission to such authority; or whether to view economy as decentralized fields of production and distribution that can, will, and do function without central command-control. By establishing one ideology or the other as popular belief, certain approaches to government/governance come to seem more natural/preferable/logical than others.

 

I especially liked your first statement; Good question. The only way I have to answer this without propagating wild conspiracy theories is to just say that it is possible for people to arrive at the conclusion that economic malaise necessarily/naturally leads to violence.

Might it be said then, that these idle hands of malaise, could be the "devils work shop"?

Edited December 8, 2010 by rigney

[Marat]

The assumption that history is going to repeat itself is almost always misleading, since at each new occurrence of similar circumstances, the overall conjuncture of world history is totally different, so the outcome is also different. Marx here is superior to Santayana when he says that "history always repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the second time as comedy" -- since he in effect here says that history only appears to repeat itself.

 

A good example of how misleading the old 'history repeats itself' slogan can be was the frequently-repeated mantra during the War in Vietnam which stated that "we appeased Hitler and just encouraged World War II, so we have to respond with insane over-aggressiveness to every tiny event anywhere in the world that opposes our interests since otherwise the same process of appeasement leading to worse enemy aggression will repeat itself." All so-called 'laws of history' just ignore historical reality, which is constantly changing so its lawlikeness is minimal.

[mississippichem]

No one wanted to finish the job in Korea earlier last century. Now we have an entire nation of people that are starving, uneducated, lack any basic human rights, and are involuntarily and completely engulfed in pseudo-religious dictator worship. I agree, Marat, to a point; the US should not concern itself with every little political conflict that arises in the world, such as Iraq. But it's disgusting that the whole world watches and eats popcorn when an entire population of people are enslaved with no way out. I thought we had the UN for things like this, what happened? I don't want to hear about any more "humanitarian" wars until North Korea has been liberated and the Kim dynasty is destroyed. Kim already has nuclear weapons, I guess we are waiting for him to develop an intercontinental GPS guided delivery system.

[Marat]

Some Marxists argue that most of the five million people who die of starvation each year go without food because capitalism promotes the maldistribution of wealth throughout the world, and the U.S. as the prime political and military protector of capitalism carries the major share of blame for this. If you accept that reasoning, then North Korea is a petty criminal compared to other forces in the modern world.

[lemur]

Some Marxists argue that most of the five million people who die of starvation each year go without food because capitalism promotes the maldistribution of wealth throughout the world, and the U.S. as the prime political and military protector of capitalism carries the major share of blame for this. If you accept that reasoning, then North Korea is a petty criminal compared to other forces in the modern world.

How does a distribution of wealth lead to starvation? You are basically implying that it's natural for people with wealth to use it to prevent people without it from getting (to) food. What if it was not capitalism but borders and migration-control that was responsible for both control over the global free market (capitalism) AND hunger and other forms of relative resource deprivation and concentration elsewhere? Would you then favor liberalizing global capitalism so everyone could gain access to the global food economy, or would you continue to support migration control to protect citizens/economies of wealthy regions over poorer ones?

 

I especially liked your first statement; Good question. The only way I have to answer this without propagating wild conspiracy theories is to just say that it is possible for people to arrive at the conclusion that economic malaise necessarily/naturally leads to violence.

Might it be said then, that these idle hands of malaise, could be the "devils work shop"?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Your language is a bit cryptic.

[mississippichem]

Some Marxists argue that most of the five million people who die of starvation each year go without food because capitalism promotes the maldistribution of wealth throughout the world, and the U.S. as the prime political and military protector of capitalism carries the major share of blame for this. If you accept that reasoning, then North Korea is a petty criminal compared to other forces in the modern world.

 

I don't accept that reasoning at all. However, I don't wish to hijack this thread; If you want to start a new thread about such I'll be happy to discuss with you. Though I have a feeling the both of us are ideologically entrenched enough that neither of us are likely to change our minds.

[Nexium Tao]

Our memories are a primary core of what makes us, us. Without them we would loose a core essence of who we really are. To answer your question all you have to do is spend 5 minutes with an Alzheimer's victim you knew before they developed the disease.

[rigney]

Our memories are a primary core of what makes us, us. Without them we would loose a core essence of who we really are. To answer your question all you have to do is spend 5 minutes with an Alzheimer's victim you knew before they developed the disease.

 

Regrettably, been there and done that on more than one occasion. Vets, Friends and even casual acquaintences. I'm sure my own phalanx of spiritual diversity will be analyzed at some future date? Edited December 20, 2010 by rigney

[JohnB]

For this reason, I have thought that WWII war remembrances are used as political-economic propaganda for promoting post-WWII Keynesianism.

 

My first thought was to call BS on this, but I realised that I don't know where you are. Your conclusions may be right for where you are but they don't apply to the antipodes. We remember the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month to think on the tremendous loss of life in WW 1. We remember the 25th of April to remind ourselves that freedom isn't free and that many Australians paid in blood for the society we have today. By remembering the price paid we motivate ourselves to strive not to repeat the same mistakes, tempered by the knowledge that sometimes blood is required.

 

During WW 2 America was never under threat of invasion, we were. Our cities were visited regularly by aerial representatives of the "Greater Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere". The only reason the invasion never happened was because of the ANZACs holding onto New Guinea and depriving the Japanese of a staging point. They fought in terrible conditions and endured and did terrible things to hold on. We remember their sacrifice to protect us and our nation. Economics has nothing to do with it.

 

A good example of how misleading the old 'history repeats itself' slogan can be was the frequently-repeated mantra during the War in Vietnam which stated that "we appeased Hitler and just encouraged World War II, so we have to respond with insane over-aggressiveness to every tiny event anywhere in the world that opposes our interests since otherwise the same process of appeasement leading to worse enemy aggression will repeat itself."

 

Marat if that is true than perhaps people didn't learn the right lesson from history. I've always thought that the correct lesson to learn from Pearl Harbour is this "If you turn your back on a warlike opponent, they will boot you in the arse" which is a trueism both militarily and historically.

[lemur]

My first thought was to call BS on this, but I realised that I don't know where you are. Your conclusions may be right for where you are but they don't apply to the antipodes. We remember the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month to think on the tremendous loss of life in WW 1. We remember the 25th of April to remind ourselves that freedom isn't free and that many Australians paid in blood for the society we have today. By remembering the price paid we motivate ourselves to strive not to repeat the same mistakes, tempered by the knowledge that sometimes blood is required.

 

During WW 2 America was never under threat of invasion, we were. Our cities were visited regularly by aerial representatives of the "Greater Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere". The only reason the invasion never happened was because of the ANZACs holding onto New Guinea and depriving the Japanese of a staging point. They fought in terrible conditions and endured and did terrible things to hold on. We remember their sacrifice to protect us and our nation. Economics has nothing to do with it.

My comment had nothing to do with disrespect for anyone who lost their life or suffered. I was just expressing an impression I have had on two continents that SOME people tend to promote an association between the suffering, death, and terror of WWII as a natural result of the economic circumstances that preceded them. In other words, the idea is that nazism became popular and aggressive because of economic deprivation with the implication that it is natural to react against economic suffering by engaging in organized oppression and violence. To me this is like legitimating hostage-taking for ransom. It may be true that the violence of this period was due to people reacting to various inhumane conditions in an inhuman way (which is not that unnatural), but I don't think that anyone should think or suggest that certain types of politics or economic policies are required to prevent such atrocities from re-occurring, because that has the effect of making fear/aversion the basis for political will, which is of course anti-democratic. The problem is that there is a fine line between analyzing the causes and consequences of historical events and constructing influential ideological propaganda about how people should or must operate in the present. History is never as simple as being a pure remembrance of the past, because it also necessarily has semiotic effects in the present in which it is remembered.

 

Marat if that is true than perhaps people didn't learn the right lesson from history. I've always thought that the correct lesson to learn from Pearl Harbour is this "If you turn your back on a warlike opponent, they will boot you in the arse" which is a trueism both militarily and historically.

Should this prescribe pro-active/pre-emptive military action?

Edited February 19, 2011 by lemur

[JohnB]

Lemur, I didn't think at all that you were showing disrespect. Clauswitz famously said "It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means". By remembering the cost of that "other means", we strive to avoid it, or if unavoidable to minimise the cost. At least, that's how we see it down here.

 

The thing is that I do see WW2 in Europe as the direct result of the ending of WW1. However I think that you are neglecting an important factor. The Treaty of Versailles was tremendously unfair to Germany and pretty much everybody knew it. It was not so much the economic deprivation that gave the nazis a chance, it was the unfair treatment. Economic deprivation was a symptom and a daily reminder of how shabbily Gremany was treated. It was this constant reminder of how a great nation was brought low that generated the anger, not the economic situation.

 

Their industrial base for the economy was removed, limits placed on their economy at every turn and on top of that, massive reparations had to be paid. You can't expect people to pay reparations if you remove their economic base and ability to generate income to pay the reparations. Remember that it was France that invaded Germany in 1922 to occupy the Ruhr when Germany literally did not have the money to pay the reparations. Given all this, are you really surprised at the rise of a reactionary regime a mere 11 years later?

 

You'll note that the lesson was learned for WW2. Rather than beggaring the losers, we rebuilt them, their governments and their economies.