We Haven’t Changed: The Value of Humility When Examining History
Frequently, the product of a poor historical education is an unfounded sense of superiority over the peoples of the past. It is reflected by the dismissal of institutionalized racism as a 20th century issue, the stereotyping of Native American peoples as innocently primitive, and the social Darwinist belief that the poor are intellectually inferior. It is present when people describe fellow humans as savages, characterize them as subhuman, and compare them to animals. Such troubling sentiments are based on the false premise that human progress follows a continuously upward trend. This is false. In fact, human brain size has actually declined over the past 20,000 years. As author John Green said, “It’s like you believe that just because you have a beeper and they didn’t, they were somehow less evolved humans.”
Such a sentiment is corrosive to society, as it leads people to overestimate the extent of human progress. Consider race relations in America. My experience in elementary school would have me believe that the evil of slavery appeared out of nowhere and was magically vanquished by Abraham Lincoln. Any remaining racism would be immediately addressed by Martin Luther King Jr. who supposedly solved the issue once and for all. Nothing, or at least nothing memorable, is mentioned of Jim Crow or the failure of Reconstruction. While many students would grow out of that mindset as they come to grasp the greater intricacies of history, this grade school interpretation prevails in the minds of many nonetheless. It is a mindset that gives credibility to those who doubt the existence of institutionalized discrimination in the 21st century and insist formalized segregation was resolved in the 1960s. Indeed, it borders on delusion to imagine we are so far removed from systematized discrimination that its legacy can no longer be felt.
Such a flawed interpretation of human events is, according to the School of Life YouTube channel, a holdover from the 18th and 19th centuries. It is kept alive in part by the oft-repeated George Santayana quote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Sociologist James Loewen criticized our traditional interpretation of Santayana’s statement for perpetuating the assumption that “knowing about the past automatically makes us smarter.” The former assertion is verifiably false. As JR Fears pointed out in his Big Think article, knowing about previous wars caused by minor disputes and amplified by entangling alliances did not keep the leaders of European nations during World War I from making the very same mistake.
Unsophisticated views of our past may have been acceptable two hundred years ago, but they won’t do for the 21st century. Our globalized world is complex and often frighteningly confusing, making any attempt to understand it a daunting prospect. Without the contextualization that thoughtful interpretations of history provide, there can be no hope of success. So, for humanity’s sake, we must discard our antiquated and crude theories of history to consider more accurate perspectives of human error and historical progress. By theory, I refer to the scientific definition of a systematic framework of ideas that explains observable phenomena. As with theories in science, historical theories should withstand the bludgeonings of evidence in what Peter Stearns called the “laboratory of human experience”.
The linear view of historical progress fails in this regard, because it does not recognize that humans are often illogical. When one examines the entire span of history, the flaws of human nature readily present themselves. Our psychological weaknesses cause conflict, install oppressive despots, and spawn destructive anarchy. Thus, as Nicholas Clairmont stated in his article on Big Think, humans are predisposed to repeat the errors of history due to an inherent irrationality. Any student of psychology can recount how we use mental shortcuts and our flawed intuition to make decisions. These tendencies transcend time, demonstrating that we are very much the same as the hedonists of Ancient Rome, the imperialists of 19th century Europe, and the segregationists of the Jim Crow South. We may have smartphones and electric cars, but at a fundamental level humans have scarcely changed. Our empathy simply does not advance at the same rate as computer processing speeds.
On a more superficial level, the linear perspective seems accurate enough. After all, technology is speeding ahead at an unprecedented pace. Once a niche professional device, the computer has become a fixture of modern life. The cause of human rights also made admirable advances over the past few centuries. The American Revolution, the defeat of fascism, and steady improvements in longevity seem to indicate the world’s tendency towards liberty and prosperity.
However, progress, even when it does occur in history, is not a smooth, uninterrupted process. According to The School of Life, “the world makes progress by lurching from one extreme to another as it seeks to overcompensate for a previous mistake.” The word “lurch” is especially appropriate, because it indicates the lack of a grand order at the heart of human history.
German philosopher Georg Hegel recognized the inherent clumsiness of human advancement. He saw that we tend to make short-sighted changes, carving a windy and wayward path toward progress. The three steps of this convoluted process involves moving from one extreme to another before coming to a compromised state. The first extreme is called the thesis; the second extreme, the antithesis; and the compromise, the synthesis. This is collectively referred to by Hegel as a dialectic. Take the example of the 13 British North American colonies that successfully fought to free themselves from the yoke of King George III. They so feared strong, centralized authority, they established the weak Articles of Confederation Congress as their first government. America’s first legislative body lacked any power to oppress its citizens, but it also lacked the ability to deal effectively with the financial issues the fledgling nation faced. Certainly, the values of freedom and self-determination are worth protecting, but so is order and unity. As a result, another shift occurred. This time towards a new constitutional republic that was strong enough to stabilize the nation’s credit, but not so strong as to infringe on the liberties of its citizens. Although this model of societal growth is not universally applicable, it is a more accurate reflection of the confused and chaotic way in which progress is made than the clean-cut narrative of continuous advancement. In this capacity, Hegel was successful in uncovering some semblance of the truth in interpreting the murky past.
For us to do likewise, we have to forgo simple explanations, reject comforting myths masquerading as historical interpretation, and embrace the true breadth of human history, appreciating it in all its complexity. “History”, as James Loewen said, “can (and should) . . . make us less ethnocentric.” It should impart a certain level of humility on us as well. As Peter Bergen said in his CNN opinion piece “history isn’t a march to the promised land.”
As a result of an unexamined perspective on history, many students view the subject as a useless series of dates and events to memorize. Certainly that is true when you strip history of its nuance, its complexity, its fundamentally disordered nature. A linear outlook that emphasizes our inherent superiority over our ancestors is not representative of the virtues and joy of historical analysis. Rather, it is by moving beyond such childish notions that we might discover what Peter Stearns meant when he referred to history’s “beauty”.
At its best, history can be life changing, groundbreaking, and wondrous. This richness arises out of the thought and care that historians and thinkers place into explaining our messy past. By presenting sophisticated interpretations that engage our minds, these scholars prove that history can be a thriving field of study worthy of our deepest interest and admiration.
