Wells on History

[Earthrise]

Read a great pocket book by Wells called "A short history of the World" last year as research for an essay I was writing (good excuse). I found it fascinating, very fresh and enlightening; especially considering it was written in 1922. I have this bad habit of expecting people in the past to be dumber, slower or somehow less civilised. But then I am constantly surprised at how advanced the ancients were; in the shadow of Greek philosophy and Egyptian construction techniques. This is one of those books.

Here is a good link

www.bartleby.com/86/


I wanted to take up another point of Charles' (I'm not picking on you) that true history is told from the Left. I didn't take this as a dig at my leanings, because it is notoriously true that History Dept’s are left-wing bastions. My degree has moved me leftwards, no doubt. Not so much moved, but enlightened. Of course, a matter of opinion.

History is a strange discipline; part science, part art, part sociology, part ideology. A great quote I learned in my first year; "History is memory for societies". We are a product of our experience, our memories. So are societies. Controlling history allows you to control a society. Orwell knew. And if you read Wells’ take on History, you’ll see he did too.

Modern history is moving away from its propaganda roots and is now much closer to a more scientific approach. The truth does not help the people looking to control us through our collective memories. This is why modern history seems leftward; because propaganda has always been the true enemy of History and the Right have been in power since History began. Of course there is still room for interpretation (read spin) but History is closer to the Truth than ever before.

My illustrious Prime Minister calls modern history "the Black Armband" view of history. His history of Australia is a glorious arrival of civilised Whites building our great land and pulling up our Aborigines by their curly hair. He hates all this talk of colonisation, exploitation, murder, rape, dispossession. It doesn't sit so well with his Chardonnay while enjoying the view over Sydney Harbour. Over the landing site of the first colony.

History is ours!

Earthrise

[Charles]

I didn't say 'true history' is taught from the left, just that most history professors are leftists and many seek to impart their leanings to their students; but of course most everyone admits academia is rife with leftists, and the fact is they do attempt to program their students with their own slanted view, passed off as impartial. But before I get too upset, I always remember that someday these students will get out into the world and realize how safe are the ivory towers of academia - and cut off they can be.

If you define the Left as the appeasers (Chamberlains) and the Right as the more, shall we say proactive (Churchills), I'll concede part of your point. Beyond that I can't agree that the Right "have been in power since history began." Not only is the claim ahistorical, it requires a rather paranoid mindset to conceive such an idea in the first place, as well as a conscious coordinated right-wing Open Conspiracy that even Wells himself never claimed was at work. Go back one hundred years and try to apply your definition of "right" and "left" and you'll see.

Wells understood the key to establishing any permanent peace and revolutionizing every aspect of human existence was to create 'competent receivers' and shake people from their age-old, comfortable complacency. We should not rely on our governments or bureaucracies to see to our education. We need to take on that responsibility ourselves, creating new entities if need be, to educate men, women and children and awaken the cosmopolitan in every one of us. To this end he wrote "The Outline of History," "The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind," and "The Open Conspiracy." In "World Brain" called for the creation of a world encyclopedia (a "google" really) to help establish a new era of enlightenment for Mr. Everyman. It also sought to bypass the traditional media outlets, just as Google has helped do, much to the chagrin of some contemporary journalists. No one would argue this isn't good.

[Killraven]

Earthrise, I don't agree that true history is necessarily told from 'the left'...as we all know, history is written by those in the most powerful or dominant position (or on "the winning side") and there are no doubt examples of historical 'exaggeration' by political organisations on both sides of the spectrum.

However Charles, I reckon its making an equally generalist statement to say that those on the left are 'appeasers' and those on the right 'proactive'. For example, Churchill was proactive in war but not so much in peace time.

[Charles]

Mine was qualified with an "if" so it was not a statement, but a question.

[Killraven]

That's OK then ;D

[Bayne]

[glow=red,2,300]To be perfectly honest, the whole left/right thing seems to me to be no more than the static poles of a system that is in truth in dynamic equilibrium. I'll let you decide whether you function as shivering or sweating in the great ebb and flow of political homeostasis but I thought it rather appropriate to bring some Taoism into this debate, as after all Lao Tzu is about politics and governing as much as (if not more so than) personal enlightenment.

"Governing a large country is like boiling a small fish"

Actually a rather apt and serious analogy. I must here tip my hat to my friend Dave (as I have never boiled a fish) for the explanation that the boiling of a small fish is particularly difficult, as you tend to either over or under cook it, with the greater tendency to overcooking.

If we extend the analogy of homeostasis, some situations or issues may require very different approaches, it's not much use shivering when you are cold.

[/glow]

[Earthrise]

'true history', that didn't come across right. I wasn't saying that the Leftward interpretation of History is correct, (yuck) as I said propaganda is the enemy of History. 'true history', if such a thing can exist, is the scientific study of history, as bereft as possible from interpretation.

I was trying to work out why there is such a strong leftward bent in the History Dept's I've studied in. It has influenced me, no doubt. But you get a wide choice of history subjects and I chose my path; chose the subjects that have brought me here. Coming from my original interest in WWII, I could have built a totally different degree. I chose the path, not my lecturers. I think that is my answer.

I agree with Charles' assessment that History Dept are Left-wing bastions. The other part of my post tried to work out why. One more thing is the "leftward" view doesn't deny the conservatives their story; of bringing civilisation and technology. But the conservative view tries to minimise or deny the atrocities that came along with their gifts. Scientists don't search for the truth with any preconceived ideological boundaries or agendas. People passionate about history are passionate about discovering the truth. Maybe we need to look in the Commerce dept for the right wing historians

This left = appeasers and right = firm action is old and tired. There is a gulf between pacifism and most left-wing thought. I come more from the Anarchist side (hoping you understand the political definition); direct action, if need be. But I am strongly against violent solutions, except in self defence. Violence is for people with no ideas. Chamberlain was wrong, we all know it. You have to understand the stigma left by WWI and how we tried as hard as possible to make sure that it was the War to end all Wars. We know better now, war will never end. We have to control it, like we control ourselves.

Yes I am an idealist Charles. But age, marriage and fatherhood has tempered and dented my spirit. Innocence needs to be shaken off to really see the world the way it is. But I pray I never lose hope.

Earthrise

[Earthrise]

Bayne,
I don't really like the left/right definition, to restricting. It is useful when talking political generalities, saves a lot of explaining. I used to think I was Left but I don't think so now. Eastern thought has taught me the value of balance. I lean slightly to the Left these dark days to balance a boat leaning heavily to the Right. Once balance is restored, I will struggle against which ever side gets an advantage. Don't doubt I would have struggled against Stalin if I were Russian. A small step towards the truly multi-polar world of our future. Hopefully.

Earthrise, tired and signing off.

[timeship2]

Earthrise,

I agree that the left/right definition is restricting since most people, or at least those who take time to sit down and think, are moderates or in the middle ground somewhere. The problem is that when it comes to politics there often is no real middle ground of any significance. This is demonstrated with great effect here in the USA in that we have the left (ie Democrats) and the right (George Bush) with little in the way of inbetween candidates. Ok we have Ralph Nader but we have to be realistic when it comes to voting time and it puts pressure on people to pigeonhole themselves in becoming left or right. Of course that is a whole other discussion in itself of how you should vote.

Charles,

It's always interesting reading what you have to say. Here in the USA I have noticed that 'socialism' is very much a dirty word and I have noticed a tendency among many people to automatically equate it with communism. Do you think that if hgwells had emigrated to the USA, he would have been 'witch hunted' because of his views?

[Charles]

America more or less tolerated socialists (even National Socialists until the war) and other leftist thought and organizations (like the BdFSU, the Ring fuer Deutsch-Americk. Freundschaft and the AV – German American Bund) until the McCarthy era, which was well after H.G. died. Wells was a fervent anti-Marxist which obviously would have played well here despite our alliance with the USSR in WWII. He liked Roosevelt and once hailed the New Deal as a concept descended from socialist origins. On the other hand, after his meeting with Stalin it was clear to Wells that Joey was incapable of thinking and speaking in terms other than that of a droll Marxist agitating for class warfare.

[Xav]

America has plenty of Nazi's....suggest you use your search engine, you will turn up a few, even with good old sing a-longs like the 'Horst Wessel' beloved in the Fatherland. And for heavens sake, do not start losing definition here. National Socialism was Fascist, Right wing, not socialist (communist) which is left. You can write 'fascist' on your right hand and 'socialist' on your left, if it helps.
And as far as there being a difference between a Democrat and a Republican, I am afraid that here, half a planet away in New Zealand, I dont really think we can tell the difference, if it exists.
Of course, we are pretty left wing here. Got a miserable 3.9% growth rate, a strengthening dollar, a great health programme, we have even got roads, airports, and seaports, run an army, navy and an air force, have a nice climate and can whack most other people at Rugby Football. All on less than 4 million.
Sorry for the plug, mostly we are so modest we are taken for Brits. But we are'nt.

[McTodd]

In Britain, of course, there is no 'left' or 'right', only the One True (Third) Way of The Great Helmsman, Chairman Blair.