Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Applied History

historytoday.com

11–13 of 13 posts

Re: The Case for Applied History

#11
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except nobody is going to listen, and you can’t really do reliable prediction, but mostly, nobody will listen. I studied history before I went into computer science, and it’s taught me some useful skills. Mostly it’s taught me that things are always more complex than they seem. Like, if you zoom out and see history, events make sense. Augustus chose Christianity as the state religion of Rome because it was a great to…

> Augustus chose Christianity as the state religion of Rome because it was a great tool to unify the different cultures under emperorial rule As a fellow history major, the worst thing in the world is when you make a simple error and everyone calls you on it saying "I thought you were a history major". ;)

And the error completely takes focus away from the point, which was about causality.

My only defense is that classical history was a 5ECTS course during my first year and I never actually finished the full five years before I went into CS. I should’ve obviously looked it up before posting to HN though.

As a little ironic/funny side note, the reason I changed to CS was because I was really bored by the fact that I had spent two years mainly learning how to work with source material and scientific methods, which wasn’t exactly what I’d hoped “history” would be. Now that just bit me in the ass, again. ;p

Re: The Case for Applied History

#12
post #5

As a backpacker and historian I love Collingwood's analogy. The shallow jingoism of history as taught in school is indeed quite dangerous, and without the "trail knowledge" Collingwood mentions you really can't see what you're walking through. For example, people love to sling around (or reject) the "nazi" analogy for the current USA, but a far more insightful one is 1930s France. Apparently in US schools all you lea…

You're right, the reasons for the French surrender weren't talked about in my US history class.

But it seems unreasonable to expect the government wouldn't surrender, once the Nazis were in Paris holding guns to their heads.

Re: The Case for Applied History

#13
post #12
post #5

As a backpacker and historian I love Collingwood's analogy. The shallow jingoism of history as taught in school is indeed quite dangerous, and without the "trail knowledge" Collingwood mentions you really can't see what you're walking through. For example, people love to sling around (or reject) the "nazi" analogy for the current USA, but a far more insightful one is 1930s France. Apparently in US schools all you lea…

You're right, the reasons for the French surrender weren't talked about in my US history class. But it seems unreasonable to expect the government wouldn't surrender, once the Nazis were in Paris holding guns to their heads.

> But it seems unreasonable to expect the government wouldn't surrender, once the Nazis were in Paris holding guns to their heads.

That's very true, but there are further interesting subtleties. To over simplify in the name of brevity:

The French army was likely the most powerful in Europe in 1940 -- certainly everyone believed so. The German general staff prepared for a long difficult invasion (Blitzkrieg notwithstanding) and in fact ran past their own supply lines and had to slow down shows that they didn't expect the invasion to go so quickly. I don't consider this one particularly relevant to the US, though you could make a case.

The unprecidented loss of French youth in WWI (IIRC multiple entire years of graduates of St-Cyr were wiped out to a man) had a serious toll on willingness to fight. Again, I don't consider this particularly relevant.

Like I mentioned above, significant welcome on the right for national renewal and anti-communist purge through the agency of the Germans. I see this point to have the most relevance to the US. If you can get beyond the lazy tropes of "racism" and "idiocy", the core of the current republican message and of "MAGA" is at its core a revanchist belief in a return to some sort of prelapsarian time of harmony and moral clarity. This is, at its heart, the core of many right wing (which I would distinguish from "conservative") parties today. Yes, there are of course racists and idiots among the right wing supporters, but certainly idiocy and other pathologies are rife among the Democrats and the left, mixed in among the reasonable folks. You can see a parallel to the French situation with the

Post reply on HN