The need to study history
CharlasHistory: On learning from and writing history
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1Urquhart
The need to study history
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-eland/at-their-own-peril-americ_b_10801678.ht...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-eland/at-their-own-peril-americ_b_10801678.ht...
2DinadansFriend
>1 Urquhart::
The USA did not invade Vietnam...It had a treaty, a defence treaty,with considerable right wing bias, with the Republic of South Vietnam. It began to "surge" its forces, and one thing led to another. There was a large suite of such treaties, happily accepted in the 1950's as a demonstration of USA's military paramountcy, and they are the basis of much conflict since. I think the USA does need to study history and see if it can draw lessons on how to disengage from the current set of obligations and adopt a lower profile in the interests of world peace.
I realize that "The Glorious Fourth" might be the wrong day to bring this up. But we might be of some use as we try to set a course between "the City on a Hill" and "The Whited Sepulchre!"
The USA did not invade Vietnam...It had a treaty, a defence treaty,with considerable right wing bias, with the Republic of South Vietnam. It began to "surge" its forces, and one thing led to another. There was a large suite of such treaties, happily accepted in the 1950's as a demonstration of USA's military paramountcy, and they are the basis of much conflict since. I think the USA does need to study history and see if it can draw lessons on how to disengage from the current set of obligations and adopt a lower profile in the interests of world peace.
I realize that "The Glorious Fourth" might be the wrong day to bring this up. But we might be of some use as we try to set a course between "the City on a Hill" and "The Whited Sepulchre!"
3GeoKaras
If you study history I don't see how you can conclude that there is any correlation between the "profile" of the USA and the existence, or more accurately the non-existence, of world peace. There was no "world peace" before the USA existed. There was no "world peace" when the USA did exist but had a small profile abroad. There was no world peace when the USA had a larger profile in the world. There will be no "world peace" if at some point in the future the USA ceases to have any profile at all.
4DinadansFriend
>3 GeoKaras::
What is the concept of "World Peace", as you use it...can you define it? Do you mean no wars between states of which we have records? Let us consider that Ming China made very few records of wars beyond the the then boundaries of China and by their rules, the period 1775 CE to 1815 CE was a peaceful period as far as the rest of the world was concerned...no Ming recorded wars anywhere but China. Therefore "World Peace"! So a definition would clarify your statement.
I note that you ascribe to me or Urquhart the idea " ...don't see how you can conclude that there is any correlation between the "profile" of the USA and the existence, or more accurately the non-existence, of world peace..."
For myself, if you examine post#2 above, I don't see you will find me trying to establish such a correlation. However trying to use your terms, realizing that we await a definition of "World Peace", I would state that every State Germany, or State-like Actor ISIS, or the current desperate flood of Middle Eastern refugees has some effect on "world Peace". A state exerts influence has a profile according to a complex number of factors, military, economic, artistic prowess, morality,etc. During the Hundred Years War The Empire, France and England the largest military actors in Europe were avidly courting the good opinion of the dukedom of Milan...thirty years later, they didn't care. but Milan had its moment, and picked up some very bad habits in this period that didn't help the city state in the long run.
The USA at the moment has a very "Imperial" style, and this isn't reducing conflicts. It needs to evolve a more conciliatory approach that will reduce its image as a country ready to apply force at the slightest provocation, and one that will allow it's neighbours a larger share in the operations and the goals of its alliances.
What is the concept of "World Peace", as you use it...can you define it? Do you mean no wars between states of which we have records? Let us consider that Ming China made very few records of wars beyond the the then boundaries of China and by their rules, the period 1775 CE to 1815 CE was a peaceful period as far as the rest of the world was concerned...no Ming recorded wars anywhere but China. Therefore "World Peace"! So a definition would clarify your statement.
I note that you ascribe to me or Urquhart the idea " ...don't see how you can conclude that there is any correlation between the "profile" of the USA and the existence, or more accurately the non-existence, of world peace..."
For myself, if you examine post#2 above, I don't see you will find me trying to establish such a correlation. However trying to use your terms, realizing that we await a definition of "World Peace", I would state that every State Germany, or State-like Actor ISIS, or the current desperate flood of Middle Eastern refugees has some effect on "world Peace". A state exerts influence has a profile according to a complex number of factors, military, economic, artistic prowess, morality,etc. During the Hundred Years War The Empire, France and England the largest military actors in Europe were avidly courting the good opinion of the dukedom of Milan...thirty years later, they didn't care. but Milan had its moment, and picked up some very bad habits in this period that didn't help the city state in the long run.
The USA at the moment has a very "Imperial" style, and this isn't reducing conflicts. It needs to evolve a more conciliatory approach that will reduce its image as a country ready to apply force at the slightest provocation, and one that will allow it's neighbours a larger share in the operations and the goals of its alliances.
5GeoKaras
Your second to last sentence states as follows: "I think the USA does need to study history and see if it can draw lessons on how to disengage from the current set of obligations and adopt a lower profile in the interests of world peace." It seems to me you rather clearly state that a "lower profile" (whatever you mean by that) on the part of the U.S. is somehow "in the interests of world peace." As far as a definition of world peace is concerned, you are the one that used the term. I inferred that you meant an absence of "war" in the "world". If you have a another definition that you were using when you used the term, feel free to propose it. Or perhaps we should engage in an unproductive discussion of how to define "war", "peace" and "world."
6vy0123
At 5 on the watchface menu at the following site there's a number of works to explore on U.S. history. 2M downloaded.
http://network.bepress.com
...
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/vol4/iss2/12
http://network.bepress.com
...
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/vol4/iss2/12
