Some thoughts prompted by the US 250 State fair….

 

If your study of history only ever makes you feel proud of your country, you've probably been taught nationalism rather than history.

History is not there to make us feel good.

It is there to make us wiser.

 

Most people don't actually know their country's history. - They know the version they were taught.

 

National histories are often less about understanding the past than about building national identity. Every country has its founding myths, heroic narratives, and carefully polished stories. The uncomfortable chapters—conquest, slavery, colonialism, oppression, political violence, corruption, or catastrophic mistakes—are often softened, justified, or quietly ignored.

 

Real history isn't a patriotic fairy tale. - It is messy, contradictory, and deeply human.

 

It shows that virtually every successful nation was shaped by conflict, exploitation, injustice, and decisions that would be condemned by today's standards. That doesn't mean those countries should be hated. It means they should be understood honestly.

 

A mature society doesn't need a flawless past. It needs an accurate one.

Studying history should challenge your assumptions. It should sometimes leave you uncomfortable. It should occasionally make you angry, saddened, or ashamed. It should also inspire admiration for those who fought against injustice rather than simply celebrating those who held power.

 

As George Santayana famously observed:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

Perhaps a more modern version would be:

Studying history will sometimes disturb you.

Studying history will sometimes upset you.

Studying history will sometimes make you furious.

If studying history only ever makes you feel proud and happy, you probably aren't studying history—you are studying mythology.

 

Well what's making history now is that the USA's first fascist felon president has ruined the 250th celebration and turned into yet another one of his vulgar perverted partisan corrupt grifts.

The founders did the best they could with the constitution, but nobody could have predicted a president as corrupt, destructive and malicious as Trump.

Everything he touches turns into the brown stuff.

Edited July 4Jul 4 by Jingthing

23 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Some thoughts prompted by the US 250 State fair….

 

If your study of history only ever makes you feel proud of your country, you've probably been taught nationalism rather than history.

History is not there to make us feel good.

It is there to make us wiser.

 

Most people don't actually know their country's history. - They know the version they were taught.

 

National histories are often less about understanding the past than about building national identity. Every country has its founding myths, heroic narratives, and carefully polished stories. The uncomfortable chapters—conquest, slavery, colonialism, oppression, political violence, corruption, or catastrophic mistakes—are often softened, justified, or quietly ignored.

 

Real history isn't a patriotic fairy tale. - It is messy, contradictory, and deeply human.

 

It shows that virtually every successful nation was shaped by conflict, exploitation, injustice, and decisions that would be condemned by today's standards. That doesn't mean those countries should be hated. It means they should be understood honestly.

 

A mature society doesn't need a flawless past. It needs an accurate one.

Studying history should challenge your assumptions. It should sometimes leave you uncomfortable. It should occasionally make you angry, saddened, or ashamed. It should also inspire admiration for those who fought against injustice rather than simply celebrating those who held power.

 

As George Santayana famously observed:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

Perhaps a more modern version would be:

Studying history will sometimes disturb you.

Studying history will sometimes upset you.

Studying history will sometimes make you furious.

If studying history only ever makes you feel proud and happy, you probably aren't studying history—you are studying mythology.

 

I would call today's history and nationalism rationalism with deep wounds.

34 minutes ago, kwilco said:

If your study of history only ever makes you feel proud of your country, you've probably been taught nationalism rather than history.

If your study of history only ever makes you feel ashamed of your country, what have you been taught? 🤔

13 minutes ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

If your study of history only ever makes you feel ashamed of your country, what have you been taught? 🤔

The truth?

12 minutes ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

If your study of history only ever makes you feel ashamed of your country, what have you been taught? 🤔

Facts ?

so we do not repeat the mistakes made against human beings who were too often treated as lower class, as animals, or as sinful by nature?

I look back at it, as if looking in a rear view mirror.

And, things always look smaller than they were.

2 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

If your study of history only ever makes you feel ashamed of your country, what have you been taught? 🤔

Curious question – you don't seem to have got the point of my OP or grasped what history is.

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

I would call today's history and nationalism rationalism with deep wounds.

"Today's history" isn't that an oxymoron?

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Facts ?

So often on ASEAN NOW, debates on politics, history, and science often get bogged down by people shouting "It's a fact!" or "facts"...

 

Dropping "facts" into a forum debate usually means you've lost the argument

We’ve all seen it before in history, as well as science and philosophy threads here. Someone gets disconnected in a debate, slams down the word "FACTS" like a winning poker card, and walks away thinking they've won.

 

But honestly? Using the word "facts" uncritically is usually a sign someone doesn't know how to build an actual argument. Raw data rarely speaks for itself. The real work is always about interpretation and context.

 

This is why relying on "facts" alone fails across the board: It’s down to critical thinking… a real acquired skill

In history, a fact is often just a survivor. E.G. Choosing to highlight three dates while ignoring five others is constructing a narrative. If you don't account for who wrote the history and why, you aren't making a historical argument—you’re just doing data entry.

 

In science, a measurement is a fact, but science is about models. Theories change not because the old facts vanished, but because a new model explains them better.

In philosophy/politics also, you can't bridge the "is-ought" gap with raw data. Pointing to a factual description of how the world is doesn't automatically prove your moral or political stance on how the world should be.

 

So…a fact is just a brick. An argument is the blueprint for the house. Showing everyone your brick doesn’t prove you know how to build anything; it just proves you're holding a brick.

 

Next time someone shouts "it's a fact!" to shut down a nuanced thread, remember they’re usually just trying to bypass the hard work of actually defending their interpretation of in this case history and why they probably shouldn’t be unquestioningly “proud” of it…

21 minutes ago, kwilco said:

"Today's history" isn't that an oxymoron?

Simple, history used today !

Where old sins being rationalised!

10 minutes ago, kwilco said:

So often on ASEAN NOW, debates on politics, history, and science often get bogged down by people shouting "It's a fact!" or "facts"...

 

Dropping "facts" into a forum debate usually means you've lost the argument

We’ve all seen it before in history, as well as science and philosophy threads here. Someone gets disconnected in a debate, slams down the word "FACTS" like a winning poker card, and walks away thinking they've won.

 

But honestly? Using the word "facts" uncritically is usually a sign someone doesn't know how to build an actual argument. Raw data rarely speaks for itself. The real work is always about interpretation and context.

 

This is why relying on "facts" alone fails across the board: It’s down to critical thinking… a real acquired skill

In history, a fact is often just a survivor. E.G. Choosing to highlight three dates while ignoring five others is constructing a narrative. If you don't account for who wrote the history and why, you aren't making a historical argument—you’re just doing data entry.

 

In science, a measurement is a fact, but science is about models. Theories change not because the old facts vanished, but because a new model explains them better.

In philosophy/politics also, you can't bridge the "is-ought" gap with raw data. Pointing to a factual description of how the world is doesn't automatically prove your moral or political stance on how the world should be.

 

So…a fact is just a brick. An argument is the blueprint for the house. Showing everyone your brick doesn’t prove you know how to build anything; it just proves you're holding a brick.

 

Next time someone shouts "it's a fact!" to shut down a nuanced thread, remember they’re usually just trying to bypass the hard work of actually defending their interpretation of in this case history and why they probably shouldn’t be unquestioningly “proud” of it…

The USA is a good example of a young nation where the actions are well documented in the blueprint.

There is no real hideaway, unless you want to create one.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

The USA is a good example of a young nation where the actions are well documented in the blueprint.

There is no real hideaway, unless you want to create one.

It's not that young – I'm not sure what you mean by "blueprint"; for instance, both Italy and Germany are younger than the US. or are you saying there was "no history" before 1776?

Edited July 4Jul 4 by kwilco

12 hours ago, kwilco said:

It's not that young – I'm not sure what you mean by "blueprint"; for instance, both Italy and Germany are younger than the US. or are you saying there was "no history" before 1776?

I mean young in the sense of the national project and its documentary record, not that nothing existed before 1776.

Germany and Italy unified later as modern states, yes, but that is not the same kind of origin story. The US was built through colonization, slavery, genocide, expansion, displacement, and segregation, with many of those wounds lasting well into modern times. That blueprint is documented.

30 minutes ago, Hummin said:

That blueprint is documented.

I think you're just falling back on the 'that's a fact' syndrome – you need to look at European and world history too. History is more than a chronological sequence of events and your "facts" – it is a matter of analysis and interpretation.

A blueprint is an engineering term – it is a detailed technical drawing or plan used to guide the construction of a building, machine, or complex project. Coming from the 19th-century printing process that produced white lines on a blue background, today it generically describes any detailed architectural plan or engineering model – I think you are trying to substitute it for the word "fact" -

Edited July 5Jul 5 by kwilco

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

I think you're just falling back on the 'that's a fact' syndrome – you need to look at European and world history too. History is more than a chronological sequence of events and your "facts" – it is a matter of analysis and interpretation.

in view of US 250 how do you look at history??

You want me to go off topic?

America, the continent, is largely made up of countries created by Europeans, So are Usa!

Oh yea, that was yesterday 🙄

How I look at history, interesting stories, but since nothing really learned from it, can't say it means much to me. Loved growing up in Philly and that history, and peeked at everything that I could, but that's about it.

Did motivate to learn about that part of history, the 'Constitution' and such, and why I laugh when folks, especially non Yanks try to enlighten us 🙄

Aside from that, well, it is history, and where it should stay, in the past.

Humans were barbaric until 1920

38 minutes ago, Hummin said:

in view of US 250 how do you look at history??

You want me to go off topic?

America, the continent, is largely made up of countries created by Europeans, So are Usa!

now you're just rambling

8 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Oh yea, that was yesterday 🙄

How I look at history, interesting stories, but since nothing really learned from it, can't say it means much to me. Loved growing up in Philly and that history, and peeked at everything that I could, but that's about it.

Did motivate to learn about that part of history, the 'Constitution' and such, and why I laugh when folks, especially non Yanks try to enlighten us 🙄

Aside from that, well, it is history, and where it should stay, in the past.

"It's history, and where it should stay, in the past."

That's usually said just before someone unknowingly repeats one of history's oldest mistakes.

George Santayana summed it up over a century ago:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

History isn't valuable because it's old. It's valuable because human nature hasn't changed nearly as much as people like to imagine.

The last version is probably the strongest. It directly turns the other person's own argument into evidence for Santayana's observation without becoming overly personal.

8 minutes ago, Rockyroad said:

Humans were barbaric until 1920

You mean they had beards?? What happened in 1920? Did someone invent a new razor blade then?

Edited July 5Jul 5 by kwilco

1 minute ago, kwilco said:

You mean they had beards??

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

especially non Yanks try to enlighten us

all those who wrote the American constitution were originally British Subjects.

10 minutes ago, kwilco said:

13 minutes ago, kwilco said:

now you're just rambling

If you say so, your thread, your idea of a question

43 minutes ago, kwilco said:

all those who wrote the American constitution were originally British Subjects.

They're not trying to enlighten me, as they're not on the anti USA forum.

More the 21st Century Schizoid folks, Yanks and non, who are about as ignorant as a rock, when it comes the USA politics, govt, and especially Constitutional Law, since never studying it.

49 minutes ago, kwilco said:

"It's history, and where it should stay, in the past."

That's usually said just before someone unknowingly repeats one of history's oldest mistakes.

George Santayana summed it up over a century ago:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

History isn't valuable because it's old. It's valuable because human nature hasn't changed nearly as much as people like to imagine.

The last version is probably the strongest. It directly turns the other person's own argument into evidence for Santayana's observation without becoming overly personal.

That's what I stated in my 1st sentence, so with that, no sense in bringing it up. Only time people bring it up, and very selective, when they think it benefits them.

"We were here before you, we owned this or that, when ... before you" .... and what wars are started from, someone's version of history.

Yea, leave it in the past.

20 hours ago, kwilco said:

If studying history only ever makes you feel proud and happy, you probably aren't studying history—you are studying mythology.

If people can barely agree on what's taking place in the present, do you expect to view the past the same as everyone else?

Everyone views reality differently and everyone has a distorted view of reality, to varying degrees.

It was the largest fireworks display in history. (by a factor of 10, I think)

People are partying and enjoying themselves.

That's symbolic of something positive, if you wish to perceive it that way.

Or you can focus on Trump's arrogance if it makes you feel better.

I don't think people understand the OP - "in view of US 250 how do you look at history?" – I'm talking about historiography and historical methodology and how that would apply in the Freedom 250 celebrations. It's not about repeating "facts" or events; it's about how they are used, analysed and interpreted. Like any form of critical thinking, there is hypothesis and theory but no final right or wrong in black and white.

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

If people can barely agree on what's taking place in the present, do you expect to view the past the same as everyone else?

Everyone views reality differently and everyone has a distorted view of reality, to varying degrees.

It was the largest fireworks display in history. (by a factor of 10, I think)

People are partying and enjoying themselves.

That's symbolic of something positive, if you wish to perceive it that way.

Or you can focus on Trump's arrogance if it makes you feel better.

Washington D.C.’s attempt to break the Philippines' 2016 firework record resulted in massive smoke, ash, and hazardous air quality, highlighting the safety risks of large-scale displays. Consequently, traditional mega-displays are increasingly being replaced by drone light shows, which saw a 30% increase in the US over the weekend – the whole thing just shows how dated and out of touch the organisers are.

To see how it's done these days, look at China and East Asia.

Edited July 5Jul 5 by kwilco

Low value posts have been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

If people can barely agree on what's taking place in the present, do you expect to view the past the same as everyone else?

But that's why I'm referring to US 250...