BS: History defined by wars...or not?

Subject: History defined by wars...or not?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 06:13 AM

Some comments I made on the Pearl Harbour thread and Banjer's subsequent reply got me to wondering: are there any countries which do not, or have not in the past, mark their history by timelines of wars? Is it the fate of humankind to always refer mostly to times of war in teaching about the past while looking towards the future?

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: GUEST,Fibula Mattock
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 06:35 AM

Perhaps it's relative to the timescale - archaeology generally measures the past in terms of changes in material culture; geologists/palaeoecologists in terms of global climate change... perhaps because history (written history) is a smaller timescale, wars are the largest significant event with which to divide the records? History often chronicals political change (eg. monarchs or governments) and the changes in politics are sadly often linked to war. Good point kat - I can't actually think of historical timeline that doesn't include war somewhere on it. Then again, although war is destructive and undesirable it can lead to important technological changes and advances, and not just in weaponry.

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:29 AM

There is a good reason why the history is defined (taught) by wars: Often, long overdue changes in society have come with a war (especially with a lost war), therefore wars are quite good markers for when a major change came.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: GUEST,Fibula Mattock
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:33 AM

Aye, that's what I was trying to say!

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:52 AM

Wars are markers, nearly always, but not the only markers. When I think about the last three big wars, Germany has been involved in, each of them brought us not just a change of government, but also a major change of constitution: 1870/71 brought us the second unification and the 2. Reich (and the emperor), WWI brought us the 1. republic, WWII the 2. republic. However, a future history of Germany in the last 120 years will have two other time markers not (directly) related to wars: Hitler's taking of power in 1933, and the peaceful revolution in the GDR in 1989 (3. unification in 1990).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: Banjer
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:16 PM

although war is destructive and undesirable it can lead to important technological changes and advances, and not just in weaponry.
Well spoken, Fibula Mattock. I know of several medical developments that came out of Viet-Nam that have affected my immediate family. One of them is the burn treatment technology that was developed as a result of the war. My brother was very severely burned around age 12. What the young Doctor that treated my brother learned during his two tours in Nam quite probably saved my brothers life. Other than severe scars on his legs, there are no lasting effects, physical or emotional. Also the concept of gluing tissues together in the field developed a much easier surgical process and gave us Superglue in the bargain! Why I bet if we traced it back, duct tape had its beginnings there as well!

But seriously I am not making light of Kat's concern, just trying to point out maybe that every cloud has a silver lining...

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: Troll
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:26 PM

WWII gave us Sulfa drugs which were the best thing going for knocking out infection until the discovery of penicillin.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: mousethief
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 07:28 PM

And once again in many instances, since the rise of penicillin-resistant strains

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: Sorcha
Date: 08 Dec 00 - 09:05 PM

Well,the Cabrian period is mostly floods, ice ages and fossils, and the Paleolithic period is mostly determined by grave sites and grave goods; also by village and single burials, but for modern times (6,000 BC or there abouts, I'm afraid invasions and wars have it covered.)

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 00 - 07:44 AM

You can mark ages with cultural events as well. The age of Shakespeare, just as much as Elizabeth. The age of Beethoven as much as Napoleon. The Sixties means the Beatles and Woodstock etc just as much as it means Vietnam.

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 03:50 AM

Either me or my bratling wouldn't behere if it wasn't for the epidural anaesthetic developed in the Korean/Vietnam wars.... she was too big, upside down, back to front and with her legs straight instead of bent - every wrong position a baby could get into without actually holding on to my lungs!! As an asthmatic I don't get on with generals, and if I'd tried to push her out, she could have suffocated/dislocated her neck/ripped the bejasus out of me innards as she came....

Wars do tend to create a particular marking place, who writes diaries and reports about peacetime, other than landlords and tax collectors?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 09:39 AM

Many societies mark history not by a timeline of warfare but by a timeline of political and cultural change. Countries who have waged an inordinate amount of warfare are often culturally inclined to mark the passing of time with reference to conflicts. As for the good that comes from war...ie, drugs and technology. I believe this to be a rather skewed view of human discovery..an attempt to justify, in retrospect, the killing of millions of people. History teaches us that wars , for the most part, achieve nothing, and the effects are long lasting animosity and national hatreds. There are still on this planet some countries wjo have not embraced war as a method to solve problems...war is the ultimate failure of humankind. Countries who glorify it, justify or resort to it easily, will mark history in that way. Others will not.

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 09:51 AM

LtS: Henry David Thoreau, for one...

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: Naemanson
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 10:34 AM

War is a convenient marker to separate segments of history. In the mix of societies in the world tensions build to the breaking point and end in the ultimate failure of diplomacy - war. The history between wars records that build up of tensions. War defines the end point of the build up and the beginning of the relative stability of the next peaceful interval.

The key is to figure out how to avoid the building tensions. There are so many causes that there is no single answer. Once upon a time it was thought a United Nations would do it but that seems increasingly unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: History defined by wars...or not?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Dec 00 - 03:07 PM

This more or less goes along with a message from Banjer.

Wars are like earthquakes. Large movements build up slowly over time, in tectonic plate movement or cultural or commercial development, or in population movement and the like, which on the surface don't seem to make a lot of difference, but which build pressure and build pressure and build pressures which to most eyes are invisible. Eventually the pressures resulting from change result in such extreme differences in potential that something snaps, releasing huge and destructive forces that have built up.

Dave Oesterreich