We learn from history...

I was reviewing the great book 'Why Don't We Learn from History' by B. H. Liddell Hart for a college course I'm designing, and I noticed that he uses the phrase "We learn from history..." a few times. Like everything else in the book, they are excellent insights.

"We learn from history that in every age and every clime the majority of people have resented what seems in retrospect to have been purely matter of fact comment on their institutions. We learn too that nothing has aided the persistence of falsehood, and the evils resulting from it, more than the unwillingness of good people to admit the truth when it was disturbing to their comfortable assurance. Always the tendency continues to be shocked by natural comment, and to hold certain things too "sacred” to think about. I can conceive of no finer ideal of a man’s life than to face life with clear eyes instead of stumbling through it like a blind man, an imbecile, or a drunkard — which, in a thinking sense, is the common preference. How rarely does one meet anyone whose first reaction to anything is to a.sk: “Is it true?” Yet, unless that is a man’s natural reaction, it shows that truth is not uppermost in his mind, and unless it is, true progress is unlikely."

"We learn from history that men have constantly echoed the remark ascribed to Pontius Pilate — “What is truth?” And often in circumstances that make us wonder why. I have noticed, as an observer of current history, that it is repeatedly used as a smokescreen to mask a manoeuvre, personal or political, and to cover an evasion of the issue. It may be a justifiable question, in the deepest sense. Yet the longer I watch current events, the more I have come to see how many of our troubles arise from the habit, on all sides, of suppressing or distorting what we know quite well is the truth, out of devotion to a cause, an ambition, or an Institution — at bottom, this devotion being inspired by our own interest."

"We learn from history that the critics of authority have always been rebuked in self-righteous tones — if no worse fate has befallen them — yet have repeatedly been justified by history. To be “agin the Government” may be a more philosophic attitude than it appears. For the tendency of all “governments" is to infringe the standards of decency and truth — thls is inherent in their nature, and hardly avoidable in their practice. Hence the duty of the good citizen who is free from the responsibility of Government is to be a watchdog upon them, lest government impair the fundamental objects which it exists to serve. It is a necessary evil, thus requiring constant watchfulness and check."

"We learn from history that democracy has commonly put a premium on consentionality. By its nature, it prefers those who keep step with the slowest march of thought, and frowns on those who may disturb the ‘‘conspiracy for mutual inefficiency.” Thereby, this system of government tends to result in the triumph of mediocrity — and entails the exclusion of first-rate ability, if this is combined with honesty. But the alternative to it, despotism, almost inevitably means the triumph of stupidity. And of two evils, the former is the less. Hence it is better that ability should consent to its own sacrifice, and subordination to the regime of mediocrity, rather than assist in establishing a regime where, in the light of past experience, brute stupidity will be enthroned, and ability may only preserve its footing at the price of dishonesty."

"We learn from history that the compulsory principle always breaks down in practice. It is practicable to prevent men doing something; moreover that principle of restraint, or regulation, is essentially justifiable in so far as its application is needed to check interference with others' freedom. But it is not, in reality, possible to make men do something without risking more than is gained from the compelled effort. The method may appear practicable, because it often works when applied to those who are merely hesitant. When applied to those who are definitely unwilling it fails, however, because it generates friction and fosters subtle forms of evasion that spoil the effect which is sought. The test of whether a principle works is to be found in the product."

"We learn from history that expediency has rarely proved expedient. Yet today perhaps more than ever the statesmen of all countries talk the language of expediency — almost as if they are afraid to label themselves “unpractical” by referring to principles. They are especially fond of emphasizing the need for “realism.” This attitude would be sound if it implied a sense of the lessons really taught by history. It is unrealistic, for example, to underrate the force of idealism. It is unrealistic, also, to ignore military principles and conditions in taking political steps or making promises. And realism should be combined with foresight - to see one or two moves ahead. The strength of British policy has been its adaptability to circumstances as they arise; its weakness, that the circumstances (which are usually difficulties) could have been forestalled through forethought."

"We learn from history that after any long war the survivors are apt to reach common agreement that there has been no real victor but only common losers. That truth was enunciated as far back as 500 B. C. in the Chinese classic of Sun Tzu."

---

Find more at JeffThinks.com or JeffreyAlexanderMartin.com and ResetMeditation.com