Risk and ‘Risk Society in Historical Perspective, Research Paper Example

History

The paper will discuss MacMillan, and Quinton-Brown’s article, “The uses of history in international society: from the Paris peace conference to the present”. The main arguments in this article include how history has been used and abused for centuries, and how, as well as who contributed to the development of it. The authors argued that the past assisted how the future will be interpreted was Thucydides, the father of modern history, hoped his writing will guide how the future will be. According to MacMillan and Quinton-Brown, the lessons learned in the past are critical in crafting the present life. As a result, countries like China respected the wisdom of the past where examinations of civil services were based on the great classics knowledge. In many cultures, as the authors wrote, there are great patterns that unveil the mysteries of the future.

The authors also stated that history is a mentor and people believe that historical laws can be discerned. The faith and belief in history have been persistent even in the present generation. Thus, history is normally used in attempts to craft the principles and come up with factors that shape the relations among citizens and in various institutions. Therefore, analogies and examples from the past are usually used in speculation about the present and guessing the future which aids in choosing the best course of action. For example, the authors stated that the fall of Rome has been used in discerning the path the US will take in the future.

Accordingly, the authors argue that history is applied not only in academic fields but also in international communities. In the international arena, history will be useful in the arbitration of political disagreements on assets, duties, and rights of a state, and boundaries. As such, the authors urge specialists and non-specialists to consider the role of history beyond academic domains. The only change in the reliance on history the author believes is its growth and not decline since other authority forms have emerged.

The 1919 Paris peace conference was also another area addressed by the article. According to the authors, the conference took place when the Middle East and European multinational empires were breaking down and leaving large territories unoccupied prompting grabs. In designing countries, history was one of the significant topics by the representatives of the would-be nations. Although other aspects like economics and access to railway networks, raw materials, ports, and other assets were considered, assertions concerning the national identity of countries in a certain piece of land depended on history. History was used in Paris to support restitution demands not related to a territory as its application grew later with the critical changes in the global environment.

History was further employed as restitution after the Cold War period. In this era, questions on interstate relations were answered using memories and distant pasts. Therefore, the article’s authors further argued that history continued serving as a legitimate authority in international deliberations. However, its use has to be interpreted based on the political interests it furthered. The Paris conference was also modeled, in part, by international negotiations that took like the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna, indicating the significance of historical undertakings that influenced the next events. The Paris conference dealt with issues addressed in the previous negotiations on different and greater scales. The representatives, according to MacMillan and Quinton-Brown, referred to history in addressing the problems the global arena faced. In the late twentieth century, history was summoned in diplomacy services after 1945 where it was the basis of framing demands for succession or independence. Increasingly, history was used in demanding restitution and apologies for the past wrongs.

Analysis

Based on the above summary, history is a vital tool in shaping the world people are living in today. History has also been critical in narrating what defines a territory or identifies people from a particular region. To find out who someone is, history provides a narration of their past and whom they relate to. As such, relations between communities and countries are constructed based on the historical occurrences of a region. For example, the relationship between countries like the US and Iraq has been controversial due to the latter’s history of terrorist activities that culminated in the death of their Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden, sending of US troops in the country (Iraq) among other actions.

But, it should be recognized that other articles addressed issues like peace and the effects of the 1814-15 Vienna Congress in the First World War of 1918/19. One such article is Leonhard’s (2018). In comparison to MacMillan and Quinton-Brown’s reading, Leonhard emphasizes the importance of history in the formation of peace settlements. For instance, the author claimed that the experiences of totalized warfare as well as a large number of victims following the 1914 war made it impossible to establish peace settlements based on compromises. The participants 1914 war preferred peaceful negotiations based on territorial and political gains. Thus, ending the First World War depended on weakening one party by the other. As such, history is normally considered when negotiating to end a crisis like a war. People tend to use their previous experiences in engaging with other countries. Therefore, Leonhard’s argument seems to resonate or is similar to the reading. Ideally, what occurs today shapes the thoughts and experiences to decide what is best for them.

Another article that compares with the reading is Koh and Takeshima’s writing on the history of Japan. Following its inversion of Korea (1910), Manchuria (1931), China (1937), and the US Pearl Harbor in 1941, the country suffered its consequences for several years thereafter (Koh & Takeshima, 2020). The bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which ended the Second World War has remained in the books of the country as its scars are still present to this date. Dozens of people died during the war and subsequent peacekeeping missions and conferences followed the Second World War. Although the war was initiated by one country, its effects ran throughout the world which shaped the present. Countries normally work hard to prevent another World War because of the casualties countries like China, Japan and others faced. The economic effects like the famine that occurred during the Second World War also shook the world as people are now more careful to control the economic activities in their countries.

However, the methodology used in Koh and Takeshima’s article differs from the MacMillan and Quiton-Brown reading. Firstly, the article discusses the chronological events that took place from the initiation of the war to the effects countries suffered. In contrast, MacMillan and Quinton-Brown concentrated on how history has been abused and used. Moreover, Koh and Takeshima present the gruesome details of the war, like how many people were killed, their ranking in the societies (military men or civilians) while the reading by MacMillan and his colleague focused on the events that followed the war and its effects like peaceful negotiations.

It has always been claimed that when someone does not learn from their past mistakes, there is a likelihood that an individual can repeat the same wrongdoings. It is for this reason that there are authors whose ideas differ from MacMillan and Quinton-Brown’s argument. For instance, Gilbert (1968) claimed that lessons of the past could be a thorny experience that one should not remember or apply when making decisions. Gilbert employs ideologies from other authors like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. In one of such ideologies, Gilbert writes that the memory of people’s historical events can either enlighten or entrap them. Therefore, Gilbert, unlike MacMillan and Quinton-Brown, argues that people have to be cautious of the history they use when making policies. In some situations, memories of the historical events have led to disastrous policies. Thus, contrasting the reading, Gilbert argued that having no memory of the historical occurrences can promote a positive benefit to the present generations. When making decisions without relying on their pasts, people could design constructive policies unlike where people remember painful events that took place in the past. The author of this article employed quotes from other authors as his source materials. Besides, questions like what international students can learn from the historical pasts were employed in the arguments.

In life, people ought to get out of an experience with the wisdom they learn and not everything that takes place. But this is not mean that people should abandon their history as it is what they relate to. However, policies should not be designed to remind people of events like war and the casualties involved. In continents like Africa, and North America, colonialism resulted in the destruction of property, death of people among other events. At the same time, civilization is a benefit that resonates with all populations to this date. Therefore, people ought to hold onto the positive and discard the negative implications. Although history has many benefits, it also holds painful experiences most people would not like to relate to. Therefore, caution should be taken on which parts of history people pay attention to, to avoid events like a World war from occurring again in the twenty-first century or beyond. Every historian thus must shape the future as the reading illustrates. This will help in upholding good international relations across the world.

Historical Perspective

Historical perspective is where a subject is studied concerning earlier as well as subsequent versions of it. Historical perspective helps in sharpening peoples’ vision about the present and not the past (Lawrence, 1984). Thus, it is where one uses historical information about a subject to explain why there is a difference between peoples’ attitudes today and in the past. The way people viewed progress in the past for instance could be different in the current world. History is the beginning of historical perspectives. Thus, since histories differ, there could be dangers or shortcomings in employing historical perspectives in contemporary events. Thus, in this part of the paper, the dangers and shortcomings of adopting a historical perspective to address contemporary events will be discussed.

Among the shortcomings of using historical perspectives in contemporary events is the confusion on where to categorize history. The history related to man and his activities including wars and economic operations. However, there are arguments whether history should be categorized as an art or a science. Such arguments have divided the attention of historians and policymakers and led to disagreements on where to place some historical perspectives (Boudia, & Jas, 2007). Besides, the arguments and divisions have led to questions like what role history has played in shaping technological and scientific aspects. Thus, attention has shifted to specific topics, contributing to the shortcomings of historical aspects.

Adopting history can also be dangerous for the present events. Historical perspectives help people acquire both general and self-knowledge. The knowledge people acquire is beneficial but when applied in contemporary events, it could be dangerous. As aforementioned, the Second World War led to the death of many people in China and Japan. Adopting the same aspects used in the war in the current world could lead to disastrous policies like another global war. At the same time, some of the knowledge people obtain does not come from verified and investigated sources (Carl, 2009). As such, some people could be misled into believing in the wrong history. Besides, some historical perspectives could originate from verified and investigated sources but it is biased. There are instances where countries write propaganda about their enemies. Thus, there must be some truth and not perceptions for a historical perspective to be applicable. The danger of false information is thus another shortcoming associated with adopting history in current events.

Another danger of adopting historical perspectives is the lack of awareness regarding important matters. That is to say, some policymakers could have limited knowledge of the history of a country or region. As a result, such policymakers tend to rely on the provided data which could lead to disastrous decisions. The availability of different versions of history can also contribute to wrong decisions. For example, there is varying information regarding the 1918 Spanish influenza on the reported deaths. As such, adopting the different figures could lead to wrong conclusions.

There is also the variability of perceptions as well as the bias of those who interpreted some historical events. Some interpreters can take the events out of context. Since historical perspectives can be viewed as constructed events, the creation of the occurrences can rely on the person narrating a story. Although history presents facts, an interpreter of events speaks for them. Thus, the interpreters, as well as the readers, are responsible for ascribing meanings to adopt the factors of a story they are telling. From such a perspective, it is evident that historical perspectives can be biased. The only way that history can be relied upon is if the audience can travel back and witness what took place at a particular time. Since interpreters cannot rerun historical events, they only construct the events in their minds. The constructed events could be very different from the reality leading to wrong perceptions. History can therefore be considered a handmade tool shaped by the perception of a historian.

The improper application of analogies also limits the use of historical perspectives in contemporary events plus it leads to misinterpretations. Analogies are significant tools that help people in understanding the logic of certain subjects. However, they can create confusion when interpreters use analogies to suit their argumentative purposes. Cases, where interpreters use history to suit themselves, have been recorded before. For example, Anthony Eden, the UK Prime Minister in the 1950s compared Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Egyptian President, to Hitler to suit his ego (Torres, 2014). Torres further claims that intelligence practitioners and decision-makers normally search for analogies reinforcing their policy inclinations. Therefore, historical perspectives could be designed based on one’s inclination and not the truth.

Governments also use history to manipulate the citizens. A case in hand is the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) in China that for decades, continued to legitimize its actions to make the people believe it is the defender of China. According to Weatherly & Magee (2018), history has been at the center of legitimizing the CCP’s rule in China. The memories associated with crises like the two Opium Wars among others have been articulated by the state-controlled media and documented in the CCP’s history annals. The party did so to remind the people that it liberated the country in 1949 from the imperialist subjugation and has since remained the only defender of the country’s interests. Thus, people in the country will believe and continue supporting the party which has received countless international criticism (Edney, 2012). Despite the numerous accusations about violating human rights, the CCP party has remained in power since people are convinced it is defending them against foreigners. Besides, the party has, in the process, used history to legitimize its rule, although it is a monopoly authoritarian power.

Such legitimization makes historical perspectives unreliable and dangerous that they should not be adopted in current events. There is a further risk as people in other countries are also made to elect the same leaders based on their historical records. For example, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has received various criticism on the way he rules the country as well as the violation of human rights but he uses his records as a guerilla warfighter to remain in power for over thirty years. Believing in historical perspectives can thus lead to rules like dictatorship and authoritarian leadership that does not represent the wishes of the majority.

There is also an aspect of misinformation as people studied histories which could lead to negative implications. For example, some people learn history from movies and films. Films normally exaggerate or represent fictions about events like World War One. Since the movies are entertaining, the younger generation seems to understand the films better and believe that is the exact history which occurred in their lives. Implementing such historical perspectives implies that people adopt the wrong information that could result in inappropriate actions. Movies increase the retention of the wrong information that tends to have long-lasting impacts on the lives of the audience (Umanath et al., 2012). At the same time, most students cannot detect accuracies in films or reading materials on history. As a result, they may end up adopting inaccurate information in their current events.

Apart from misinterpretations and retention of inaccurate data, historical information can be misunderstood. Not all individuals in the society associate with history as some are not interested. At the same time, the availability of different versions of history on a particular subject brings confusion among the members of society. Since some community members are willing to share the historical knowledge with others, sharing different versions to the same members of the community brings confusion and most people end up misunderstanding the historical perspectives. Thus, convincing people who misunderstood their history to adopt historical perspectives will be difficult.

Conclusion

The paper has covered two parts. The first part involved MacMillan and Quinton-Brown’s article, “The uses of history in international society: from the Paris peace conference to the present. In the first part, a summary of the main arguments of the authors was provided including how history has been used and abused, the 1919 Paris Peace conference, and the Vienna conference of 1814/15. Another argument in the article was history as a mentor and how it shapes the present and the future. Although many authors agree that history is important in understanding where an individual came from and where he or she is headed, some scholars emphasized the importance of caution on the type of information one picks from a historical experience.

The second part of the paper discussed the dangers and shortcomings of adopting historical perspectives in current events. It has been noted that some interpreters of historical analogies chose the ones that suit them. Besides, history has been viewed as a human construct which has made it difficult for people to believe in historical perspectives. Moreover, the unreliability of history is a shortcoming in the adoption of historical perspectives in current events. History has been considered unreliable since, at times, it depends on the interpreter and the reader who might change it to suit them. But, the fact that history helps people to understand where they came from and when some events took place has made it an important aspect of the life of human beings. Therefore, it is not easy to ignore that history forms part of human beings.

References

Boudia, S., & Jas, N. (2007). Introduction: risk and ‘risk society in historical perspective. History and Technology, 23(4), 317-331.

Carl, A. E. (2009). The value of History as a school subject in an age of science and technology. Yesterday and Today, (4), III-XIII.

Edney, K. (2012). Soft power and the Chinese propaganda system. Journal of Contemporary China, 21(78), 899-914.

Gilbert, A. N. (1968). International Relations and the Relevance of History. International Studies Quarterly, 12(4), 351-359.

Lawrence, B. S. (1984). Historical perspective: Using the past to study the present. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 307-312.

Leonhard, J. (2018). The Overburdened Peace: Competing Visions of World Order in 1918/19. Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, (62), 31-50.

MacMillan, M., & Quinton-Brown, P. (2019). The uses of history in international society: from the Paris peace conference to the present. International Affairs, 95(1), 181-200.

Torres, E. (2014). The limitations of history to the field of intelligence. E-International Relations.

Umanath, S., Butler, A. C., & Marsh, E. J. (2012). Positive and negative effects of monitoring popular films for historical inaccuracies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 556-567.

Weatherley, R., & Magee, C. (2018). Using the past to legitimize the present: The portrayal of good governance in Chinese history textbooks. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 47(1), 41-69.