PDA

View Full Version : Is history bunk?


Nimrod
May 19th 2004, 02:05 PM
During a May 1916 the Chicago Tribune interview, a reporter challenged Michigan mega-industrialist Henry Ford to explain something: with all this trouble swirling around the globe, why did he oppose building up America's armed forces? He pointed out to Ford that more than 100 years earlier, it was the British fleet that had prevented Napoleon's mighty French army from crossing the 21-mile-wide English Channel to conquer Britain. Ford rejected this argument, declaring "I don't know whether Napoleon did or did not try to get across there (to England) and I don't care. It means nothing to me. History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's dam is the history we make today."

Henry Ford — wealthy, powerful, the man famous for almost single-handedly creating the American auto industry — would live to regret having said that. And his home state and the rest of America would be the better for it. For years he would struggle, trying to explain what he meant by the "bunk" remark, and in the end create the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan, the nation's first large indoor and outdoor complex dedicated to preserving history. The Tribune published the interview in its May 25 issue. Normally it would have been read and forgotten. After all, Ford had said nothing about history that in essence had not been said before. Even Napoleon himself, that great maker of history, defined it as "a fable agreed upon," and Thomas Carlyle, the great writer of history, dismissed it as "a distillation of rumor." But Ford's published comment about history being bunk would become the most quoted — and most misunderstood — statement he ever uttered.

A month later the Tribune reported Ford refused to guarantee the jobs of his auto company employees who, as National Guard members, had been mobilized to defend against incursions along the Mexican border. It also ran an editorial entitled "Ford is an Anarchist," denouncing him as an "ignorant idealist" and an "anarchistic enemy of his country." The accusation that Ford would not rehire workers performing military service was totally false, the charge of anarchism utterly absurd. Ford at once demanded a retraction from Robert McCormick, the super-patriotic publisher of the Tribune. McCormick refused, whereupon Ford filed a $1 million libel suit.

After much legal maneuvering, long after the crises in Mexico and Europe had passed, the case came to trial in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, in May 1919. Seizing on Ford's "history is bunk" assertion, one of McCormick's lawyers bombarded the auto maker with questions designed to demonstrate he was indeed an "ignorant idealist." The tactic succeeded all too well. Ford, who as a boy obtained only a skimpy education in a rural school, knew nothing about the Civil War campaigns of Generals Grant and Sherman, confused the War of 1812 with the American Revolution, and when asked to identify famous traitor Benedict Arnold replied: "He is a writer, I think." Laughter erupted in the courtroom, laughter echoed in print by the nation's newspapers and magazines.

There was more laughter when, on August 14, the jury announced its verdict: McCormick's Tribune was guilty of libel, but Ford, one of the wealthiest men in the world, was awarded a derisory six cents in damages. Most men would have felt humiliated. Not Ford. Throughout his career he responded to setbacks by renewing his efforts to move ahead. It was the same now. Riding back to Detroit after the trial he told his private secretary, Ernest Liebold, "I am going to start up a museum and give people a true picture of the development of the country. That is the only history that is worth observing, that you can preserve in itself. We're going to build a museum that is going to show industrial history, and it won't be bunk."

http://away.com/primedia/transport/henry_ford_1.html

jason
May 19th 2004, 08:09 PM
I don't think History is bunk at all, I think those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Is that what you are asking ?

Jason

Nimrod
May 19th 2004, 09:19 PM
Oh, I didn't realize that Santayana was quoting you! :wink:

Here are two other quotes:

"History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten."
"History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there. "
http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/George-Santayana/1/

Ford said "History is more or less bunk" in the context of discussing U.S. involvement in WWI. The European leaders knew history better than Ford did, yet they still stumbled into a horrible war.

Knowledge of history is, of course, valuable. But the knowledge is incomplete and often distorted. Also, it's not always clear how relevant it is, or how best to apply that knowledge. The more remote the history (temporally and geographically), the less likely that it will be relevant to solving a problem today. And the application of historical knowledge is influenced by the current cultural context.

darwin alogos
May 19th 2004, 10:21 PM
But the knowledge is incomplete and often distorted. Also, it's not always clear how relevant it is, or how best to apply that knowledge . Are you expressing historical solipsism?

darwin alogos
May 19th 2004, 10:26 PM
And the application of historical knowledge is influenced by the current cultural context You would of course agree this applies to your own assesment of our historical "knowledge"?:teeth:

Jimmy Higgins
May 19th 2004, 10:30 PM
Ford said "History is more or less bunk" in the context of discussing U.S. involvement in WWI. The European leaders knew history better than Ford did, yet they still stumbled into a horrible war. Wasn't Ford a raging Anti-Semite too?

Nimrod
May 20th 2004, 07:29 AM
darwin, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Jimmy, your point is ... ?

CatholicSage
May 21st 2004, 04:38 PM
My favorite definition of history is that "History is a series of biographies." It seems to be a very insightful definition.

darwin alogos
May 22nd 2004, 06:30 AM
darwin, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

? Actually i'm trying to figure out your position.If your claiming that ALL "historical knowledge is influenced by the current cultural context " then you must relaize that includes your own assesment of it. Hence, your caught in the same epistemological trap as those who try claim that the laws of logic don't apply to reality.........the crux is that in order to make such a claim they must use the very laws of logic in order to deny them. :wink:

Nimrod
May 22nd 2004, 10:08 AM
darwin, what must I realize? My assessment of what?

Did I say that I am immune to cultural bias?

And did I claim that "the laws of logic don't apply to reality"?

Vorkosigan
May 23rd 2004, 10:10 AM
Actually i'm trying to figure out your position.If your claiming that ALL "historical knowledge is influenced by the current cultural context " then you must relaize that includes your own assesment of it. Hence, your caught in the same epistemological trap as those who try claim that the laws of logic don't apply to reality.........the crux is that in order to make such a claim they must use the very laws of logic in order to deny them

IMHO the two situations are not exactly the same, Nimrod. My current cultural context may give me insight into history that previous contexts were unable to obtain. For example, as a member of a culture that thinks quite a bit about the status and role of women, I will probably talk about that in a history that I write, as opposed to the "Whig" historians of the 19th century who saw history as largely the story of great men and great events. In other words, cultural contexts may be useful analytical tools. Whereas once you repudiate logic in any form, you have no tools at all.

Vorkosigan

Nimrod
May 23rd 2004, 11:01 PM
Vorkosigan, you directed your comments to me but you quoted darwin alogos.

Vorkosigan
May 23rd 2004, 11:12 PM
Vorkosigan, you directed your comments to me but you quoted darwin alogos.

Sorry!

fototune
May 24th 2004, 11:21 PM
Actually i'm trying to figure out your position.If your claiming that ALL "historical knowledge is influenced by the current cultural context " then you must relaize that includes your own assesment of it. Hence, your caught in the same epistemological trap as those who try claim that the laws of logic don't apply to reality.........the crux is that in order to make such a claim they must use the very laws of logic in order to deny them. :wink:


:ahem:
That's why each one of us must realize that we can create history, through our lives, if we are determined, or destined to do so. We influence each other by our presence. Have you ever seen a person mimic someone else? That's probably the lowest form of influence, but it's enough to prove the point. Our ideas, demeanor, and the energy that we emanate effects the environment, and people surrounding us. Then our disciples carry that message with them, as they influence others. The most powerful emanator will ultimately influence the most, and earn the title of ultimate emperor.
:wink:

fototune
May 24th 2004, 11:23 PM
IMHO the two situations are not exactly the same, Nimrod. My current cultural context may give me insight into history that previous contexts were unable to obtain. For example, as a member of a culture that thinks quite a bit about the status and role of women, I will probably talk about that in a history that I write, as opposed to the "Whig" historians of the 19th century who saw history as largely the story of great men and great events. In other words, cultural contexts may be useful analytical tools. Whereas once you repudiate logic in any form, you have no tools at all.

Vorkosigan
:wink:
Groovy!
:ahem:

FirstSunday33ad
May 27th 2004, 11:26 AM
It yet seems in the highest degree difficult to write the history of great transactions; first, because deeds must be adequately represented by words; and next, because…
when you speak of the great virtue and glory of eminent men, every one hears with acquiescence only that which he himself thinks easy to be performed; all beyond his own conception he regards as fictitious and incredible
Sallust “The Conspiracy of Catiline” 1.1.3

fototune
May 27th 2004, 08:23 PM
It yet seems in the highest degree difficult to write the history of great transactions; first, because deeds must be adequately represented by words; and next, because…
when you speak of the great virtue and glory of eminent men, every one hears with acquiescence only that which he himself thinks easy to be performed; all beyond his own conception he regards as fictitious and incredible
Sallust “The Conspiracy of Catiline” 1.1.3


The Phoenicians stole Io from Greece, then the Greeks stole Europa from Tyre, and Medea from Aea in Colchis. "The accounts go on to say that some forty or fifty years afterwards Paris, the son of Priam, was inspired by these stories to steal a wife for himself out of Greece, being confident that he would not have to pay for the venture any more than the Greeks had done. And that was how he came to carry off Helen." Herodotus "The Histories," Book One.

FirstSunday33ad
May 31st 2004, 12:09 PM
The Phoenicians stole Io from Greece, then the Greeks stole Europa from Tyre, and Medea from Aea in Colchis. "The accounts go on to say that some forty or fifty years afterwards Paris, the son of Priam, was inspired by these stories to steal a wife for himself out of Greece, being confident that he would not have to pay for the venture any more than the Greeks had done. And that was how he came to carry off Helen." Herodotus "The Histories," Book One.

Herodotus also goes on to say that he didn't believe the cause of the Trojan war was the kidnapping of Helen because he found it unlikely that the Trojans would fight for 10 years and lose their city for a woman. They would, he says, have simply given her back.

fototune
May 31st 2004, 09:00 PM
Herodotus also goes on to say that he didn't believe the cause of the Trojan war was the kidnapping of Helen because he found it unlikely that the Trojans would fight for 10 years and lose their city for a woman. They would, he says, have simply given her back.


It was just the first historical quote that I could think of to make reference to your earlier one about the Cataline conspiracy.

darwin alogos
June 8th 2004, 06:27 AM
It yet seems in the highest degree difficult to write the history of great transactions; first, because deeds must be adequately represented by words; and next, because…
when you speak of the great virtue and glory of eminent men, every one hears with acquiescence only that which he himself thinks easy to be performed; all beyond his own conception he regards as fictitious and incredible
Sallust “The Conspiracy of Catiline” 1.1.3 :blush: Yup but unless you want to sink into historical solipsisim its all we gots:tongue: My point is the historical skepticsisim that is being declared on these pages has within them their own refutation.Which one of you has the crystal ball to look at all history from your vantage point and declare But the knowledge is incomplete and often distorted. Also, it's not always clear how relevant it is, or how best to apply that knowledge to be sure but how is it we know of this? It's because we have found other historical knowledge which eithier supports one view or another.But we don't (or shouldn't) throw the baby out with the bath water. Do people lie, depress or manipulate evidence??? Of course they do but unless we want to become parinoids we don't jump to the conclusion that all of them do it all the time.:wink:
php

shunyadragon
July 17th 2004, 08:40 PM
Wasn't Ford a raging Anti-Semite too?
No. He had similar anti-semitism leaning found commonly throughout Christianity at the time, which of course was strongest in Europe and gave enthusiastic support for Hitler's ethnic cleansing.