Nihil sub sole novum, nec valet quisquam dicere: ecce hoc recens est; iam enim praecessit in saeculis quae fuerunt ante nos. [There is nothing new under the sun, nor should one say: look, this is novel; for it has already preceded in the centuries before us.]
- Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 (Vulgate)
The sentiment expressed above was already ancient when Jerome translated it into Latin in the 4th century C.E. In the intervening centuries, it has been echoed by many great minds: from Nietzsche, who described history as an infinitely recurring loop, to George Santayana, who famously quipped that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Those who share this belief will ultimately be led to one of two possible conclusions: either a jaded fatalism, or a desire to learn from the past and thus change the future.
This blog favors the latter worldview. It aims to help today's news consumer, who is swamped with sensationalism, conjecture, and partisanship, to form concrete opinions on current affairs by looking at historical precedent. In each post, I will take one current issue or event in international politics and choose an analogous historical issue or event with which to compare it. After providing background information on each and teasing out the similarities and differences between the two, I will attempt to produce a range of possible outcomes for the current event based on analysis of the historical case. Finally, I will assess the likelihood of each outcome and recommend possible measures that could be taken by the parties involved to reach the most desirable outcome.
Naturally there are limitations on the conclusions we can draw from historical case studies. No two events in history are exactly alike, and context can make all the difference. My selection of historical analogies will necessarily be imperfect, and I welcome discussion on what events might have made for a better comparison and why. Similarly, it is impossible within the context of this blog to execute statistical research that would provide more solid links between past and present events or that would help draw better-founded conclusions about current affairs. Nevertheless, I think that the insight we can gain about the world around us will be well worth taking the extra grain of salt required with such a qualitative approach. I invite all readers to add to the conversation by sharing their knowledge of the events involved, correcting me where I inevitably get some facts wrong, and challenging my conclusions with their own alternatives. Thank you for participating, and enjoy.
This blog favors the latter worldview. It aims to help today's news consumer, who is swamped with sensationalism, conjecture, and partisanship, to form concrete opinions on current affairs by looking at historical precedent. In each post, I will take one current issue or event in international politics and choose an analogous historical issue or event with which to compare it. After providing background information on each and teasing out the similarities and differences between the two, I will attempt to produce a range of possible outcomes for the current event based on analysis of the historical case. Finally, I will assess the likelihood of each outcome and recommend possible measures that could be taken by the parties involved to reach the most desirable outcome.
Naturally there are limitations on the conclusions we can draw from historical case studies. No two events in history are exactly alike, and context can make all the difference. My selection of historical analogies will necessarily be imperfect, and I welcome discussion on what events might have made for a better comparison and why. Similarly, it is impossible within the context of this blog to execute statistical research that would provide more solid links between past and present events or that would help draw better-founded conclusions about current affairs. Nevertheless, I think that the insight we can gain about the world around us will be well worth taking the extra grain of salt required with such a qualitative approach. I invite all readers to add to the conversation by sharing their knowledge of the events involved, correcting me where I inevitably get some facts wrong, and challenging my conclusions with their own alternatives. Thank you for participating, and enjoy.
