There are some people who believe that history holds the answers to all questions. They study the past intently, poring over ancient chronicles, old books, yellowed magazines and newspapers. Some to them write their own history books, or become professors who teach history to the upcoming generation.
Often, when you ask such people about current events, or even about life in general, they will draw an analogy from their knowledge of history, and extract a lesson from it. Depending on how rigid they are about the lesson to be drawn from the analogy, you can tell the degree to which the person understands that history itself is in large part interpretation. Yes, there are such things as history facts: the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on December 7, 1941 and not on some other date. But even the simplest attempt to connect such facts causally—that is, to explain them—requires interpretation. Which facts are going to be connected? What kinds of things are more causal in history—human choices or economic and cultural forces? Are the facts part of some progression in history or do they group together into separate periods that have nothing to do with one another? Are humans essentially animals with a heightened sense of self-interest, or are they rations and capable of improvement? One’s interpretation of the causes of historical events depends largely on how one has answered these prior questions. Hence, two historians can produce quite different interpretations of the same historical facts.
While each of us can learn much from studying history, it would be a mistake to believe that anyone’s personal interpretation settles anything about the lessons to be drawn from history. Be especially wary of historical “lessons” claiming to prove that meanness, ruthlessness, and self-interest are the prerequisites for “success.” These “lessons” were probably manufactured by mean, ruthless, and self-interested historians.
Great observations…