There has been a long debate regarding the flow of history:
Is history made by events or by people who influence these events? Are they one and the same or not?
Take care all.
The Flow Of History
There has been a long debate regarding the flow of history:
Is history made by events or by people who influence these events? Are they one and the same or not?
Take care all.
Yes and no. Historians can, by reading as many accounts as possible, learn to discern what "really" happened. However, this can be obstructed by lack of reliable sources, politics, and the like. So really, it's hard to tell.
I don't get it...they are made up of both events and influencial people.
Do the events influence the people or the people influence the events?
Take care all.
Both. People influence events from starting. From those events other people are influenced by what has happened to do things.
There you can take a look at natural disaters. No one influences those but people are influenced by them in how they respond to them.
My thoughts lie with 1984. It's just too hard for the average person to search, or even care for what really happened.
EDIT: I will add that, though, that books such as Zinn's A People's History of the United States, are a step in the right direction in terms of educating the masses on the other story.
I suppose it boils down to specifics as history often does. For instance, if Hitler had not risen to power, would WWII have been avoided, or would someone else have led Germany into Nazism?
The argument that it took Hitler to lead Germany is, I believe, known as the "Powerful Man Theory" wherein people are the ones who push and change history.
The argument that WWII was going to happen anyway and that Hitler was but a part of the process is known as the "Ebb And Flow Theory" if I recall correctly.
Take care all.
Ah, okay. I misunderstood your question.
History is the story of man. And, although natural occurrences within nature might have a profound effect on our lives, in the end what really writes the pages of our History books is our desire for wealth, land, and power. During our short time on this planet, we've been able to transform its landscape dramatically. That should be evidence enough of our influence over History.
I think it's a combo of both. The tide of events can sort of get things started, but without the right people in charge, the outcome can be very different.
I don't know very much on hitler's rise to power, so I'll pick on the American Revolution. At the time of the revolution, Americans already thought of themselves as semi independant, so when Britian decided to make them pay the taxes and so on, they were opposed to it. So just to hack off the king, they throw all the tea overboard. George III apparently didn't get it, so he decides to show them who's boss by passing a bunch of acts, including closing Boston Harbor. At this point, with both sides extremely hacked off at each other, some sort of revolt would have happened either way. But without a Thomas Jefferson or a John Adams or a George Washington, I think the results would have been far different. Without Washington, we may not have even won the revolution. Thus we may have been British until the 1940's when Britain lost her other colonies. Or had we won, we might not have had the same kind of Constitution, and therefore either had an extremely weak government like the Articles of Confederation, or ended up as a bunch of small squabbling nations, or had multiple revolutions and civil wars.
But the thing is without the clash between the colonists and the king, Washington and crew could not have fought a revolution. Without that revolution, they don't ever show their genius as framers of a government. Sure they may have written a few books on governmental theory, but it may have been forgotten amongst hundreds of other philosophy books.
The event causes the person to act, and it is that action that influences the next event.
I think it can go both ways.
Lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky me again! I hardly knew I should use me feet again!
What do you have to say for yourself?
This is a very hard question. The first question is...is history necessary, as in "it can't be another way"? Individual freedom asides, does collective freedom exist? I mean collective freedom as in "people choosing history", not as in "liberal state".
I am not sure, but I am closer to thinking of current history as a natural consequence of past actions. For example, I am firmly against war in Iraq, but given the situation brought on by the 11-S, such war is rather predictable, Bush or no Bush. I am also against terrorism, but if we look at the current international situation, I find the existance of such violence completly natural: I may have been surprised at the 11-S, but thinking coldly, it was something that was meant to happen sooner or later. And the current situation is a consequence of a past situation, Cold War, wich I feel natural if we look at how the world was left organized after World War II. Was Nazi Germany necessary? (Necessary as in "it could not have been in another way") Given the German situation after WWI, I believe - Hitler or not- the rise of nazism looks very probable. Was WWI necessary? Well, I could go back as much as I want to, and all the disasters we call "history" seem to be tied to previous disasters, and to be natural consequences of such happenings. Thnings don't occur out of nothing, and history is more than just a bunch of events: it is a gigantic web.
So yes, I doubt we can really choose, I doubt it really depends so much on people. Maybe a part affects, but I am closer to believing we are not as free as we think we are in facts contemplated from a distant point of view. Yay, I'm a damn fatalist.
... interesting question....
I'll take the Hitler-example due to my lack of knowledge about the American Revolution.....
First: a man like Hitler was needed to lead Germany into WWII. There were a lot of right-winged parties and organisations in the Republic of Weimar and the Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch in 1923 was not the only one from this side. But most of these factions wanted to have monarchy back of fight against communism or something like that. But I can't think of any organisation proclaiming that clear to exterminate judaism, communism and pacifism (of the so called 'November criminals'). And this was Hitler's influence. He was so possessed by these wishes, that he lost his ability to judge. Nearly every member of his party would have been more careful in foreign politics but he wanted all or nothing. Without such a radicalist as head of state there would have been no WWII (in my opinion).
The other side of the coin might be interesting as well. What Hitler did was dangerous. He broke several treaties and Germany was in the early thirties so weak, that his provocations could have ended very soon in a disaster for him and his beloved country. So he was lucky to meet certain circumstances. So in my opinion chance plays a big role in the spectacle of history as well.
So presumed, there would have been no Hitler. I think, nevertheless there would have been a WWII. People were angry in those times in Germany because of high unemployment, the immovable situtation in politics and the Treaty of Versailles. I guess they would have voted for the communist party or another radical one. The Republic of Weimar did not broke down due to Hitler. There were many factors, all together they led to radicalism in one or another way. So there were tendencies. And a communist Germany plus a communist UdSSR.... I think, if there had been no WWII the Cold War would have turned out to a hot war.
Well... as always in history it could have happened completely different... who knows.....
So, what I wanted to tell is, that history is a flow of tendencies, crystallising into events, if there is the chance to do so. A single man will only be able to hold the reins, when history lets him do so.
A proverb springs to mind ...
" All of history is a lie.It depends upon who does the telling and who does the listening."
Keep in mind that the main reason Britain released her other colonies was that the British saw the United States as an example, and realized we were much more beneficial to Britain as an ally and trading partner than as a colony which they had to protect, manage, and keep under their thumb. So without the American Revolution, it's highly possible that the British Empire would still exist--or if not, that each of these countries would have won their independence through war and gained very anti-British governments, or that some other nation would be the superpower of the world besides the US.Thus we may have been British until the 1940's when Britain lost her other colonies.
As to the general question, I'd say both have to be present. I believe that without a leader who was both as fanatical and as charismatic (and face it, he had the country eating out of his hand) as Hitler, the Nazi party never would have risen to power--but on the other hand, without the extreme poverty Germany suffered after WWI, he would never have risen to power. And without Neville Chamberlain continuing his appeasement policies, Germany would have still been a poor nation instead of having the wealth to carry out her dreams of conquest. And without Britain's heavy anti-war sentiment, Chamberlain would never have come to office.
Likewise, without the tyranny of the Czars, there would have been no revolt. But without Lenin and Bolsheviks destroying all opposition after the revolution, the Russian government might be something very different. Without WWII Truman wouldn't have been able to let Russia have half of Europe and wash the Hitler-Stalin pact down the memory hole, and without those nations the USSR may never have risen to the power it held. Likewise, hadn't Truman denied assistance to Chiang Kai-sheck and given loans to Mao Tse-Tung, China would not have become a communist nation, yet without America's heavy isolationist sentiment Truman may never have been elected.
It depends on the instance, but both are interdependent.
Posting Permissions
:temigi: 
