Jan 09, 2006 10:31
I have been contemplating the phrase 'history will prove us right' recently.
Its a very interesting phrase. It implies a belief in the 'every decision spawns an alternate reality' theory. It must, other wise, how can one compare varying histories and determine if a particular choice or course of action was the correct one. And, not only must the theory be true, but there must be a way to travel between the various 'histories'.
In reality, at least as far as the science we have available to us, history cannot 'prove' anything. It can merely show the eventual course of our actions. Fortunately, things 'work themselves out' in some fashion, from a historical perspective.
Lets take an example - perhaps a bit of an extreme one, but... work with me here. Lets say that JFK's assassination was actually a conspiracy. Lets say it was the CIA and in one meeting discussing the pros and cons someone said 'history will prove us right'. Well, did it? LBJ became president. The line of succession worked. The US is still here. History moved forward. But, does that mean JFK's assassination was the right course? We will never know because we cannot view the alternative. We can theorize about what might have happened, but that is hardly the same as having conclusive proof.
What might have happened if the Soviets did not turn their ship around during the blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis? What might have happened if the terms of Germany's surrender after WW I were different? If Lincoln had not been elected or assassinated? We can theorize - and many have. But no one knows what would have really happened. We just know what did.
So, for those who say, 'history will prove us right' be honest - history will only reflect that the world moved on. It wont show whether a decision or course of action was right or not. So, please stop using future history to justify actions. It is a spurious justification.
rant