History
The myth of repetition
No, history doesn’t repeat itself. It is time to recognise the field for what it really is.
Historians are often killjoys, standing in the way of compelling narratives with their pesky cries about inaccuracy. The Vikings didn’t have horns on their helmets. Primae noctis (as well as 90 percent of Braveheart, to be honest) is a myth. Columbus didn’t set sail to prove that the Earth is round. The list goes on and on. Yet, despite frequent attempts to dispel misconceptions, there is an infamous adage that seems to persist no matter what; that history repeats itself.
Even though it’s not taken seriously in academic settings, this assertion has become a cliché outside them. Every time something important happens, historians are expected to draw direct and palatable parallels with past events, as if the newest thing is just the most recent version of an endless cycle.
Why that is the case can be anyone’s guess. Maybe the belief that time flows in repeating (and thus predictable) patterns is more comforting than the alternative scenario of humanity being subject to chaotic whims of randomness. Or maybe it’s a convenient claim for a discipline that otherwise struggles to not be seen as vague. If only historians could, whenever a war occurs, point to their books and say, «See, I knew this would happen – it’s all in there!».
Why, then, do we bother with history? This in itself can be debated endlessly, but one thing’s for sure: it’s not to play fortune-tellers. We can’t do that because circumstances vary tremendously per period, region, and even person. The British historian John Tosh, in The Pursuit of History, describes how attempting to draw generalised conclusions while showing «scant regard for historical context» constitutes «a fruitless enterprise».
Studying the past is not about predicting the future, but understanding the present
So, the question remains. What I have to offer isn’t an answer, but a suggestion. History is a bit like a puzzle: the more pieces you gather, the clearer a picture you get off what's happening now. Studying the past is not about predicting the future, but understanding the present. Sticking to an unrealistic view of it can lead to, at best, problematic anachronisms and, at worst, dangerous delusions.
