June 17, 2009--Remembrance of Things Past
I was disturbed to learn that many history courses are disappearing from college and university offerings. Especially in retreat is what scholars call Diplomatic History—the study of U.S. diplomacy, foreign relations, and national security. According to a report in the New York Times (linked below) courses such as the Origins of War and American Foreign Policy are dropping from syllabi. This at the very time when we are engaged in two major wars and how best to pursue our foreign policy is literally at the top of today’s headlines.
What is it that George Santayana said about history? Wasn’t it, “Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it”?
History itself is not being eliminated because of lack of student interest, but most forms of traditional history are experiencing plunging enrollments as students opt to take course in newer kinds of history that focus on the study of women, minorities, workers, and social and cultural forces. Often referred to as bottom-up history. Though there was much wrong, or left out, of traditional history—the role of women and “average” people—much of that has by now been corrected. But what we are left with are course offerings that largely ignore the history and lessons that can be taken from studying the tectonic forces that led to the drawing of the geographic borders within which people live and the struggles and battles and cultural issues that were catered to or ignored in the process and that have resulted in the mess that we call “the modern world.”
Again, I refer you to the great Santayana.
To check to see how much people know or do not know about the history of the Middle East and the Islamic world where so much is now roiled and in dispute, I unscientifically took to the streets to ask people about Iran. I stopped about 20 and half were willing to put down their shopping bags to talk with me.
Most knew there had been a Shah at some point, but none knew who the last one was, when he was overthrown, how that had happened, and what happened to him after he left Iran. In fact, only one person knew what a “shah” itself was or is, the rest thought that the Shah who was toppled during the Islamic Revolution in 1978-79 (none knew the exact dates though two people thought it happened while Jimmy Carter was president—they knew who he was), they didn’t know being a shah (lower case) meant one was descended from a line of Iranian or Persian royalty.
On the other hand, no one knew that the literally last Shah was the son of a prior Shah (Reza Pahlavi) who was overthrown by that son in 1941 in a military coup with the essential assistance of British and Soviet troops; and that during his reign he was intermittently helped and protected by American diplomacy and the CIA. In fact, for a time Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi desperately needed America’s help to retain his position. In 1953 foreign powers (American and British) came to the Shah's aid after he was forced to flee the country because of pre-revolutionary pressure from religious and nationalistic factions. He was restored to the Peacock Throne only after an American CIA operative, aided by the British MI6, organized a military coup d'état to oust the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
And it was no surprise that no one I stopped on the street (all within a short walk of New York University) knew anything at all about any of this or that this history of the Western intervention still rankles many in Iran who know their own history better than we apparently know our own. Including, and this is important, opponents of the ruling Ayatollahs or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
If we are now to proceed in tumultuous Iran with any kind of diplomatic nuance, we need to know this history and be sensitive to it. Especially that the forces we are presumably wanting to see assume control—hopefully more moderate ones than the world now confronts—we had better not make it look as if supporters of opposition-candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi are being overtly backed by the United States. If that were to occur it would represent the proverbial kiss of death to whatever this movement might mean and call into being.
Thus the macho strutting and posturing by the likes of almost-president John McCain who is insisting that President Obama must immediately “speak out” and condemn the “fraudulent” election that took place over the weekend and “show support” for the opposition is precisely the thing that even a superficial knowledge of history should teach us not to do.
I can’t resist saying that Senator McCain must have been cutting his Diplomatic History classes while enrolled at the Naval Academy.
What is it that George Santayana said about history? Wasn’t it, “Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it”?
History itself is not being eliminated because of lack of student interest, but most forms of traditional history are experiencing plunging enrollments as students opt to take course in newer kinds of history that focus on the study of women, minorities, workers, and social and cultural forces. Often referred to as bottom-up history. Though there was much wrong, or left out, of traditional history—the role of women and “average” people—much of that has by now been corrected. But what we are left with are course offerings that largely ignore the history and lessons that can be taken from studying the tectonic forces that led to the drawing of the geographic borders within which people live and the struggles and battles and cultural issues that were catered to or ignored in the process and that have resulted in the mess that we call “the modern world.”
Again, I refer you to the great Santayana.
To check to see how much people know or do not know about the history of the Middle East and the Islamic world where so much is now roiled and in dispute, I unscientifically took to the streets to ask people about Iran. I stopped about 20 and half were willing to put down their shopping bags to talk with me.
Most knew there had been a Shah at some point, but none knew who the last one was, when he was overthrown, how that had happened, and what happened to him after he left Iran. In fact, only one person knew what a “shah” itself was or is, the rest thought that the Shah who was toppled during the Islamic Revolution in 1978-79 (none knew the exact dates though two people thought it happened while Jimmy Carter was president—they knew who he was), they didn’t know being a shah (lower case) meant one was descended from a line of Iranian or Persian royalty.
On the other hand, no one knew that the literally last Shah was the son of a prior Shah (Reza Pahlavi) who was overthrown by that son in 1941 in a military coup with the essential assistance of British and Soviet troops; and that during his reign he was intermittently helped and protected by American diplomacy and the CIA. In fact, for a time Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi desperately needed America’s help to retain his position. In 1953 foreign powers (American and British) came to the Shah's aid after he was forced to flee the country because of pre-revolutionary pressure from religious and nationalistic factions. He was restored to the Peacock Throne only after an American CIA operative, aided by the British MI6, organized a military coup d'état to oust the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
And it was no surprise that no one I stopped on the street (all within a short walk of New York University) knew anything at all about any of this or that this history of the Western intervention still rankles many in Iran who know their own history better than we apparently know our own. Including, and this is important, opponents of the ruling Ayatollahs or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
If we are now to proceed in tumultuous Iran with any kind of diplomatic nuance, we need to know this history and be sensitive to it. Especially that the forces we are presumably wanting to see assume control—hopefully more moderate ones than the world now confronts—we had better not make it look as if supporters of opposition-candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi are being overtly backed by the United States. If that were to occur it would represent the proverbial kiss of death to whatever this movement might mean and call into being.
Thus the macho strutting and posturing by the likes of almost-president John McCain who is insisting that President Obama must immediately “speak out” and condemn the “fraudulent” election that took place over the weekend and “show support” for the opposition is precisely the thing that even a superficial knowledge of history should teach us not to do.
I can’t resist saying that Senator McCain must have been cutting his Diplomatic History classes while enrolled at the Naval Academy.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home