The Super Summary of World History

by Alan Dale Daniel

  Vietnam: the Necessary War: a Reinterpretation of America’s Most Disastrous Military Conflict by Michael Lind, Free Press, 2002.

  Unheralded Victory: the Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973, by Mark Woodruff, Presidio Press, 2005.

  Street Without Joy by Bernard B. Fall, 2005, Stackpole Books. Probably the best background book on the Vietnam War.

  The Fifty Year Wound: How America’s Cold War Victory Has Shaped Our World, by Derek Leebaert, Back Bay Books, 2003.

  American Strategy in Vietnam, A Critical Analysis, by Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr., Dover Publications, 2007. At 121 pages and a price of $8.95 this is probably the best book on the War in Vietnam that a student of history can acquire.

  The Vietnam War, Bernard C. Natty, Barnes and Noble, 1998. A very factual record of the main events of the war and its aftermath. Very little bias displayed by this author.

  Chapter 19

  The Postmodern World . . . or Not?

  What is a “postmodern” world? What is modern today will not be tomorrow. Many historians call the world we are in “postmodern,” implying the modern world was yesterday. By definition that is unsound and confusing. Modern is now. The Random House Dictionary defines modern as “of or relating to the present . . . characterized by or using the most up-to-date techniques . . . from the Latin modo meaning just now.” Thus, we should reject the term “postmodern” because it implies we have gone beyond now . . . which is impossible. However, the term “postmodern” has been widely applied to our time as describing a world of relativity. In the so-called postmodern world all is relative and nothing has a permanent foundation because there is no clear central hierarchy or organizing mega-narratives; thus, it embodies extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, and diversity. This definition sets the world adrift with no moral, spiritual, or even realistic underpinnings. To understand even a smidgen of this we must consider modern philosophy and its impact on the world—the postmodern world. This we will handle below after a few words on other pertinent subjects.[386]

  More than one author analyzing history has determined humankind is uncivilized. They opine that our civilization is a thin veneer hiding the barbarian right under the surface. Pointing to history they call out: The French Reign of Terror in the French Revolution, the Final Solution of Adolf Hitler, the murderers Stalin and Mao who massacred millions as proof modern people are not so modern, rather, we are similar to Mongols who slaughtered millions as they swept across central Asia and Eastern Europe. Hitler, Stalin, and other modern dictatorships have shown ordinary people will willingly participate in such massacres. If these naysayers are correct, then our modern world is a façade that will quickly break down into vicious tribalism and ad hoc murder if unwatched for even one moment. This may tie into the postmodern world view of chaos and uncertainty.

  The Long View of History

  From a historical perspective, it is difficult to go beyond 1990 and call it history, since we are only in 2010 as I write. Eighteen years into the past is not really history. I remember Elvis Presley, and that was in the 1950s. When we get too close to the present we sacrifice the “long view” that tells us what is important and what is not. Moreover, the emotions of the recent past are still there. Vietnam still stirs up a lot of hate and discontent no matter what political side a person is on; thus, the long view is lost. The long view tells us that Impressionism was a very important art movement, but at the time most art critics and art buyers thought the paintings were junk. Nietzsche’s philosophy books did not sell during his time, and most thought he was nuts (in fact he did go insane), but today we see Nietzsche as an accurate foreteller of the future. Without the long view we cannot know where history is really going or where it is now. If history had taken another course, Nietzsche could have been an unknown nut job and Impressionism relegated to the trash bin. From here on in, we must be very careful to note that we are dealing with events that are too close in time to judge effectively.

  What About the West is Unique?

  When we study the history of Western civilization we need to stop and ask ourselves what is unique about Western history and its inheritors: America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In this we are mainly comparing the West (Western Europe, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) to China, Siberia, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Indochina, the Near East, Egypt, Turkey, the Middle East, India, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Here is a list:

  • The individual is greater than the state is the most important political idea in history, and the West acquired it from ancient Greece. The rest of the world rejects this notion.

  • The fall of the Western Roman Empire, the subsequent colonization of Rome by barbarian tribes, and the loss of the Roman civilization is an event that is unique to Western Europe. The shattering of Rome was so complete it allowed a new civilization to grow up in its place; however, Roman law and literature survived to influence the new Western World that arose from Rome’s ashes.

  • The Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Christianity grew first from the ashes of the Roman Empire and much later the Protestant Reformation. These religions once dominated Europe because of the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, and Imperialism. These ideals survive into the modern world as both a unifying and divisive force.

  • The Renaissance was unique to Europe, and without this flowering of knowledge everything would be different. The Renaissance brought the scientific method, empiricism, modern philosophy, the concept of progress, and many other concepts to the West and the world. This event alone makes the Western World very different from the remaining world’s cultures.

  • The scientific method grew from the Renaissance and allowed Europe to advance far beyond the rest of the world in empirical knowledge, technology, medicine, and exploration.

  • The idea of progress grew from the Renaissance, spreading to all of Europe and its offshoots in America and elsewhere.

  • World Wars I and II, the most destructive in history, threw the Western World into chaos and made the dream of progress questionable.

  • WWI & WWII smashed Western Europe and Russia, and this changed the outlook of Western Europe. America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and others maintained a more positive outlook; however, as time progressed, the gloom of the two World Wars, plus unsolvable new problems, overwhelmed even these areas. Victory in the Cold War did not eliminate the depressive effects of the 20th Century.

  • Capitalism, and economic freedom, including private property rights are hallmarks of the Western world. They are major reasons behind the prosperity of the West because they open the door for vast rewards to the person who can innovate. Capitalism requires individual freedom and the protection of private property. Without political freedom capitalism cannot work. Whatever the problems, the economic and political freedoms granted by capitalism far outweigh any downside. Beyond the West, such economic and political freedoms are only dreams.

  All these events make the Western world and anyone growing up in it unique. From this alone, we can see how history may determine mind-sets and thus decisions made by differing cultures. The West is unique, as each individual is unique, and the decisions by Western governments and individuals raised in the West show this difference.

  Modern Philosophy—of the west

  Please understand that all the philosophies examined here are grossly oversimplified and do not in any way explain the true complexity of the ideas involved.—AD2

  As stated in our chapters on ancient history, Greek philosophy covered all the basic ideas found in Western philosophy. As time marched on, Western philosophy began to get bogged down in definitional problems and finally came to rest on the jagged rocks of epistemology.[387] David Hume effectively argued that what we call knowledge is only a set of experiences which cannot be depended upon to be true. For example, just because one has been adequately sustained by eating bread does not mean that one will always be so sustained. He even went so far as t
o prove that just because we have watched the sun come up every morning for fifty years does not mean it will come up tomorrow; thus, there is no knowledge of any kind. Finally, Hume proposed that he did not exist and went on to prove it to his own satisfaction. Most philosophers wished Hume had not existed. His form of philosophy is termed skepticism, and in Hume’s case extreme skepticism.

  British empiricism argued all knowledge came from experience alone. Empiricism was opposed to the philosophical position of rationalism, which stressed innate ideas—ideas that come from the brain alone without sensory input—were all that was true. Since Hume destroyed the idea of knowledge coming from experience he put a hammerlock on innate ideas as well as sensory ideas. Oh well . . . since Hume proved he did not exist we can safely move on. By the way, empiricism and rationalism both survived Hume.

  Compare empiricism to Descartes (I think therefore I am) who thought he was, and therefore he really was, and this means the brain can think without sensory input. Descartes’ reasoning might be hard to follow, but at least he thought he existed, or because he thought he thought, thus he existed . . . or some such thing. Descartes declared, “I think, therefore I am.” This was the classic statement allowing Descartes to prove his existence, and from that he built up his understanding of the world and all he experienced in it. The German idealist agreed with Descartes that the mind, its thoughts and ideas, was most important rather than the unreliable world of sensory perception. As the reader can ascertain, these arguments hearken back to the Greek philosophers Plato (forms or universals—the mind was most important) and Aristotle (the concrete world of sensory perception is most important).

  Modern philosophy has tried to remove itself from this logical conundrum foisted upon it by skepticism, empiricism, and rationalism by avoiding definitional arguments. Many philosophies, such as Ayn Rand’s objectivism, simply state as a given fact that the world does exist outside of our senses, and since we can measure this world we can depend upon its existence. Rand argued there was a “mind independent” reality, and individuals are in contact with that reality through their senses. By starting from this point, Rand avoided the problems of epistemology and its focus on how a person can know the world exists and whether their perceptions are accurately interpreting reality. Contrast objectivism with the ideas of Descartes who thought that sensory perceptions came to him involuntarily—that is without his having willed them to occur. From this, he concludes there is evidence of an external world which was something outside his mind; however, Descartes also thought that what existed in the mind was more important and more reliable than that which one “knew” through the senses. As one can see, both Descartes and Rand are arguing against skepticism because Hume had destroyed the ability of the human mind to prove anything existed. Rand puts the emphasis on the outside world of measurement, and Descartes puts the emphasis on the internal world of the mind (thought), but both agreed the world outside the mind did exist.

  Kant, the great German idealist, tried a new way to break the deadlock by reasoning that rationalism (innate ideas in the mind) and empiricism (all knowledge is gained through sensory experience) could be reconciled. Kant decided there were two kinds of judgments: analytic where the truth is determined within itself, and synthetic where truth has to be determined by an investigation such as looking at a person to observe if they are present at a certain location. There was also transcendental knowledge (a priori or before observation or study—that which you know is true), and empirical knowledge (a posteriori or after) which one must study or experiment to find out if it is true. Kant thought a synthetic a priori concept could be a universal truth proven through experimentation. Thus, transcendental or prior knowledge which could be proven by experimentation could be the foundation for discovering universal truths that all could agree on, thereby putting philosophy on a firm footing and avoiding endless arguments about whether truth could ever be discovered or known. Using these methods, Kant decided the universe was chaotic, and man’s mind imposed order onto what was actually chaos, and this perceived order becomes our reality. Nice try, but not everyone agreed. What else would one expect from men with sharp minds and strong opinions? Therefore, the arguments continue . . . Here are a few more variations on the theme:

  Utilitarianism is a moral doctrine that states an action must be measured by its contribution to the good or “the greatest good for the greatest number.” As we can see, this argument avoids the problem of epistemology by simply ignoring the discussion. It at least attempts to form a moral underpinning for a person’s actions. Rather than engage in circular arguments about thoughts or senses, utilitarianism wants to discuss how to make moral decisions. The problem arises when people disagree what course of action will result in the greatest good for the greatest number, but even without philosophical agreement individuals will at least have an agreed upon common goal of attempting to reach “the good” (“The good” is me being rich and healthy . . .).

  Positivism is another attempt to solve the problem of knowledge. This philosophy holds that the only authentic knowledge is scientific, that is, the only true “knowledge” is that obtained by using the scientific method. Of course, the skeptics simply said even this kind of knowledge comes from experience and is therefore no different from other knowledge gained from experience—unreliable. Positivism at least gives some basis for agreement on facts, in that the scientific method demanded repeatable experiments; thus, even though based on a belief in the reliability of sensory perceptions, at least it demands agreement on those perceptions. Simply saying one cannot depend on sensory perceptions is getting nowhere, so why not agree that if the same results can be obtained from experiments then the perception is valid enough to build on. Idealists and skeptics still want to argue the point, but the positivists ignore them (compare to objectivism). (Having performed numerous experiments, I am certain that happiness arrives when I have money, lots of money . . .).

  Rationalism emphasizes the role of human reason in discovering reality.[388] The philosopher John Locke argued the mind is a blank slate and experience alone can leave a mark. This rejects the role of reason in discovering reality or truth. Realism is a philosophy that holds abstract objects corresponding to universal terms (chair for example) have a real existence (Plato argued this) much like rationalism. Idealism holds that nothing can be known outside of the human mind, and thus (in some idealist concepts) nothing exists apart from the mind (compare to Zen Buddhism).

  Kant, who thought we could know more than just what is in our minds, developed transcendental idealism. Kant argued we could directly know the possibility of “things in themselves.” This world of “things in themselves” might exist (a possibility), but actually knowing this world is impossible. Thus, when we experience something, a ball for example, we experience the object as it appears to us and not as the ball is “in and of itself.” (This kind of stuff drives me nuts). As we have pointed out above, Kant’s efforts are exacting in that he was trying to establish a basis for agreements on universals, but this philosophy is hard to apply in the everyday world. For somewhat dull types such as me, Kant’s arguments are mostly linguistic intrigues in which I quickly lose my way.

  Existentialism argues life is meaningless, and people can decide for themselves their own meaning and essence of life and that determination is valid. An existentialist will focus on finding meaning in life through existence alone. Existentialism rejects any definition of humans as rational. Existence comes before, and is primary to, any human definition of reality. This avoids the problems of how we know the world exists, assumes it does, and argues one must find a meaning in life. Unfortunately, Existentialism says life is actually meaningless, but an individual must find meaning just from one’s very existence. Worse, the individual must do this alone. When accomplished, the determination is valid for that individual.

  Nietzsche made the famous statement “God is dead,” meaning the secular, scientific world destroyed the concept of God. He thought
the destruction of God must lead to the loss of an agreed upon universal perspective, and this would lead to the loss of the idea of truth as an objective concept (compare to post-modern). The result would be the death of morals and morality. All that remained to guide life was one’s own internal perspective (compare to existentialism). Nietzsche was predicting a future world without morals in the traditional sense, which would also mean all the philosophers’ arguments failed to produce anything except confusion and more arguments. Nietzsche’s arguments were simple. The strong will rule and morality will not survive.

  All this is contradictory and confusing. The ancient history section points out that as one philosopher came up with an idea another philosopher trashed it. There is a kind of time line to this, because the older the philosophy the more it is attacked. This is an endless progression of nothingness as no progress is ever made; however, another philosopher, Hegel, tried to overcome this problem with his philosophy (see, it never ends . . . never).

  Hegel, who is nearly impossible to understand, wrote that progress is constant in nearly all fields of human endeavor (including philosophy). He believed that when any idea became generally accepted a contradictory idea must soon challenge it. These two opposing ideas would then battle it out, and eventually a change must occur that takes the best of both concepts and incorporates them into a third concept. The third combined concept then becomes the generally accepted idea, and we are back where we started. Following all this, the new generally accepted idea is challenged by a contrary idea hence starting the formula all over again. This process is termed the dialectic. Through this progression constant improvement results in all fields of human endeavor. Hegel seems to be an optimistic fellow. This is summed up, incorrectly according to experts in Hegel’s ideas, in this chain: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Another way to put it might be old idea (thesis), contrary idea (antithesis), new idea that combines the old and the contrary ideas (synthesis, which transforms into the thesis) and then repeat the process again. The key here is the concept that the old and new ideas both contain truth that the synthesis will preserve. Hegel studied history and thought this is how history advanced.