Europe in Retrospect [antikvár]

PREFACE Two prominent Americans of the early twentieth century offered distinctly opposing interpretations of history. Henry Ford, automobile manufacturer, said that "history is more or less bunk." George Santayana, Harvard philosopher, insisted that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." As these comments indicate, the value of history has been a much debated issue. In part, the controversial nature of the subject comes from the many interpretations it allows. In simple terms, history is what the historian considers the past to have been. It is an attempt to impose some sort of order or coherence on what, in its own time, may have appeared to be confused, even chaotic. In other words, history is a matter of perspective—what is seen through the mind's eye of the analyst and the writer who is the historian. Nevertheless, even though there are many perspectives on the past, some understanding of what took place then is important for an understanding of what is occurring now, and what will continue to occur. The human being is a historical being, the only creature aware of his own mortality and, thus, the only creature conscious of the psychological dimensions of time. In the words of the German thinker Martin Heidegger, we live between the not-yet and the no-longer. The study of history provides one line of thought that meaningfully ties these two "times" to the present. Given such an intellectual condition, we can argue that the study of Modem European History makes good sense. Regardless of our place of origin—or that of our ancestors—we are all part European in our social behavior and our thought patterns. Over one hundred years ago, the American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that "all educated Americans, first or last, go to Europe." This ii ' ; i/ . |i ' >11 l-'l. - '!I Wr'j'i