Hello Everybody,

The explanation of historical events has always been
the subject of wide debate by scholars and non-scholars
alike.  But what views shape those explanations?  Can
any particular view answer all the questions that come
to mind?  From what viewpoint should the observer base
his/her conclusions?

History is an interpretation of facts that have been
gathered.  Even the facts that have been gathered can
be open to question.  For example, who gathers the
facts can be just as important as the facts themselves.
And who is to say that all the facts gathered have
been accounted for?

Let us look at two views of history.  Perhaps there
are more, but I could find only two views that make
any modicum of sense.  And only one of those views
gives an explanation that answers all the questions.

The Accidental View of History -

This is the view most commonly believed.  Historical
events happen by accident, for no apparent reason.
They just happen.  And there is nothing, absolutely
nothing, that any ruler can do to keep those events
from happening.

"History is written more by accident than design,
often by the wholly irrational acts of madmen."
- James P. Warburg, The West in Crisis, (Garden
City, New York:Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1959), p. 20.

"History is much more the product of chaos than
of conspiracy. ...increasingly, policy makers are
overwhelmed by events and information."
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, The New York Times,
January 18, 1981, p. L 3

The Conspiratorial View of History -

This is the view most folks mistakenly believe is
total hogwash.  Historical events happen by design,
or for a reason(s).  These reasons are most often
kept secret from the general public.

Who in their right mind would hold this particular
view?  Aren't those who hold a conspiratorial view
of history of bunch of nutcakes?  Well, you tell
me -

"In politics, nothing happens by accident.  If it
happens, it was planned that way."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States

Isn't that amazing?  Or maybe not so amazing, given
the fact that presidents and other leaders often make
plans to do one thing or another, for whatever reasons
of their own.  And nothing - I mean nothing - they
do is by accident.

If harmful events are planned - such as the Japanese
sneak attack on Pearl Harbor - it stands to reason that
those who were about to suffer the consequences would
have acted to prevent such a thing from happening.
Especially if they had known about the planned event
in advance.

Did FDR know about Japanese plans to bomb Pearl Harbor?
If so, why did he choose to let it happen?

Did George W. Bush know about terrorist plans to attack
America on 9-11?  If so, why did he choose to let it happen?

People expect government to protect them from harm.
Especially harmful events such as Pearl Harbor and 9-11.

But what happens when government fails to do its duty?
Why did government fail, when the people expected to be
kept safe?

There are only two explanations that are possible -

1. The events themselves were too powerful to have been prevented.

2. The events were allowed to occur because government wanted them
   to occur.

So which is it?

You tell me.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * BE A SAINT +

--- Maximus 3.01