Walker's Controversy

The article “History Still Matters” by Bill Moyers expresses some important concerns in our societies over the loss of interest in history. Throughout the article Moyers explains the loss of interest but also shows the reader the subject is crucial for societies to progress. He uses deeper meanings to further understand the importance of history as well as expressing the reasons he thinks cultures have lost interest past events. The author also mentions that although people find no relations to history in today’s world, there are conflicts that can resemble current problems. It is also imperative to realize history has assembled our concurrent world. For those reasons we can have our own outlook and interpretations of history to further understand the progression and stage we are currently in.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” -George Santayana (as originally written). This much has always been true to those who study the seemingly extinguished conflicts of the former world. The undeniable fact of it is, history can and will repeat itself, lest society seeks to learn from it. In order for society to learn from the tragedies of yesteryear, certain changes must take place, because change is essential for growth - which in turn fuels further change: a fundamental cycle that society must commence. Without change and growth, humanity is thrown into a state of chaos and destruction; one’s logical thinking may get the best of them. In order to grasp control over the recurrences of history, Some supposedly

Thus, the totalizing theory makes society blind to how local knowledge, different races, and cultures are essential in the development of history. Developing a distinction Marx made between the two kinds of history, Chakrabarty says History 1 is defined as the history of capitalism,

The Cold War was a clash between the Capitalists in American and the Communism in USSR, which are both to blame for the starting of the war. In the latter half of the twentieth century is the central place of American civilization in which Stephen Whitfield gives us an inside to the world as it once was and how it is now a thing of the past. Stephen’s goal was to open the eyes to those who were not around during this time and to those who were, might bring up ancient memories of how things used to be.

In the second part “History the weapon”, Schlesinger addressed why the history can used as a weapon in the conflict between the cultural majority and the minorities. History has its own role in the future of nations, for it is to the whole nation than as the memory to individual. As the means to define the national identities, who controls the history would have control the future.

During the middle 1800’s Europe was stunned by a Revolutionary party pamphlet called the Communist Manifesto. The Communist Manifesto was one of the most well known and most widely read brochures in Europe at the time. The success the Manifesto gained, helped it to be recognized as one of the most important and significant articles in European history. In the beginning passage, the first line stated: “A spectre is haunting Europe the spectre of Communism" (322). Europe is under oppression from communism, and it seems as if the battle of classes are going to clash. In the first section of Bourgeois and Proletarians, this quote stated that "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" (232). Since the beginning

As previously stated, Fukuyama’s article portrays the notion of the termination of man’s history as it is known due to Western liberal democracy’s rise as the ultimate and unchallenged form of government across the

He asserts we must question “historicism” as an idea thus suggesting that to “understand anything it has to be understood as a whole via its historical development” (6). Thus, the totalizing theory makes society blind to how local knowledge, different races, and cultures are essential in the development of history. Developing a distinction Marx made between the two kinds of history, Chakrabarty says History 1 is defined as the history of capitalism, and History 2, is defined as the development of human history that does not fit in the metanarrative of History 1 (50). Chakrabarty says Marx totalizing theories argue, that History 2, will ultimately be subsumed by History 1 overall history of capitalism from feudal stages to the present, However Chakrabarty argues that History 2 “is not separate from capital. As History 2 inherent in capital but interrupts and punctuates the logic of capitalism” (64). Additionally, Marx, (Marxist) Gramsci thinks that History 1 is the real history, while Chakrabarty asserts without “History two there would be no History one as history two is charged with the function of constantly interrupting the totalizing thrusts of History 1” (66). Chakrabarty details how Marxist abstract and real labor analogies fails to illustrate their theoretical application in other local and cultures. Therefore, the Western thought of “Marxism” as with Gramsci doesn 't reflect the

Philosopher Karl Marx claims humanity is best understood through philosophical explanations. In order to understand humans and their history, one should look at philosophy. Marx basis his ideas off of the Hegelian dialect – start with a thesis; once something contrary to that arises, develop an antithesis. When the tension between the thesis and antithesis resolves, you get the synthesis. The synthesis then becomes a thesis and develops its own antithesis and then another synthesis. Based on Marx’s claim, history unfolds and develops just as the Hegelian dialect does. When two groups of people co-exist in a society (one who have power and ones who don’t), there is conflict. Those two aspects of society then work out their differences and create a new, better society. This is known as the manifesto. In this paper I will talk about Marx’s take on the development of the bourgeoisie (the upper class), the proletariat (the lower class) and capitalism.

In 1986 A. Huyssen claimed that postmodernism possessed ‘the unshaken confidence of being at the edge of history’, in regard to its ability to offer explanation and understanding. Since then, historians such as E. Breisach have claimed that the initial ‘crisis’ is over, and the once present threat to the end of history, is ready to be assessed.

In his essay, The End of History, Fukuyama discusses the rise and fall of various ideologies throughout history, and the prevalence of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.

The End of History and the Last Man is a book in which Francis Fukuyama argues the controversial thesis that the end of history, a time when class distinctions no longer exist, believing them to be the

The definition of history, is a question which has sparked international debate for centuries between the writers, readers, and the makers of history. It is a vital topic which should be relevant in our lives because it?s important to acknowledge past events that have occurred in our world that deeply influences the present. This essay will discuss what history is, and why we study it.

In 1992, at the end of the Cold War, political scientist Francis Fukuyama argued that with Western Liberal Democracy’s victory in the battle of ideologies, there was no more history to be made. Indeed, in such a monumental moment in human history, it may have been easy for scholars to believe that the human experience is done developing. Samuel Huntington responded to Fukuyama in his 1993 essay “Clash of Civilizations,” arguing that history is far from over. Rather, world politics is simply entering a new phase, in which global conflict is centered on civilizational lines, rather than ideological or political lines. When we look back on his essay, we see that his hypothesis has manifested in several key events in world politics regarding our case studies and current events around the world.

Francis Fukuyama with his article “The End of History?” – which then became a book entitled