History being used to justify present events

November 20, 2006 7:21 PM

What are some ways that history or myths have been used to justify events happening in the present (or in the recent past)?
posted by friendlyfire to society & culture (15 comments total)

Uh, The Bible, perhaps?
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 7:21 PM on November 20, 2006

I gotta tell you, this happens all the time. Is there anything more specfic you are looking for?
posted by edgeways at 7:24 PM on November 20, 2006

Seems like every pretext for every internecine/intercultural conflict ever fought falls into one or both of these categories. Most of them boil down to "The great Sky Turtle has taught that we were here first, but they stole our homes and land. We shall now right this great wrong by boiling them in rennet cheese and casting their remains into the pit of Mount AngryGullet."
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 7:25 PM on November 20, 2006

9/11, which through it's deliberate mythologization begat 'Global Terrorism' as an amorphous enemy, which was a large enough umbrella to serve as justification for an entirely unrelated invasion of Iraq.
posted by mikel at 7:25 PM on November 20, 2006

What specific problem are you attempting to solve, and how will you recognize the solution when you see it?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:55 PM on November 20, 2006

History? Much of the Israel vs Palestine conflict has to do with a complex history that goes back a long time.

Ditto former Yugoslavia, WWII, WWI, on and on and on.
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:12 PM on November 20, 2006

Many opponents of the Iraq war cite Vietnam as the historic precedent to demonstrate that the U.S. should not remain there.

Really, you name it, history or mythology are cited as reasons. Whether certain things fall into one of those categories or the other could start a really nasty debate that would not end well, but since your question is either/or, I'd say the first post in the thread pretty much takes it.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:30 PM on November 20, 2006

History? Much of the Israel vs Palestine conflict has to do with a complex history that goes back a long time.

Actually, that's an excellent example of myth and history used to justify a current action. The Isreali-Palestinian conflict can easily be understood without reference to a long, "complex history" or the various myths often inserted into that history.
posted by Clay201 at 9:35 PM on November 20, 2006

Nazi Germany's race myth. [/Godwin]
posted by Opposite George at 10:24 PM on November 20, 2006

Oh, and my dad would kill me if I didn't mention the Greek War of Independence. Many of the appeals for European involvement cited Greece's perceived role as the birthplace of Western civilization.
posted by Opposite George at 10:32 PM on November 20, 2006

Tibet, Mongolia and Xinjian were once controlled by Chinese dynasties, therefore the modern Chinese justify their control over those regions today.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:19 PM on November 20, 2006

xinjianG, sorry, Xinjiang
posted by Pollomacho at 11:20 PM on November 20, 2006

It would be more difficult (and probably) impossible to find political events that aren't read in terms of history. Is the war in Iraq another Vietnam (as one comment above suggested)? Or is it World War II? Is it another (Soviet) Afghanistan? Or is the British occupation of the place the instructive precedent? Is it a crusade? Etc.
posted by washburn at 11:25 PM on November 20, 2006

For a political science-y answer, take a look at Y.F. Khong's Analogies at War. From the Princeton Press site:

From World War I to Operation Desert Storm, American policymakers have repeatedly invoked the "lessons of history" as they contemplated taking their nation to war. Do these historical analogies actually shape policy, or are they primarily tools of political justification? Yuen Foong Khong argues that leaders use analogies not merely to justify policies but also to perform specific cognitive and information-processing tasks essential to political decision-making. Khong identifies what these tasks are and shows how they can be used to explain the U.S. decision to intervene in Vietnam. Relying on interviews with senior officials and on recently declassified documents, the author demonstrates with a precision not attained by previous studies that the three most important analogies of the Vietnam era--Korea, Munich, and Dien Bien Phu--can account for America's Vietnam choices. A special contribution is the author's use of cognitive social psychology to support his argument about how humans analogize and to explain why policymakers often use analogies poorly.
posted by brozek at 6:33 AM on November 21, 2006

The "America is a Christian Nation" myth.

The Dolchstosslegende or "stab-in-the-back legend" of German conservatives and nationalists that Germany lost World War I because it was betrayed internally instead of losing militarily helped bring on the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust. Look for a sequel blaming Democrats for losing the war in Iraq by not clapping enough.

Many opponents of the Iraq war cite Vietnam as the historic precedent to demonstrate that the U.S. should not remain there.
And President Bust just started using the Vietnam War as a precedent to argue for staying.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:18 AM on November 21, 2006