The Uses and Abuses of History by Margaret MacMillan

Excelente! Aunque no me haya descubierto muchas cosas, leerlo debería ser obligatorio en las escuelas para que los estudiantes empiecen a adquirir algo de espíritu crítico

This is the second book I have read by Margaret MacMillan, bought after having been very impressed by “Paris 1919”. The book provides a number of angles from which history can be used by those who have different agendas, to promote ideas or simply to advance personal, social or otherwise collective issues. It is a set of essays first delivered as a set of lectures at the University of Western Ontario.

At least four points really need to be underlined with regard to “The Uses and Abuses of History”, as well as the author in more general terms. First, MacMillan writes beautifully. This is not a small compliment, as MacMillan is an academic and it would have been possible for her to get bogged down in technical terms or details that make it difficult for complex subject matter to be accessible to the non specialized reader.

Second, MacMillan obviously has a passion for the study of history and can draw on a wealth of knowledge to make points clear about how history can and has been misused in different contexts. It was a real education for me to read the different cases when history was referred to by different leaders to make decisions. The examples are taken from the traditional “bad guys” of recent history, such as NAZI Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea and others, but they also involve decisions made and agendas put forth in other countries, including the US, Canada, the UK, France, Israel, Australia and other western or westernized nations, as well as from more distant history. History has also been misused by religious leaders, captains of industry, as well as educators and politicians. The point is well made and reading through the different examples and ways in which history has been called on to justify courses of action is absolutely fascinating.

Third, one of the main points that are made concerns not only the misuse of history, but the difficulty involved in using history to chart a course of action, especially in difficult, national circumstances. Should Obama visit Iran to begin a peace process in the middle east, as Nixon visited China, perhaps beginning the thawing of relations between the west and China that is now present? Is it wise to always look at Chamberlain’s actions of appeasement as a form of weakness and to use this as the only interpretation of those events to justify the use of quick, resolute and forceful action against problematic national leaders, as was the case in the lead up to the recent, 2003 Irak invasion by the US and other nations? Might it not be sometimes helpful for the development of a peace process not to act forcefully? How do you distinguish between something that would be a clear injustice now (e.g., internment of Ukrainians and Japanese during WWII) and what might have been a logical decision at the time the actions were made? Does history always allow us to judge the past correctly? The present with discernment? I especially appreciated the nuance and humility with which MacMillan wrote, giving us reason to ponder the present era in which we live with the different political, social, religious and economic challenges it presents. And, of course, MacMillan urges us to view history with prudence, as the events of history can be viewed from different angles.

Fourth, I appreciated the emphasis on “what actually happened”. This, to me is the most important lesson learned from this book, although perhaps the most difficult. MacMillan gives many examples of how telling the stories of events in part can lead to biased understanding of situations. Telling the whole story requires more integrity, leaves situations less clear in terms of possible courses of action, but probably reflect something closer to “reality” than anything else. However, I cannot help but think that we cannot escape this problem. How do you know if the story has been correctly told? None of us were there when Napoleon lost at Waterloo and we depend on “experts” to recount the chain of events… do they agree as to the reasons? A reliance on “what actually happened” should leave one more humble in the manner in which they work with history.

The only down side I have regarding this book is that there is not enough mention of how values and contexts are part of how one thinks about history. At times, MacMillan argues that some uses of history are good or not so good, reflecting her particular set of values, her context, her time… it might have been helpful to read a few lines about how even those values and judgements are part and parcel of her specific understanding of humanity and the record of human activity that is history.

I read and greatly admired Margaret MacMillan’s “The War that Ended Peace”, one of the best studies I know of the build-up that lead to the First World War. Here again she presents in a reasoned and informed way why history is so important to understanding the world as it is and how it might develop in the future. It should be compulsory reading for all history students and especially politicians.

Was very informative to write an essay for college for.

This is a slick and superficial little book that purports to inform the reader on the uses and abuses of history. But the problem is that MacMillan, despite being a history professor and warden of St, Anthonyfs college, Oxford University, often does not seem to know the difference between ‘use’ and ‘abuse’ herself.

Early on in the book, she declares: ‘bad history makes sweeping generalizations’. But then, nine pages later, she states baldly, without support or documentation: ‘[Fidel] Castro was prepared to see his country destroyed if it brought Soviet victory in the Cold War closer.’ If this is not sweeping, if it is not a generalization, it is nothing.

In a epopularf book without references or attempt at authentication, MacMillan goes on to do more of the same:

ae She accuses esomef blacks of ‘unseemly competition for victimhood’ with Jews.

ae She criticizes ‘modern nationalist movements’ for claiming the right to ‘rule themselves on a specific piece of territory.’

ae She defends harsh military discipline, asserting, without evidence, that ‘threat of execution may help to keep armies from disintegrating…’

ae Despite these not-so-glittering generalities, MacMillan claims to espouse the ‘what really happened’ school of history.

In short, while MacMillanfs book is superficially entertaining and will not tax the non-historian, its content very often belies its title.

Charles Alverson