Every writer, of every political flavor, has some neat historical analogy, or mini-lesson, with which to preface an argument for why we ought to bomb these guys or side with those guys against the guys we were bombing before. But the best argument for reading history is not that it will show us the right thing to do in one case or the other, but rather that it will show us why even doing the right thing rarely works out.

Adam Gopnik on the value of studying history. (via newyorker)

Being in a country where there a noticeable wave of historical revision of the Marcos years, I was drawn more to this part:

The real sin that the absence of a historical sense encourages is presentism, in the sense of exaggerating our present problems out of all proportion to those that have previously existed. It lies in believing that things are much worse than they have ever been—and, thus, than they really are—or are uniquely threatening rather than familiarly difficult.

Odd though, where I am, those who are quick to praise the dictator and his minions are kids born in the years after he was kicked from power.