Do you think the new state governments were successful in bringing change to the South during Reconstructions? Explain your answer.

according to the denotation of “repeat,” history can’t repeat itself. (and if you want to get technical and into chaos theory, neither can anything else.) unlike lab-controlled experiments that can be exactly replicated (although not really), humans are life is always evolving and unpredictable and involves incalculable symbiotic relationships.

but, if we consider “repeat” as both a metaphor and in terms of its connotation, we can understand what people mean by “history repeats itself,” and it actually emerges as a useful conceptual tool. as mark twain put it, “history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

the vast, vast majority of people don’t in anyway think that history literally, exactly repeats itself. such would violate celebrated philosophies of free will. when people say that history repeats itself, they are generally thinking of broad patterns. another way to describe these patterns or relationships would be to describe them as cause and effect relationships. they are thinking about the existence of and continuation of

war,

poverty,

colonialism,

racism,

sexism,

classism, or

social movements, to list only a few of the repeated/unending phenomena of human history.a more specific example could be that every step forward in the long african-american civil rights movement has resulted in new forms of discrimination. lynching, disenfranchisement, and neo-enslavement (collectively called “jim crow”) replaced codified plantation and urban enslavement after the civil war and reconstruction era. today, the “new jim crow” (a system where by at least 1 out of every 3 black men are confined in the criminal justice system) replaced jim crow after the modern civil rights movement of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s.

people remain “babies” on the evolutionary ladder – we are greedy, shortsighted, and quick to buy into fear of “the other.” spending time trying to argue that history doesn’t repeat is ultimately not very productive for historians, a debate primarily involving semantic differences.

furthermore, if nothing “repeated,” it would quickly become impossible to study anything. much of what we study is about relationships between times and places. on the other hand, if we “dig deep,” language repeats all the time per se. if we had to relearn language every day, we would never progress. by saying “history repeats,” we are recognizing the ways in which we are bound to this world and products of it. this is not to say that nothing ever improves or changes.

as historians, we can and should use the real meanings behind notions that history repeats to students enjoy and embrace the study of our world. indeed one of the many reasons i enjoy studying history, as i tell students in my “what is history? ” lecture, is that history is comforting and allows us to see the world as a more steady place. according to the news and joe public, crime, poverty, you name it, are worse now than it ever has been. if we look at historical evidence, we can find that such fears are unnecessary. likewise, every generation says the previous generation had it better or older adults long for the time when they were adolescents when the world was a better, safer place (i call this the myth of the utopia past).  

finally, although human events can never come close to any kind of true replication, history belongs to both the liberal arts and the sciences. that history is a liberal art needs no explanation. that history is also a science, however, is where i tend to meet objections.

scientists follow the scientific method. they follow a series of steps to ensure their work is the best it can be given current resources. don’t historians do this? historians come up with questions, look for evidence, analyze evidence, weave in secondary material, write and edit, edit some more, and then go through peer-reviewers both informally and formally. this is indeed the historian’s equivalent of the scientific method. historical narratives or theories about the past are no more or less theories or narratives as human evolution or the big bang, for example. all scholarship involves theory and explanation based on evidence.

likewise, for reasons i haven’t fully grasped or studied yet, science tends to have more credibility with the public. people tend to perceive history as always changing, unstable, and inherently biased by “crazy, liberal academics.” in reality, science changes just as much, is just as unstable, and has just as many biases. in other words, history and any of the specific branches of science are all social constructions- both the discipline themselves and scholarship produced. by promoting the study of the past as a science, perhaps historians would have more automatic credibility.

be sure to check out: the nature of history and the history of history, i am many things but a “history buff” is not one of them. – hidden power of words series, #14, and my other postings about history, too!

explanation:

some american cities felt workers were being oppressed by business monopolies

the mandate of heaven or tian ming (chinese: 天命; pinyin: tiānmìng; wade–giles: t'ien-ming) is a chinese political and religious doctrine used since ancient times to justify the rule of the king or emperor of china. according to this belief, heaven (天, tian)—which embodies the natural order and will of the universe—bestows the mandate on a just ruler of china, the "son of heaven" of the "celestial empire". if a ruler was overthrown, this was interpreted as an indication that the ruler was unworthy, and had lost the mandate. it was also a common belief among citizens that natural disasters such as famine and flood were signs of heaven's displeasure with the ruler, so there would often be revolts following major disasters as citizens saw these as signs that the mandate of heaven had been withdrawn.[1]

a brief flow chart describing the dynastic cycles in imperial china on claiming to withdrawing the mandate of heaven

the mandate of heaven does not require a legitimate ruler to be of noble birth, depending instead on the just and able performance of the rulers and their heirs. dynasties such as the han and ming dynasties were founded by men of common origins. the concept is in some ways similar to the european concept of the divine right of kings; however, unlike the european concept, it does not in theory confer an unconditional right to rule, despite this being exactly the case in practicality. the mandate would in theory be a preoccupation in a ruler's lifetime, when he would hold onto the mandate and live according to heavens. intrinsic to the concept of the mandate of heaven was the right of rebellion against an unjust ruler. chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that heaven had withdrawn its mandate from the ruler. throughout chinese history, times of poverty and natural disasters were often taken as signs that heaven considered the incumbent ruler unjust and thus in need of replacement. the mandate of heaven was often invoked by philosophers and scholars in china as a way to curtail the abuse of power by the ruler. while each dynasty was not the same, they each had a lineage that passed on the prospective ruler by order of generational descent or their priority of birth. many emperors during the imperial times would optimize to have many sons who could be candidates to fill the position after the current ruler has died. in addition heaven was thought to be of how a ruler's works and performance was, which reflected upon how favorable they would be to heaven.