4 ms·

This is something I recently ran into in another thread, and I didn't get into it there because it seemed too meta and unproductive, but this seems like a good

This is something I recently ran into in another thread, and I didn't get into it there because it seemed too meta and unproductive, but this seems like a good opportunity. When we talk about history we are not talking about a binary system, we're talking about experiences related through perspectives. There is rarely an absolute truth to history, and the longer back we go the less certain our understanding tends to be. The situation is even worse when we start talking about motivations. In this case, the motivations of the space program weren't simply military, or rather, they were military to the military, but if you read about or speak to the people involved, you're not necessarily going to hear that. For some of the people, the moon race was genuinely about exploration and wonder, for others it was exploration used as cover for ICBM research, etc. It is very easy to conflate the motivations of the individual with the motivations of the institutions they are associated with, and this frequently ends up cheapening one or the other.

mechanical_fish 17y ago
It is very easy to conflate the motivations of the individual with the motivations of the institutions they are associated with, and this frequently ends up cheapening one or the other. Very well put. It would be a mistake to see the space race as something which was "only" about military ambition. It was about different things to different people, and it grew more meanings over time. But, though there are a thousand different histories that can be written about any event, some historical perspectives are more useful than others for answering particular questions. For example, when you ask "how come the country was happy to write NASA a series of blank checks during the 1960s, but not since?" it's valuable to remember the military angle. In the 1960s the development of better space technology was understood to be a matter of life and death for millions if not billions. Now... not so much.
- jibiki 17y ago
  > But, though there are a thousand different histories that can be written about any event, some historical perspectives are more useful than others for answering particular questions. This seems like a really good way to evaluate historical scholarship (amongst other metrics, of course, unless Mencius Moldbug and Howard Zinn happen to be our greatest living historians.)

mechanical_fish 17y ago

It is very easy to conflate the motivations of the individual with the motivations of the institutions they are associated with, and this frequently ends up cheapening one or the other. Very well put. It would be a mistake to see the space race as something which was "only" about military ambition. It was about different things to different people, and it grew more meanings over time. But, though there are a thousand different histories that can be written about any event, some historical perspectives are more useful than others for answering particular questions. For example, when you ask "how come the country was happy to write NASA a series of blank checks during the 1960s, but not since?" it's valuable to remember the military angle. In the 1960s the development of better space technology was understood to be a matter of life and death for millions if not billions. Now... not so much.

jibiki 17y ago
> But, though there are a thousand different histories that can be written about any event, some historical perspectives are more useful than others for answering particular questions. This seems like a really good way to evaluate historical scholarship (amongst other metrics, of course, unless Mencius Moldbug and Howard Zinn happen to be our greatest living historians.)