What were the 4 consequences of World War I? Write your answer in an essay of at least 125 words. UPLO
WRITER
C2

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:

president of india

the oath of office for the president of india is as follows:

i, (name), do swear in the name of god (or solemnly affirm) that i will faithfully execute the office of president (or discharge the functions of the president) of india, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution and the law, and that i will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of republic of india.

— article 60, constitution of india

मैं, अमुक ईश्वर की शपथ लेता हूँ (सत्य निष्ठा से प्रतिज्ञाण करता हूँ) कि मैं श्रद्धापूर्वक भारत के राष्ट्रपति के पद का कार्यपालन (अथवा राष्ट्रपति के कृत्यों का निर्वहन) करूँगा तथा अपनी पूरी योग्यता से संविधान और विधि का परिरक्षण, संरक्षण और प्रतिरक्षण करूँगा और मैं भारत की जनता की सेवा और कल्याण में निरत रहूँगा।

— अनुच्‍छेद 60, भारत का संविधान

vice-president of india

the oath of office for the vice-president of india is as follows:

i, (name), do swear in the name of god (or solemnly affirm) that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of india as by law established, and that i will faithfully discharge the duty upon which i am about to enter.

— article 69, constitution of india

मैं, (अमुक) ईश्वर की शपथ लेता हूं(सत्यनिष्ठा से प्रतिज्ञान करता हूं) कि मैं विधि द्वारा स्थापित भारत के संविधान के प्रति सच्ची श्रद्धा और निष्ठा रखूंगा तथा जिस पद को मैं ग्रहण करने वाला हूं उसके कर्तव्यों का श्रद्धापूर्वक निर्वहन करूँगा।

— अनुच्‍छेद 60, भारत का संविधान

union council of ministers of india

edit

the oath of office for prime minister and other members of the union council of ministers:

the oath of office is as follows:

i, (name), do swear in the name of god (or, solemnly affirm) that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of india as by law established, that i will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of india, that i will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a minister for the union and that i will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.

— schedule iii, constitution of india

मैं, (अमुक), ईश्वर की शपथ लेता हूँ/सत्यनिष्ठा से प्रतिज्ञान करता हूँ कि मैं विधि द्वारा स्थापित भारत के संविधान के प्रति सच्ची श्रद्धा और निष्ठा रखूँगा, मैं भारत की प्रभुता और अखंडता अक्षुण्ण रखूँगा, मैं संघ के प्रधानमंत्री/मंत्री के रूप में अपने कर्तव्यों का श्रद्धापूर्वक और शुद्ध अंतःकरण से निर्वहन करूँगा तथा मैं भय या पक्षपात, अनुराग या द्वेष के बिना, सभी प्रकार के लोगों के प्रति संविधान और विधि के अनुसार न्याय करूँगा।

— तीसरी अनुसूची, भारत का संविधान

the oath of secrecy is as follows:

i, (name), do swear in the name of god (or, solemnly affirm) that i will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person or persons any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as a minister for the union except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as such minister.

— schedule iii, constitution of india

मैं, (अमुक), ईश्वर की शपथ लेता हूँ/सत्यनिष्ठा से प्रतिज्ञान करता हूँ कि जो विषय संघ के मंत्री के रूप में मेरे विचार के लिए लाया जाएगा अथवा मुझे ज्ञात होगा उसे किसी व्यक्ति या व्यक्तियों को, तब के सिवाय जबकि ऐसे मंत्री के रूप में अपने कर्तव्यों के सम्यक्‌ निर्वहन के लिए ऐसा करना अपेक्षित हो, मैं प्रत्यक्ष अथवा अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से संसूचित या प्रकट नहीं करूँगा।

— तीसरी अनुसूची, भारत का संविधान

chief justice of the supreme court or high court

edit

the oath of office for chief justice of supreme court or high court is as follows:

i, (name), having been appointed chief justice (or a judge) of the supreme court of india, do swear in the name of god (or affirm) that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of india as by law established, that i will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of india, that i will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that i will uphold the constitution and the laws.

— schedule iii, constitution of india

मैं, (अमुक), जो भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय का मुख्य न्यायमूर्ति (या न्यायाधीश) (या भारत का नियंत्रक-महालेखापरीक्षक) नियुक्त हुआ हूँ, ईश्वर की शपथ लेता हूँ/सत्यनिष्ठा से प्रतिज्ञान करता हूँ कि मैं विधि द्वारा स्थापित भारत के संविधान के प्रति सच्ची श्रद्धा और निष्ठा रखूँगा, मैं भारत की प्रभुता और अखंडता अक्षुण्ण रखूँगा तथा मैं सम्यक्‌ प्रकार से और श्रद्धापूर्वक तथा अपनी पूरी योग्यता, ज्ञान और विवेक से अपने पद के कर्तव्यों का भय या पक्षपात, अनुराग या द्वेष के बिना पालन करूँगा तथा मैं संविधान और विधियों की मर्यादा बनाए रखूँगा।

it was justfied as english were being brutal to the colonist and they needed to be stopped therfor causing a war but the moral over that is yes it was justifed