I wrote this essay to practice for my upcoming English Comp CLEP. The essay question had to do with the phrase "the more things change, the more they stay the same."-- basically I had to state whether I agreed with that or not... etc. Any feedback on what I should pay attention to during the actual test is greatly appreciated! This is the essay:
In order to agree or disagree with the statement, "The more things change, the more they stay the same", an understanding of what it means has to be reached. It would seem that the first segment, "The more things change..." refers to the changes made in technology; human advancement. But the second segment, "the more things stay the same..." assumes that "history repeats itself". This is true. No matter how far advanced we are, we as humans never seem to learn from history; we always fall into the same pitfalls as those preceding us. History is rife with examples in economics, world leaders, and large-scale wars.
Economics would hardly seem to be the same as it was hundreds of years ago. After all, we have moved on from the gold standard and adopted fiat currency: a thing no other generation has done. Or is it? Printing fiat currency produces inflation, and inflation is nothing new. In Roman times, in order to make their gold go a little farther, the empire's minted coins got nicked a little; officials shaved off the sides of the coins until there were enough shavings to make more coins. Eventually they even added a little worthless metal to the mixture, thereby extending the gold a little farther. It was only a matter of time before people realized what was going on, and rejected the system. The Roman Empire collapsed. Today, we are faced with a similar situation. Once again, we haven't learned from our mistakes. The American government has introduced fiat currency, currency that isn't backed at all by gold or any other precious thing, and it is only a matter of time before America and the rest of the world rejects the worthless paper and the American Empire fails. History repeats itself.
World leaders are individuals with amazing charisma, who can point to ideals and stimulate others to follow them towards lofty goals. History textbooks focus on many of these individuals, and point to their successes and failures. But perhaps they fail to notice how similar they all are. Alexander the Great and Saladin, for example, were hugely charismatic leaders, whose ideals unified their peoples and spurred them on to many victories. For Alexander, it was the city-states of Greece; for Saladin, the many factions of Islam. Both of them had loyal armies and a supportive populace, both set up a hierarchy of cohesive leadership with all the right marks. But it all disintegrated when they died. Why? Neither established an authoritative heir, and their charisma had vanished. Over the space of only a few hundred years, Saladin repeated Alexander's mistake.
Even militarily, empires such as Rome and England refused to learn from history. Ever hungry for power, their leaders spurred on, farther and farther, until their forces were spread so thin that their empires broke to pieces. Charlemagne and Neville Chamberlain both inherited the leadership of their empires at the times they fell, and neither recognized the parallels their own times had to Genghis Khan's time. Genghis Khan had spread his frontiers too wide for his armies to secure, so that when he finally died, both the lack of leadership, and the lessened fear their enemies had for them now that he was dead, spurred their collapse.
So it is merely a truism that "the more things change, the more they stay the same." It is merely a matter of time before history repeats itself again. And as long as history continues to be made, it will begin to sound like a broken record. Only when society as a whole recognizes this fact can they understand its consequences and take action to learn from history's mistakes. But this is a phenomenon that is far from occurring. The best that you and I can do is to have personal responsibility and learn from other's mistakes, thereby cutting off the vicious cycle. So, what have you learned from history lately?
In order to agree or disagree with the statement, "The more things change, the more they stay the same", an understanding of what it means has to be reached. It would seem that the first segment, "The more things change..." refers to the changes made in technology; human advancement. But the second segment, "the more things stay the same..." assumes that "history repeats itself". This is true. No matter how far advanced we are, we as humans never seem to learn from history; we always fall into the same pitfalls as those preceding us. History is rife with examples in economics, world leaders, and large-scale wars.
Economics would hardly seem to be the same as it was hundreds of years ago. After all, we have moved on from the gold standard and adopted fiat currency: a thing no other generation has done. Or is it? Printing fiat currency produces inflation, and inflation is nothing new. In Roman times, in order to make their gold go a little farther, the empire's minted coins got nicked a little; officials shaved off the sides of the coins until there were enough shavings to make more coins. Eventually they even added a little worthless metal to the mixture, thereby extending the gold a little farther. It was only a matter of time before people realized what was going on, and rejected the system. The Roman Empire collapsed. Today, we are faced with a similar situation. Once again, we haven't learned from our mistakes. The American government has introduced fiat currency, currency that isn't backed at all by gold or any other precious thing, and it is only a matter of time before America and the rest of the world rejects the worthless paper and the American Empire fails. History repeats itself.
World leaders are individuals with amazing charisma, who can point to ideals and stimulate others to follow them towards lofty goals. History textbooks focus on many of these individuals, and point to their successes and failures. But perhaps they fail to notice how similar they all are. Alexander the Great and Saladin, for example, were hugely charismatic leaders, whose ideals unified their peoples and spurred them on to many victories. For Alexander, it was the city-states of Greece; for Saladin, the many factions of Islam. Both of them had loyal armies and a supportive populace, both set up a hierarchy of cohesive leadership with all the right marks. But it all disintegrated when they died. Why? Neither established an authoritative heir, and their charisma had vanished. Over the space of only a few hundred years, Saladin repeated Alexander's mistake.
Even militarily, empires such as Rome and England refused to learn from history. Ever hungry for power, their leaders spurred on, farther and farther, until their forces were spread so thin that their empires broke to pieces. Charlemagne and Neville Chamberlain both inherited the leadership of their empires at the times they fell, and neither recognized the parallels their own times had to Genghis Khan's time. Genghis Khan had spread his frontiers too wide for his armies to secure, so that when he finally died, both the lack of leadership, and the lessened fear their enemies had for them now that he was dead, spurred their collapse.
So it is merely a truism that "the more things change, the more they stay the same." It is merely a matter of time before history repeats itself again. And as long as history continues to be made, it will begin to sound like a broken record. Only when society as a whole recognizes this fact can they understand its consequences and take action to learn from history's mistakes. But this is a phenomenon that is far from occurring. The best that you and I can do is to have personal responsibility and learn from other's mistakes, thereby cutting off the vicious cycle. So, what have you learned from history lately?
