John Hirst > Quotes

“كانت عمليات الإعدام في أثينا سريعة، في المعتاد، لكن إعدام «سقراط» أُجل بسبب أعياد دينية. وكان يمكنه أن يهرب، وتمنت السلطات، بعض التمني، أن يفعل، ولكنه رفض هذا الخيار. لماذا التمادي في التمسك بالحياة، إذا لم أكن سأعيش للأبد؟ تساءل «سقراط». ليس الهدف أن تعيش، ولكن أن تعيش بشكل حسن. لقد عشت حياة طيبة تحت القوانين اليونانية، وأنا مستعد للقبول بجزائي. لقد استمر فيلسوفًا حتى النهاية. ولما نزعت الأغلال عنه، علق قائلًا: «ما أقرب الألم من السعادة».”
― John Hirst, ‫أوروبا: تاريخ وجيز‬

“The Enlightenment was not a revolutionary movement; it was not even a political movement. It was a collection of scholars, writers, artists and historians who believed that as reason and education spread, superstition and ignorance would fall away and people would cease to believe in such nonsense as miracles or kings ruling by God’s permission.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“Charles Bean, the official historian of Australia’s part in World War I, was unusual in dealing closely with the deeds of the soldiers on the front line, and not just the plans and orders of their leaders. At the end of his account of the Gallipoli landing in the Official History, he asked what made the soldiers fight on. What motive sustained them? At the end of the second or third day of the Landing, when they had fought without sleep until the whole world seemed a dream, and they scarcely knew whether it was a world of reality or of delirium – and often, no doubt, it held something of both; when half of each battalion had been annihilated, and there seemed no prospect before any man except that of wounds or death in the most vile surroundings; when the dead lay three deep in the rifle-pits under the blue sky and the place was filled with stench and sickness, and reason had almost vanished – what was it then that carried each man on? It was not love of a fight. The Australian loved fighting better than most, but it is an occupation from which the glamour quickly wears. It was not hatred of the Turk. It is true that the men at this time hated their enemy for his supposed ill-treatment of the wounded – and the fact that, of the hundreds who lay out, only one wounded man survived in Turkish hands has justified their suspicions. But hatred was not the motive which inspired them. Nor was it purely patriotism, as it would have been had they fought on Australian soil. The love of country in Australians and New Zealanders was intense – how strong, they did not realise until they were far away from their home. Nor, in most cases was the motive their loyalty to the tie between Australia and Great Britain. Although, singly or combined, all these were powerful influences, they were not the chief. Nor was it the desire for fame that made them steer their course so straight in the hour of crucial trial. They knew too well the chance that their families, possibly even the men beside them, would never know how they died. Doubtless the weaker were swept on by the stronger. In every army which enters into battle there is a part which is dependent for its resolution upon the nearest strong man. If he endures, those around him will endure; if he turns, they turn; if he falls, they may become confused. But the Australian force contained more than its share of men who were masters of their own minds and decisions. What was the dominant motive that impelled them? It lay in the mettle of the men themselves. To be the sort of man who would give way when his mates were trusting to his firmness; to be the sort of man who would fail when the line, the whole force, and the allied cause required his endurance; to have made it necessary for another unit to do his own unit’s work; to live the rest of his life haunted by the knowledge that he had set his hand to a soldier’s task and had lacked the grit to carry it through – that was the prospect which these men could not face. Life was very dear, but life was not worth living unless they could be true to their idea of Australian manhood.”
― John Hirst, The Australians: Insiders and Outsiders on the National Character since 1770

“Not everything is the king’s was the foundation of European thinking about government. From the right to private property derives the notion of individual rights, which is a central part of the Western tradition. The notion that government must be limited arose because at the beginning government in fact was extremely limited.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“The European discovery rather than Aboriginal occupation constitutes Australia's pre-history. Australia — its economy, society and polity — is a construction of European civilisation. Australia did not exist when traditional Aborigines occupied the continent. Aborigines have been participants in Australian history, but that story begins with all the others in 1788.”
― John Hirst, Sense & Nonsense in Australian History

“By the term Australian we mean not those who have merely been born in Australia. All white men who come to these shores – with a clean record – and who leave behind them the memory of class-distinctions and the religious differences of the old world; all men who place the happiness, the prosperity, the advancement of their adopted country before the interests of Imperialism, are Australian. In this regard all men who leave the tyrant-ridden lands of Europe for freedom of speech and right of personal liberty are Australians before they set foot on the ship which brings them hither. Those who fly from an odious military conscription; those who leave their fatherland because they cannot swallow the worm-eaten lie of the divine right of kings to murder peasants, are Australians by instinct – Australian and republican are synonymous.”
― John Hirst, The Australians: Insiders and Outsiders on the National Character since 1770

“May 1915. The Australians, who were about to go into action for the first time in trying circumstances, were cheerful, quiet and confident. There was no sign of nerves nor of excitement. As the moon waned, the boats were swung out, the Australians received their last instructions, and men who six months ago had been living peaceful civilian lives had begun to disembark on a strange and unknown shore in a strange land to attack an enemy of a different race. The boats had almost reached the beach, when a party of Turks, entrenched ashore, opened a terrible fusillade with rifles and a Maxim. Fortunately, the majority of the bullets went high. The Australians rose to the occasion. Not waiting for orders, or for the boats to reach the shore, they sprang into the sea, and, forming a sort of rough line, rushed at the enemy’s trenches. Their magazines were not charged, so they just went in with cold steel. It was over in a minute. The Turks in the first trench were either bayoneted or they ran away, and their Maxim was captured. Then the Australians found themselves facing an almost perpendicular cliff of loose sandstone, covered with thick shrubbery. Somewhere, half-way up, the enemy had a second trench, strongly held, from which they poured a terrible fire on the troops below and the boats pulling back to the destroyers for the second landing party. Here was a tough proposition to tackle in the darkness, but those colonials, practical above all else, went about it in a practical way. They stopped for a few minutes to pull themselves together, got rid of their packs, and charged their magazines. Then this race of athletes proceeded to scale the cliffs without responding to the enemy’s fire. They lost some men, but did not worry. In less than a quarter of an hour the Turks were out of their second position, either bayoneted or fleeing. But then the Australasians, whose blood was up, instead of entrenching, rushed northwards and eastwards, searching for fresh enemies to bayonet. It was difficult country to entrench. Therefore they preferred to advance.”
― John Hirst, The Australians: Insiders and Outsiders on the National Character since 1770

“European civilisation is unique because it is the only civilisation which has imposed itself on the rest of the world. It did this by conquest and settlement; by its economic power; by the power of its ideas; and because it had things that everyone else wanted. Today every country on earth uses the discoveries of science and the technologies that flow from it, and science was a European invention.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“In Australia the pressure of the Scots and especially of the Irish forced the abandonment of 'English' as the identity of the colonies in favour of 'British'. The Irish of course could still bridle at a British identity even when it included them as equals. In time, with the passing of the first generation born in Ireland and the growth of a distinctively Australian interpretation of Britishness, they were prepared to accept it.”
― John Hirst, Sense & Nonsense in Australian History

“عندما وصل النبلاء والفرسان الأوروبيون إلى الأراضي المقدسة في الحروب الصليبية، فوجئ المسلمون، الأكثر تحضرًا، بمدى فظاظة الأوروبيين وعدم ثقافتهم.”
― John Hirst, ‫أوروبا: تاريخ وجيز‬

“Our modern interest and respect for culture begins at this point, when intellectuals first began collecting folk culture. The answer to the prattle about reason by arrogant French intellectuals was to put on your boots and go hiking. Go to the German people, go to the peasants, record their stories and songs: that is where you will find true enlightenment. The message of Romanticism was that civilisation is artificial; that it cramps and constrains us. It is within traditional culture that life is fully lived.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“Because the power of kings started from such a weak position there were some things that they were never able to threaten. Private property became sacrosanct; the nobles had turned land held on condition into private property. This always put a limitation on governments, so that though the powers of European kings grew they never became like oriental despots, who owned everything in their realm.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“The Romans were better than the Greeks at fighting. They were better than the Greeks at law, which they used to run their empire. They were better than the Greeks at engineering, which was useful both for fighting and running an empire. But in everything else they acknowledged that the Greeks were superior and slavishly copied them.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“Towards the end of the eighteenth century, Englishmen began building houses on the east coast of this warm land of curious life and unknown vastness. They had selected, more by luck than exploration, the banks of a magnificent harbour, a place which posterity generally recognized as one of the best sites in the world.”
― John Hirst, The Australians: Insiders and Outsiders on the National Character since 1770

“As the poets sang, Australia was pure, set apart, free from old-world rivalries and wars. That this was due to physical isolation or divine favour were pleasing illusions. Australia enjoyed its peace because the old-world power responsible for the continent was much more powerful than the others.”
― John Hirst, The Sentimental Nation: The Making of the Australian Commonwealth

“The use of letters from the Greek alphabet for the signage in geometry reminds us of its origins.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“Newton, the great seventeenth-century scientist, and Einstein, the great twentieth-century scientist, both said you will only get close to a correct answer if your answer is simple.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“Today heads of state inspect guards of honor. They move along the ranks, appearing to scrutinize the soldiers, perhaps saying a word or two. This is a carry-over from an early medieval practice when the king was really scrutinizing the soldiers he had been sent and saying to himself: what sort of rubbish have they sent this time?”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“Nationalism acted as a substitute for religion, giving individuals a place in an everlasting community. Not Christians in Christendom, but French in France, or Germans in Germany. There were anthems and flags, heroes and heroines, sacred moments and places, to secure attachment to this new faith.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“This book collects what outsiders have said about Australians and Australian characteristics and what Australians have said about themselves. In some quarters this will be regarded as an unfashionable book because it believes that there is such a thing as an Australian national character.”
― John Hirst, The Australians: Insiders and Outsiders on the National Character since 1770

“Not everything is the king's'' was the foundation of European thinking about government.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“The expansion of Europe was the transforming force in human history of the last 500 years, and yet the modern academy looks for reasons not to study it. In the era of decolonisation the new nations want to stress their indigenous roots and sympathetic scholars explain that European influence was not overwhelming, but that it was used and subverted by locals for local purposes. To concentrate on Europe is criticised as 'Eurocentric'. But to ignore Europe makes the history of any part of the globe unintelligible.”
― John Hirst, Sense & Nonsense in Australian History

“That underneath all this variety there must be something simple, regular, logical which explains it all. Something like geometry.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“The Greek view was that the world is simple, logical and mathematical. The Christian view was that the world is evil, and Christ alone saves. The German warriors’ view was that fighting is fun.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“Hitler não se comoveu com a devastação que sua guerra tinha causado à Alemanha. Na visão do ditador, a culpa era do povo alemão, que tinha falhado com ele e não merecia sobreviver.”
― John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

“The committed federalist leaders—Parkes, Deakin, Griffith, Barton, Inglis Clark and others—were pursuing a sacred ideal of nationhood. They can be thought of as both selfish and pure. Selfish, in that the chief force driving them was the new identity and greater stature they would enjoy—either as colonists or natives—from Australia’s nationhood. Pure, in that the benefit they sought did not depend on the particular form federation took. In a sense any federation would do. They knew of course that interests had to be conciliated and other ideals not outraged; they shared some of these themselves. But they were not mere managers or lobbyists; underneath all the negotiation and campaigning there was an emotional drive.”
― John Hirst, Sense & Nonsense in Australian History

“وبعد ذلك، مع بداية القرن الثالث بعد ميلاد المسيح، أتت الموجة الأولى من الغزوات الجرمانية، والتي أوشكت على أن تسقط الإمبراطورية. وبعد مرور فترة الغزوات، أعيدت هيكلة الإمبراطورية بخطوط جديدة من قِبل اثنين من الأباطرة: «ديوكليسيان» و«قسطنطين». ولكي يحموا الإمبراطورية زادوا من ح��م الجيش، وأعادوا تنظيمه، وضموا أعدادًا من الجرمانيين الذين استقروا داخل حدود الإمبراطورية. ولكي يقوموا بتمويل نفقات جيش أكبر، كان على الأباطرة رفع الضرائب.”
― John Hirst, ‫أوروبا: تاريخ وجيز‬

“Australians, like other peoples, tend to think they are highly distinctive, but the characteristics they value may be an extension or an exaggeration of what they brought from the mother country. In some respects they may be more like the peoples of other new lands settled by the British than they are willing to acknowledge. Australian soldiers and Australian nurses of World War I felt themselves to be very different from their English counterparts but the English were inclined to see all the colonials — New Zealanders, Canadians and Australians — as similar and different from themselves.”
― John Hirst, The Australians: Insiders and Outsiders on the National Character since 1770

“The maid-servant in Victoria has all the pertness, the independence, the mode of asserting by her manner that though she brings you up your hot water, she is just as good as you,”
― John Hirst, The Australians: Insiders and Outsiders on the National Character since 1770

“All Western liberal democracies recognise the importance of the principle of ‘fairness’, but Australia probably emphasises it more than most. Our belief in the ‘fair go’ has evolved to become part of our national culture, even though it is not entirely clear what this term means. In the mid-nineteenth century, a ‘fair go’ seems to have referred mainly to the importance of opening up opportunities so that everyone could compete. It was consistent with what today we think of as a meritocratic ideal. In the early decades of federation, however, governments increasingly pursued a national agenda intended to blur social divisions and build a strong sense of belonging and sameness, and the ‘fair go’ ideal in this period came to be identified with the political manipulation of distributional outcomes associated with an egalitarian ethic. This national interventionist strategy has, however, been in retreat for 30 years or more (although it remains relatively strong in the area of social policy), and survey evidence demonstrates that most Australians today have a much broader understanding of ‘fairness’ than mere egalitarianism. The ‘fair go’ today still recognises the ideal of equalising outcomes, but it also encompasses the competing ideals of meritocracy (reward for effort and talent) and fair exchange (the liberal principle of the right to private property provided it has been acquired in accordance with the rule of law). The egalitarian definition of fairness, which is taken for granted by the social policy intelligentsia as the only relevant definition, does not therefore do justice to what most Australians mean by a ‘fair go’ in the contemporary period. Indeed, if our social affairs intellectuals and pressure groups ever got their way, and taxes and welfare benefits were both raised even higher than they are at present in order to narrow what they call the ‘income gap’, the result would be the very opposite of what most Australians think a ‘fair go’ entails.”
― John Hirst, The Australians: Insiders and Outsiders on the National Character since 1770