To compare or not to compare?

There is something I have noticed over the last few months: the tendency of people to compare the situation in Iraq with other situations. For some it is a repeat of Vietnam, for others the insurgents are comparable to the American Revolutionists, for others yet Bush’s Global War on Terror is like Reagan’s war against the “evil empire” of the USSR. Everyone can find parallels to support their comparisons. And just as quickly, critics can point out why this isn’t the case. But it made me wonder, why are people trying to compare this conflict with past conflicts?

I think it can be explained by the fact that humans function through prejudgment. It is the basis of our decision making process and how we see situations. As children, this ability isn’t highly developed, so we are less prejudiced, and less likely to be surprised should something out of the ordinary happen. For example, if a five year old is in the park with his father and sees a flying donkey, he will probably squeal with delight and point it out to his father. The father on the other hand, will be shocked, and won’t be able to accept that a donkey can fly. He may actually be scared, in addition to being bewildered, because it just doesn’t fall into his knowledge of possible things. He will try to find a reason for the flying donkey: i.e. it must be attached to a wire and is being carried by a helicopter or something.

This explains the phenomenon in more detail, [using the example of prejudice in social relations]:


[… human beings categorize. Since there are millions of observations a person will never make first hand, the tendency is to generalize based on the most memorable cases. This allows for misconceptions, the organization of information into the wrong categories, because when we encounter a new situation, we naturally try to fit it into an existing category.[…]

The function of categorization is essential to human mentality; without it we would drown in chaos. The prejudgments we make are not necessarily wrong. They only become prejudicial when they are not altered or abandoned after exposure to new knowledge. People have a tendency to select certain experiences from memory, exaggerate them and interpret them into a prejudiced opinion. Since these opinions simplify life, they are not eager to let go of them. This makes prejudice difficult to gauge, because a person will defend his attitude by providing a deceptive, yet plausible, excuse for it. No one readily admits his dislike or hatred for others without trying to justify it. [...]

When new situations crop up in life, we like to compare them to past situations to see how we can best deal with them. It also makes us feel less helpless, it is kind of the equivalent of reading the last pages of a novel, before reading the whole book. While this is a necessary tool, it can also handicap us in our ability to have an open-mind about situations. When we compare the situation in Iraq to previous situations, we are like the teachers who expect the younger sibling to perform scholastically like the older sibling. This can essentially condemn it to live in the shadow of its predecessor, and to eventually live up to that expectation.

There are comparisons that can be made, which are correct in certain contexts. However, it is unfair to the actors in these events. It denies them their own volition and individuality. There are definitely lessons to be learned from history, but we also shouldn’t condemn ourselves to living in the past.