27.07.2013 Views

Politics of the past: the use and abuse of history - Socialists ...

Politics of the past: the use and abuse of history - Socialists ...

Politics of the past: the use and abuse of history - Socialists ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Politics</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Past: The Use<br />

<strong>and</strong> Ab<strong>use</strong> <strong>of</strong> History<br />

When politicians appeal to historical facts to justify political claims,<br />

we should ask ourselves what <strong>history</strong> actually is. What do we know<br />

for fact <strong>and</strong> what can be interpreted? The British historian E.H. Carr,<br />

whose book What is History? (published in 1961), dominated this<br />

debate for many years, wrote that historical truth lies somewhere<br />

between valueless facts <strong>and</strong> value judgements. The objective facts<br />

are <strong>the</strong>re but <strong>the</strong>ir selection <strong>and</strong> interpretation are subjective.<br />

Norman Davies talks in his interview, drawing on Carr’s work, about<br />

<strong>the</strong> need to separate evidence from judgement. Carr believed in<br />

historical causality but o<strong>the</strong>r historians deny that this helps us to<br />

explain <strong>the</strong> present <strong>and</strong> predict <strong>the</strong> future.<br />

Carr developed a master narrative that shows <strong>the</strong> progress <strong>of</strong><br />

mankind. Many later historians decided instead to concentrate on<br />

local histories believing that one can only know a lot about little.<br />

Some claim that <strong>history</strong> is only about ‘battles <strong>and</strong> kings’, o<strong>the</strong>rs<br />

prefer a sociological approach <strong>and</strong> <strong>use</strong> different concepts <strong>of</strong> time.<br />

The definition <strong>of</strong> <strong>history</strong> is thus a subject under constant debate<br />

without definitive answers.<br />

Most pr<strong>of</strong>essional historians agree that objective interpretations <strong>of</strong><br />

historical facts are not possible. Facts as such mean nothing.<br />

Historians select <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> create <strong>the</strong> framework within which <strong>the</strong>y<br />

get meaning. They look at <strong>the</strong> <strong>past</strong> from <strong>the</strong>ir own perspective, different<br />

from that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir predecessors <strong>and</strong> successors. Historians<br />

are not neutral <strong>and</strong> are influenced by <strong>the</strong>ir contemporary societies.<br />

What applies to historians also applies to politicians. Never<strong>the</strong>less,<br />

historians <strong>use</strong> scientific tools to study <strong>the</strong> <strong>past</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y try to be as<br />

impartial as possible. History is nei<strong>the</strong>r a purely subjective undertaking<br />

where every narrative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>past</strong> is equally good; nor, however,<br />

is objectivity to be found in uncritically accepting embellished<br />

images <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>past</strong>. Politicians are warned <strong>of</strong>ten enough by<br />

historians to be very careful claiming objectivity but this opens<br />

15<br />

Jan Marinus Wiersma (MEP), studied History at <strong>the</strong> University<br />

<strong>of</strong> Groningen.<br />

Jan Marinus Wiersma

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!