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 ...
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