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

There are many examples of historians mixing political preferences
with historical judgements. Martin Sabrow illustrates this in his article
on the German experience. Sometimes historians play judge
in self-constructed courts of history and many have warned against
this. Hobsbawm, for instance, remarked: “I used to think that the
profession of history, unlike that of, say, nuclear physics, could at
least do no harm. Now I know it can”. Hobsbawm, however, does
not reject the idea of partisanship. He acknowledges that historians
have political views and religious beliefs that influence their
research and writing. Hobsbawm, a communist, believes that historians
can and should contribute to a cause if they do so using
proper historical methods. For him, contributing to positive change
is the responsibility of scientists.
Polish historian Andrzej Friszke points to the dual use of history:
“By its very nature, history, and especially recent history, is a very
particular branch of learning. It exists in an uneasy relationship with
the memories of those involved in the events concerned. It can play
an important role in either legitimising or challenging a contemporary
state, its regime and ruling class”
Martin Sabrow warns that if the cooperation between politicians
and historians is too close, it might be harmful: “I do not wish to
recommend a diminution of political interest in the past. However,
the relationship between history and politics can develop into a fatal
friendship offering the reward of public attention and moral esteem
whilst destroying the radical independence of historical research
and its disposition to rethink history.”
Dutch Historian Wim van Meurs comments: “Debates on the use
and abuse of history in politics and the separation of objectionable
partisan views from historical interpretations that are expected to
promote values of democracy, individual freedom and national identification
are inherently political.” He points out that the art of politics
is compromise while the essence of academia is contrasting
diverging positions.
Pierre Hassner analyses the manipulation of history in several countries
and asks himself: “This imposition from above can only be challenged
by the reaffirmation, individual and collective, of
Solzhenitsyn’s and Havel’s commitment to live in truth, and the
17 Jan Marinus Wiersma