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

theoretical and practical impossibility to separate truth, freedom
and pluralism.”
These quotations speak for themselves. Let me end this section
with Norman Davies’ remark that politicians should, despite all the
possible pitfalls, do what they can to facilitate the role of historians
in political debates. Everything has history.
About memory
What to remember and how to remember is, in many countries,
a very topical and urgent question that keeps both historians and
politicians occupied. It does not only concern schoolbooks and history
teaching, but also the use of public space to represent history
whether in the form of monuments, museums or otherwise. Often
decisions of this kind lead to fierce political debates and they are
certainly not limited to esthetical values. There were protests in
Estonia by the Russian inhabitants when the authorities wanted to
move a Soviet war monument to a less conspicuous place and
there was widespread controversy in Germany about the Holocaust
Memorial in Berlin.
Memorials and the like help people remember but how are decisions
about relevance and appropriateness made? It is easy to
agree that monuments and buildings of historical significance
should be protected. More complicated are questions concerning
monuments built to commemorate specific people or events. Many
manifestations of memory represent a subjective representation or
reconstruction of the past. They highlight famous people and
victories in wars while the lives of ordinary people and defeats are
neglected. They of course give an interesting picture of how societies
saw and see themselves but are usually not a balanced
reproduction. Historians and politicians should try to re-establish
the balance where it is lacking: not necessarily by removing what is
already there but by adding elements that make the picture on the
streets and in the museums more complete.
The same dilemmas confront those responsible for what is taught
in schools and universities, as the contributions of Hannes
Swoboda and Viktor Makarov show. The latter makes an interesting
distinction between enforced collective remembrance, collective
18