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

History and national identity
Historians and politicians are permanently engaged in historical
reconstruction: trying to define or redefine national identity. A risky
business as we shall see. We witnessed that process in Germany
after World War II, in Spain after the end of the Franco regime and
now in Central and Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism.
Such processes are necessary, but the question is how they
can take place in a balanced way, combining positive and negative
aspects of past experience. In the cases mentioned there have
been different degrees of internal controversy, unequal readiness to
deal with ‘blind spots’ and different political aims when discussing
these issues. Many historians have warned of the dangers involved
in attempting to define national identities.
In his contribution, Wim van Meurs states that: “It is not only the
views of historians that change over time; the understanding of their
own role in national politics and society changes too. National history
– or, for that matter, European history – is inherently selective
and one-sided.” As Ernest Renan noted, history is not so much
about collective memory, but first of all about forgetting. He defined
the nation as: “… a group of people united by a common hatred of
their neighbours and a shared misunderstanding of their past.”
The following question is also very relevant to the current debate.
Can one make a distinction between left and right-wing interpretations
of history? Take for example the recent Historikerstreit in
Germany and the debates between the Partido Popular and the
PSOE about the Spanish civil war and the Franco period. Is it possible
to make a distinction between a culture of national pride, a
culture of blame, and a culture of cleansing? To be proud of past
national achievements as such does not have to be negative; it can
be a source of confidence. A lot depends on the manner in which
past achievements are commemorated, for example, by including
others or not. One should avoid a bias in favour of the victors and
must not forget the many victims of historical events. The mere fact
that a country is democratic now, cannot be used as an excuse to
ignore a darker past. When analysing these processes in the new
member states, one should acknowledge the difficulties encountered
there with the process of simultaneously reducing the
importance of the nation state as part of European Union membership
and reconfirming its post-communist national independence.
20