11 / 32
Accent aigu
S. 11
To forget history you first have to have known history; and such
knowledge depends on having access to objective interpretation of
historical facts by well-informed mediators - journalists, writers,
teachers, historians. The experts, in turn, need truthful and objecti-
ve accounts of events; the quality of their work will then depend on
their ability to assess, without ideological or other bias, the politi-
cal, socio-economic and cultural background of those events, the
rivalries and alliances, the hidden agendas and power games; to
perceive cause and effect, evolutions and trends, the overarching
narrative. Such deeper understanding requires the long view that
comes with the passing of time: one thinks of the much-quoted
(and possibly misunderstood) remark of Chinese Premier, Zhou
Enlai in 1972. Asked to comment on the effects of the French Re-
volution, he replied that it was „too early to tell“.
Understanding history relies on the accuracy of the primary sour-
ces. Have events ever been reported with total truth and objectivi-
ty? Ever since humans began writing down their story, they have
recorded events from a local or regional perspective, co-opting
them for the causes of cultural identity or political interest. Hero-
dotus, the „Father of History“ narrated the early fifth-century Per-
sianWars from the Greek point of view, and this is the story we stu-
dy in Europe; we do not know how true his version was and have
little idea how the wars felt for the Persians. Many periods of an-
cient or distant history pass beyond the reach of knowledge – un-
less chance throws a sudden spotlight on them, as when the skele-
ton of King Richard III of England was recently discovered buried
underneath a car park in Leicester. (He suffered from scoliosis but
was not the „crookback Dick“ of popular imagination).
Truth about history can also fall victim to the subjectivity or poor
memory of contemporary witnesses. Or be deliberately manipula-
ted by media controlled by power with a political agenda.
George Orwell fought for the Republic in the Spanish Civil War
and was an objective observer - as his writings on other subjects
make clear. Orwell had few illusions as to the accuracy of most
journalism, but he was marked for life by the extent to which
Franco’s Fascists and their Nazi allies did not merely distort events
for tactical reasons but invented a totally fictional narrative. In
„Looking Back on the Spanish War“ (1942), he wrote: „In Spain,
for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any
relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in
an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been
no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been
killed. (…) I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what
happened but of what ought to have happened according to vario-
us ’party lines‘“. He concludes: „I am willing to believe that history
is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to
our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history
could
be
truthfully written.“ He takes this insight to its logical conclusion in
„Nineteen Eighty-Four“ (1949), where the totalitarian government
rewrites history on a daily basis and strips language to the bone,
making it incapable of expressing doubt, let alone protest. History
(re)written by the victors.
Orwell was writing in an age of totalitarianism but things have
not changed fundamentally. The „victors“ still write history. We
live in an age of extreme news management, spin-doctored images
and manipulated perception of world events (it would be interes-
ting to compare how the war in Syria is reported in different coun-
tries). Today’s dictators may not rant and strut the global stage as
did the Francos and Hitlers of the mid-twentieth century but they
direct from the wings - and are just as implacable about what
events get written about and how. Commentators who try to report
truths that don’t suit them live dangerously.
Despite all this, we ordinary citizens, though we should remain
alert and critical, need not totally despair. Important documents
are becoming available and young open-minded historians emer-
ging to research them. There is a salutary reassessment of much re-
cent history: European nations that have preferred a simple, more
„heroic“ narrative of their role in World War Two, for instance,
seem less unwilling to accept the complex human truth.
Specialized tribunals and official enquiries have been set up to
investigate war crimes; unofficial whistleblowers leak revelatory
documents that multinational interest would have preferred to
keep secret: we are coming closer to knowing some truth about so-
me chapters at least of our history. Also positive is the revival of pu-
blic interest in history, largely fed by the novels, films and TV series
of popular culture. Although these offer an openly fictionalised
version of history, they may incite some to study the subject and be-
come the historians of the future.
The future…You don’t have to be a historian to spot the parallels
between Europe of the 1930s and today: inequality, disaffection,
unemployment; the (ir)resistible rise of far right and populist
groups, fanning fears and preaching hatred and division. But there
are also important differences: technology, communications, glo-
balisation…and, despite its shameful failings, our battered EU.
Some people think we’re heading for another European war. But
do the multinationals and moneymen wielding power today really
want, or need, a war in Europe?
In the air
Known unknowns
Ariel Wagner-Parker
Forgetting history condemns us to reliving history, so goes
the saying - and there is undoubtedly some truth in it. But
the question is complex.
Heroditus, the Father of History