History is Bunk (2)

The foray into Google produced a number of articles with ‘History is bunk ‘ as their theme, all of them warning about relying on tradition and historical inaccuracies particularly in the matter of old grievances and resentment that has festered for years, maybe centuries.

One case where resentment is high is Armenia formerly one of the USSR republics and a fraction of the size it was a century ago, having lost much of its territory to its western neighbour Turkey, also held responsible for the great Armenian genocide that took place during the First World War. It doesn’t get on at all well with its eastern neighbour Azerbaijan either, the two having warred on and off over territory for quite some time. I know all about it from a former colleague who is Armenian.

Another case where centuries-long pent-up resentment finally burst is Serbia following the break-up of Yugoslavia, a good case or should that be a bad case of how past grievances are used as the causa belli. The Serbs who are of the Orthodox faith have for historical reasons not much time for either Muslims or Croats (Catholics) given the brutal regime of the Ottomans to whom they lost out in the battle of Kosovo (1387) and then in the Second World War to those Croats who collaborated with the Nazis. No surprise then when the break-up began the Serbs decided to get in first and settle some old scores and the rest as they say is history. As one commentator summed it up as ‘ So let’s treat history as it is - the past. It’s gone forever unless you reject the linearity of time. Let the dead bury their dead. Even tragic history should be a matter of quiet meditation but never used for a vendetta’.

The Serbian vendetta also features in another article on the same theme, which looks at falsification of history and the rewriting thereof following the current trend for political correctness. ‘History as bunk is bad enough but history as lies is dangerous. History is not bunk but it should also not be inaccurate, misleading and over-selective in viewpoint and presentation’.

The dangers are obvious: left unchallenged long enough and people will begin to believe what they read or see on the screen and in time become fodder for those who wish to foment trouble, have axes to grind or ‘grievances’ to exploit for their own ends. Historians, therefore, have a duty to behave responsibly bearing in mind the comment of American historian Henry Adams ‘ The historian must not try to know what the truth is if he values his honesty; for if he cares for his truths he is certain to falsify the facts.’ Tell me about it!

I don’t know which historian irks me more, the biased or the prejudiced. Suffice it to say I care for neither. I don’t care either for those who get so caught up in their grievance that it turns into a vendetta. There’s enough of that flitting across our screens as it is.

So here’s my quote for what it’s worth ‘A good historian should be like a good detective able to assemble the facts without taking sides or becoming emotionally involved.’