-History too often dictates that atrocities are acceptable; this is a deadly premise. (Jerome Koenig)
-L’histoire est un voyage et pas une destination!
-For Marx, history repeats itself first as a tragedy, then as a farce. But Marcuse rebutted that sometimes the farce can be more frightening than the original tragedy.
A devil’s advocate account: The forgotten byways of human rights history
-History does not just ‘occur’; it is often marked by a neglectful failure to remember.(M. Tamayo)
-The one who does not remember history is bound
to live through it again.(George Santayana; as
posted in Auschwitz)
1. History should build on a thoughtful understanding of the past and the present. But, to me, the history of development explores the pointless extensions of the dominant paradigm. If we are prepared to reinterpret it, it serves us with a good lesson, namely that eradicating poverty will be impossible without addressing the inequalities and the pervasive human rights (HR) violations that are pressing at the seams of our social fabric. Time and again, history allows to explain-away the bad times the losers endure in the uneven power struggle equation. In this regard, history is rife with controversies. This is not to say that history lacks coherent arguments; the question is discerning which of the arguments made are incoherent.
2. They say that history is written by the winners. Is this a cynical perspective? How often untrue? If true, does this mean historians claim the moral high ground? If yes, what ground is that?* Be it as it may, readers of history prefer to read a history where the winners can claim virtue –even in defeat or even when history has resulted in outright exploitation and marginalization. (LeonardoPadura)
*: Historians have too often taken for granted interpretations of their own making and, then, what they write is assumed to become the common property/knowledge of the whole world. Each new insight they share with us builds on the last. History thus rises like a building –brick by brick. But the history of ideology and of oppression is not always so neat. As often recounted by historians,it fails to follow a standard logic; it rather rehashes old ideas and historic interpretations. Many pieces of the historic puzzle have actually been seen falling into place before …and have then been forgotten. The way history spreads is as important as the way it originates. Each historian has a private constellation of intellectual parents, i.e., his/her own picture of the landscape –and each picture is limited in its own way. Does this mean historians are biased by the customs of their discipline? Probably. Mind you: No committee pushes history …a handful of individuals do it, and do so by interjecting their individual perceptions and individual goals. Historical consensus involves a certain element of revisionism although no two historians understand history the same way. A rather narrow vision has helped keep history moving so that issues of human rights fall through the cracks. Why?, because historians classically refuse to endorse ‘unorthodox interpretations of history’. They simply play the role that their discipline prescribes for them. Consciously or not, historians stand watch against ‘other interpretations’ –guarding turf on behalf of their established colleagues. They narrate/interpret ‘facts’ against a lot of common (and HR) sense. They fail to see life events whole as opposed to recounting the reductionist vision mostly of those that triumphed. We get to read too much about armies and about too many generals and not enough about the fate of the soldiers that fought the battles in the name of ideals or lost causes that were the generals’ and the rulers’. Over the centuries, too few historians reacted bitterly enough or took an active adversary role towards a historical narrative that was in fact biased in favor of those that did not mind being told a succession of heroes’ tales. It is thus fair to ask: Does history try to explain or does it hardly try to interpret the mood of the times? Is it just a construct with interpretations that fit only the interests of certain groups in society? Is it a construct that is expected to please the powers-that-be? (J. Gleick)
3. Who, then, can hold mainstream history to account and ‘rival’ it?# For one, HR do push forward the wheels of history. Consider this: Although inequity and inequality constantly change in history, more than any other moral language available to us at this time in history, it is the language of HR that exposes the immorality and barbarism of the past and modern faces of power.* (U. Baxi)
*: One must neither expect or hope that kings be philosophers nor that philosophers be kings, because positions of power inevitably impair the free judgment of reason. (Emmanuel Kant)
Is a history-of-forever-condoned-injustices-and-HR-violations a thorn in the credibility of history?
-The future shall not be dominated by those that are trapped by the past. (Willy Brandt)
-Mainstream history traces us back to specific events, particularly societal upheavals. But this type of analysis, in isolation of what happens to the ‘invisible majorities’, prevents us from relating these groups to the bigger picture of an oppression we actually find across the world, across history. (R. Mitchell)
4. Situations of inequity, inequality and human rights violations keep occurring again and again, and history is happy to ignore these recurrences. When mainstream history registers them,it often disguises them and lies about the different circumstances in which they play themselves out and about the persons or groups most affected. (A. Minc)
5. Let us be clear, the ideas of the dominant class are the dominant ideas of each historical period. (F. Engels)Not surprisingly, historical accuracyfalls victim at the hands of our rulers. There has never been a time when this has not been the case. How much should we thus trust the study of history toprovideus guidance for our present day?**
**: As for reflections on history, my favorite remains whatI think Goethe said: “The only thing history teaches us is that nobody ever learns anything from history.” (Susan George)
6. Mainstream history (the one you and I studied at school) is not the mother of truth; it is not really an investigation of reality, of what really took place, although the latter is at its origin; it is not necessarily what took place, but what we are led to believe took place; history is a depository of deeds as witnessed in the past purporting to be lessons to the present and warnings to the future. (Don Quijote)
7. History has colored not just how the events chronicled unfolded, but also by how those who write it wish those events to be seen. Can history thus be said to be a subversive subject? It surely undermines our claim to reason. Sometimes history overtakes us. Historical events are assigned beginnings, middle and ends to identify the sequence of actions that have served the needs of the rulers of the time. In doing so, history ignores its damaging influence and judges the achievements of rulers and nations rather than our performance as homo sapiens inhabiting planet Earth. (M.Golia)
8. Peter Hoeg, the Danish novelist once wrote: What is history but a fable agreed upon? But the HR view of history is one of political tragedy. Against Hoeg’saphorism, for us, history is not a fable since it is the roles people play rather than the individuals themselves that account for history. Every wicked deed denigrates all of us as much as all good deeds redeem us. We are the historical consequence of others; as such,history is still a project under construction. We all know that parts of the world have ended up in a state of desperate and wholesale destitution and this contradicts the many representations of it in mainstream history (just think about colonialism or slavery). Any change in that reality is possible only through a rigorous critical eye that can bring the guilty to justice restoring truth and restitution –an every day challenge for HR workers.(Jose Ortega)
9. Such a change in reality brings to mindthe debates that took place at the very birth of social medicine. Everywhere in Europe scientists were discovering what we now call ‘health disparities’.*** The first reaction –in most places– was to identify this as a problem of the poor and various plans have been drawn-up to address the deficiencies that are created by conditions-affecting-the-poor, i.e., mostly internal/individual-blaming problems that refer to immediate, behavioral causes (risky sexual behavior, smoking, too much booze…) rather than addressing external/public problems that refer to structural causes (the role of industry, no or not adequate health care for poor people…). Very quickly though, it is clear that such plans are, by and large, unsuccessful; indeed, the British National Health System is piece-of-evidence-number-1 illustrating that, even in a socialist, universal, high quality health care system designed to eliminate class disparities in health, these disparities persist. (Mathew Anderson)
***: Keep in mind: In Africa, death takes the young; in high income countries it takes the old. (AlisonKatz)
Mainstream history: A chronicle of a race to the bottom in slow motion?
Mainstream history tends to show that things happen for the ultimate good. The question is the good of whom. So, let us stop and think. How much do we need to demystify this? …and act to change historical ‘facts’?
10. There is much intelligence to mine in history, true. History obviously carries some truth! However, the question remains: Does history disguise and pervert reality? Put another way, is all that is confirmed or denied scrupulously inexact? Are we supposed to be uncritical when history does use value-laden words and ambiguity–surely opening it up to interpretation?
11. As a result of interpreting, some say, one gets a flavor of intellectual and historical tourism. Or is it rather that this Reader exaggerates the bit of healthy skepticism reading history should provoke? Or do we here have a veiled attempt to unfairly castigate mainstream history?
12. The point is that people who live in poverty (or people who are or happen to be poor due to historical circumstances) are indeed renderedvulnerable by these circumstances. This should immediately lead to the question: Why do some people live/are kept in poverty? History is practically silent about this; it skips or does not bother to unscramble this Gordian knot –thereby virtually accepting a ‘c’est-la-vie’ attitude. HR cannot and does not condone this.
13. Never forget that the philosophy of science tells us: “You find what you look for”; or, as we well know, “the answer lies in the question”.
14. I do see how the world around us has, for centuries, endured a situation under-the-weight-of-history-unilaterally-told. But I happen to be a historical optimist. I mean optimism towards the future. It is still to be judged whether evil and cowardice are sufficiently powerful to seal the lips of free women and men willing to tell an honest story. (L. Padura)
15. Bottom line:
– I see no other way than to loathe those historians that condoned the abuses that manifested themselves in a rather permanent organized repression and that celebrated immoral heroes, that murdered indigenous people and decorated those that conquered country after country. They actually destroyed our sense of fairness and justice by granting impunity to such villains. (JoseVenturelli)
– Following J.P. Sartre,have mainstream historians aggrandized false heroes, because they were cowards, created saints, or because they were wicked?
– Would we be oversimplifying if we said mainstream universal history ignored thewretched conflict between the haves and the have-nots –between the violators of HR and the violated?
– Is it acceptable that facts depicted by history accommodate to circumstances?
– Golden eras simply do not last forever.
#: The word ‘mainstream’ is my addition.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org