Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When History Is Closed for Debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When History Is Closed for Debate

    The Jewish Daily Forward
    Dec 30 2011

    When History Is Closed for Debate

    French Avoid Guilt by Banning Armenian Genocide Denial

    By Robert Zaretsky
    Published December 30, 2011, issue of January 06, 2012


    The spirit of the holiday season has just swept across the French
    National Assembly. On December 22, the nation's representatives - or,
    more accurately, the handful in attendance - passed a bill that would
    criminalize the denial of the Turkish massacre of the Armenians in
    1915.

    It was as much a gift to the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who
    will surely use it to bolster the great swell of Turkish nationalism
    he has been riding, as it was to the French-Armenian community, whose
    votes Nicolas Sarkozy's government has been desperately courting.
    Though the bill must pass several more hurdles before it becomes law,
    there has already been less damage to Franco-Turkish relations - they
    hardly could have gotten worse - than to our relation with history.

    Historical revisionism has a long history in France; it also has a
    different name: negationism. Historian Henry Rousso coined the term
    nearly two decades ago in his book `The Vichy Syndrome,' while Alain
    Finkielkraut had anticipated it with his essay `The Future of a
    Negation.' It was, as well, the preferred term for ancient historian
    Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who, in his 1993 book, `Assassins of Memory,'
    made a simple but critical distinction. Revisionism is what historians
    do every day - namely, examine and reconstruct the past in light of
    new discoveries or insights. Negationists, on the other hand, simply
    deny the existence of certain past events.


    Instead of revising the past, they bury it. Since, as Vidal-Naquet
    observed, dialogue requires a common ground based on truth, historians
    share as much with negationists as firefighters do with arsonists.

    Negationism came of age in postwar France as the nation wrestled with
    the legacy of Vichy and the Final Solution. With every empirical
    advance made by a generation of historians like Robert Paxton and
    Michael Marrus that deepened our understanding of France under Vichy,
    there appeared the works of `revisionists' like Robert Faurisson or
    Maurice Bardèche, who, rather than reinterpreting the past, reinvented
    it. Perhaps not coincidentally, both men taught French literature, not
    history, thus freeing them from the usual constraints of material
    evidence and historical methodology.

    Perhaps inevitably, the struggle over the past in France spilled
    beyond the academy into the courts. The succession of trials, ranging
    from Paul Touvier and René Bousquet to Maurice Papon, all of whom were
    accused of committing crimes against humanity during the Occupation,
    led to the passage in 2006 of the Gayssot Law, which criminalized the
    denial of the Holocaust. It also turned professional historians into
    professional trial witnesses. At Papon's trial, in 1997, several
    eminent historians, including Paxton, were called to give historical
    evidence during the hearings. By the end of the trial, the line
    between the `judgment of history' and the actual judgment by a jury
    had blurred irreparably, discomfiting both the legal and historical
    professions.

    One of the few historians who refused to testify was Rousso, who
    worries over our age's growing fascination with a `juridical reading
    of history.' Such a reading, Rousso claims - and which explains his
    refusal to testify at the Papon trial - necessarily undermines the
    integrity of history. As he argues in his book `The Haunting Past,'
    the historian's presence on the witness stand forces him to speak
    ultimately to one thing and one thing only: the culpability of the
    defendant. When it comes to reflecting on the complexity of the past,
    however, the courts are as intolerant as are the negationists they are
    bringing to trial.

    The irony is clear: The effort to protect the past from negationists
    who seek to destroy it has instead placed it in the embrace of
    politicians who, in codifying it, wish to remove it from the realm of
    public debate. It is for this reason that several prominent
    historians, led by Pierre Nora, have criticized the new law. By
    `freezing' this historical event - in other words, removing it from
    the realm of professional and public discourse - the law prevents
    historians from doing their job. `History is above all else a source
    for debate and for the sake of democracy must remain so,' wrote the
    historian Christian Delporte in a blog post for Le Monde.

    There is no doubt that if Vidal-Naquet were still alive (he died in
    2006) - this new law would have outraged him. Born into a Sephardic
    Jewish family, as was Nora, Vidal-Naquet signed a petition shortly
    before his death that demanded the abrogation of the Gayssot Law.
    Seventeen of France's most prominent historians joined him, including
    Nora. While France's government is busy playing with history for
    political ends, we should recall the concluding words of the petition:
    `In a free society, it belongs neither to parliament nor the courts to
    define historical truth.'

    Robert Zaretsky is a professor of history in the Honors College at the
    University of Houston. His most recent book is `Albert Camus: Elements
    of a Life' (Cornell University Press, 2010).


    http://www.forward.com/articles/148751/

Working...
X