Suchergebnisse

Title page-Respensible History; Contents; List of Tables; Foreword; Acknowledgements; Introduction; Part I-Irresponsible History; Chapter 1-A Theory of the Abuse of History; Chapter 2-The Dictator's Secret Archives; Chapter 3-Defamation Cases against Historians; Part II-Responsible History; Chapter 4-Duties of the Living to the Dead; Chapter 5-The Rights to Memory and History; Chapter 6-A Code of Ethics for Historians; Epilogue; Notes; Bibliography; Index

Since time immemorial, dictators have censored the writing of history and persecuted its practitioners. This policy of history censorship has had many effects, some of which were unintended, such as the development of strategies to counter the distortion of history. This essay therefore opens with a summary overview of the intended and unintended effects of the censorship of the science of history. Against this backdrop, the essay then focuses on one unintended effect of this censorship: resistance to the distortion of history. A tableau is given of the repertoires of available types of resistance under dictatorships and, for comparative purposes, in democracies. The essay uses these repertoires to analyze the resistance of the historians under dictatorships from four perspectives: actors (historians and others); conduct (acts and omissions), motives (ethical, moral, professional, and political), and impact (short-term and long-term). The essay is intended as a tribute, both to historians who once resisted tyrannical power and to historians who retell their stories as an inspiration for present and future battles.

AbstractThis essay explores how the drafters of international humanitarian law (IHL) incorporated the past into their work between 1860 and 2020, and how they approached time, memory and history as indicators for this view of the past. Its sources consist of the complete series of general conventional and customary IHL instruments as well as the leading commentaries on them. For the IHL view of time, the impact of legal principles on the perception of time is scrutinized. Balancing nonretroactivity against customary international law and the humanity principle broadens the temporal scope towards the past, while balancing legal forgetting against imprescriptibility and State succession broadens it towards the future. For the IHL view of memory, dead persons and cultural heritage are seen as crucial vectors. Attention to the fate of the dead has been a constant hallmark of IHL, while care for cultural heritage has an even longer pedigree. For the IHL view of history, the essay highlights that the International Committee of the Red Cross has consistently advocated State duties to the war dead and has organized an archival infrastructure to satisfy the need – later converted into a right – of families and society to search for the historical truth about them.Furthermore, the responses of IHL drafters to five major historical challenges are examined. First, while in the realm of war crimes impunity prevailed for most of history, after World War II a system of war crimes trials was mounted, culminating in the International Criminal Court. Second, soul-searching about the atrocities of World War II, including the Holocaust, helped create Geneva Convention IV of 1949, which protects civilians in wartime. Third, the human rights idea was not fully embraced by IHL treaty drafters until 1968. Fourth, the IHL approach to civil wars was slow and incomplete, but its appearance in 1949 and coming of age in 1977 were breakthroughs nevertheless. Fifth, colonial conflicts were not recognized as international wars in 1949, when this could have had considerable impact, but only in 1977, when decolonization was largely over. In all cases, the responses to these historical challenges came after long delays. Clearly, the IHL view of the past has to be assessed on a transgenerational scale.

This essay examines the Ibero-American history producers who were killed for political reasons during the past century. It presents sixty-one victims from eight countries. Of these, 82% were killed by state forces, 16% by non-state forces. Dictatorships had the worst scores (57% of the victims), while flawed democracies also saw considerable casualties (33%), in contrast to emergent (7%) and stable democracies (3%). Much evidence was found for the thesis that killing these history producers did not necessarily mean the erasure of their names or achievements. Out of the sixty-one victims, nine (15%) were killed for political reasons that were mainly or partly related to their historical works. Six of these, however, occurred under democracies, particularly flawed or emergent democracies, and not under dictatorships. This finding leads to the hypothesis that well-entrenched dictatorships, wielding ruthless power, deter and block incriminating historical research – making the killing of history producers for history-related reasons relatively rare – whereas freer conditions in flawed and emergent democracies prompt or encourage such dangerous historical research. Those investigating past systemic violence or the crimes of previous dictatorships then risk becoming targets of the military seeking to install or restore authoritarian rule.

En este ensayo, intentamos clarificar las relaciones entre democracia y escritura de la historia. Nuestra estrategia consiste en explorar las relaciones generales entre democracia y conciencia histórica, y en estudiar las relaciones entre democracia e historiografía, intentando averiguar si la democracia es una condición para la ciencia en general, y para la escritura de la historia en particular. También investigamos la relación inversa examinando cuatro afirmaciones: la tesis cero, la tesis reflejo, la tesis amplificador y la tesis factor-clave. El objetivo es descubrir en qué condiciones la escritura de la historia puede ayudar a fomentar la cultura democrática. Sostenemos que una sociedad democrática es condición necesaria, aunque no suficiente, para una historiografía responsable que tenga un carácter sostenido. E inversamente: que una escritura de la historia responsable es reflejo de la democracia hasta cierto punto, porque las partes de su método son una demostración práctica de los valores esenciales de dicha democracia, aunque aquella implica menos compromiso y mayor control en la calidad de los pasos que da. Los relatos verosímiles de las historia de la democracia y de las injusticias históricas igualmente refuerzan la democracia en cierto modo. La verdad histórica provisional no siempre es aceptada en cambio por el público. Si lo es, puede abrir viejas heridas, y si no, puede minar la democracia al mostrar sus fracasos. Sostenemos también que raramente la escritura de la historia moldea directamente a la democracia. Concluimos sin embargo que, como precondición para una sólida conciencia histórica democrática y una cultura democrática, se necesita, pese a sus limitaciones, una escritura de la historia responsable, dado que ambas siguen el mismo camino.Palabras claveDemocracia, dictadura, conciencia histórica, nuevas democracias, democracias restauradas, escritura de la historia responsable, ciencia. AbstractIn this essay, we try to clarify the relationship between democracy and historical writing. The strategy is first exploring the general relationship between democracy and historical awareness, and then, studying the relationship between democracy and historical writing itself to find out whether democracy is a condition for science in general and for responsible historical writing in particular. We also investigate the reverse relationship by testing four claims: the zero thesis, the mirror thesis, the amplifier thesis, and the midwife thesis. The aim is to discover under which conditions historical writing can help foment a democratic culture. We argue that a democratic society is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for sustained responsible historical writing. Conversely, responsible historical writing reflects democracy to a certain degree, because parts of its procedure are a practical demonstration of values central to democracy. It invests, however, less compromise and more quality control in its operation than the democratic process does. Plausible accounts of the histories of democracy and of historical injustice also strengthen democracy to a limited extent. The provisional historical truth sought after and presented, however, is not always accepted by the public. If it is, it may open old wounds; if it does not, by showing failures, it may undermine the promotion of democracy. Finally, rarely does historical writing shape democracy directly. We conclude, nevertheless, that as a precondition for a strong democratic historical awareness, hence for a democratic culture, the contribution of responsible historical writing, though limited, is necessary for the survival of democracy. They walk the same path to the end.Key WordsDemocracy, dictatorship, historical awareness, new democracies, restored democracies, responsible historical writing, science.