In comments to post to Europe and the Holocaust started on a promising discussion. The argument 'the storia. Qui cerco di spiegare come la penso - o meglio, le domande che mi faccio io, che di professione ho fatto lo storico fino a qualche anno fa.
Poniamo che uno storico, tra qualche secolo, decida di studiare la sicurezza stradale nelle citta' italiane, nel decennio tra 1990 e 2000. Inizierebbe leggendo il Codice della Strada, e scoprirebbe che nel 1992 la cintura di sicurezza e' stata resa obbligatoria. Poi guarderebbe le multe spiccate per contravvenzione dell'obbligo, che furono poche, e ne dedurrebbe che l'obbligo e' stato universalmente osservato. Difatti in tutte le vetture in commercio, e poi in circolazione, sono state installate le apposite cinture. Certo, i quotidiani hanno registrato qualche borbottio and Naples and 'turn the curious legend of the T-shirt on which was depicted the seat belt fastened. But in general, and the law 'was massively observed.
And here's the article ready for publication: looks good that the author, who has put together legal sources (history of institutions), police sources (Social History), used quantitative methods on the data found ACI archives and Confindustria, the icing on the cake-and-something even the French press [yes, there are still a few century-style French historians] on rumors, urban legends and orality '.
All right. Except that I, and you, if you are Italian, you began to use a seat belt a few years after 1992. I, personally, and so 'my friends, we started more' or less around the millennium New Year's Eve. So what good historian of the above will take 'a resounding crab. Has' done, as they say, be conditioned by the sources. that are always partial.
There 's a legend about Cantimori Delio, a great historian. It seems he used to tell one of his most 'brilliant students, Berengo Marino, who became one of the most' great historians of the twentieth century: "you will understand 'to be dead only when light' on his death certificate" . Or to put it briefly: you who read, you read your death certificate?
Of course not, 'cause you're alive.
What I mean about the non-existence or otherwise of this or that order of Hitler wrote, and 'that the document, the source, and' a tool, not an idol . And the good historians are those who can not themselves to be exploited. To interpret the documents and provide a plausible interpretation, bearing in mind that any reconstruction and 'always partial.
That 's a statement very, very unpopular. Following the opening of Soviet archives (and not necessarily because 'Communism and' finished), I saw emergence in Italy is a theory that the documents speak for themselves. The interpretation, the context is not necessary. Just write down the source, and here alone the explanation of events. This conviction is, and 'established parallel to the sensationalism of the press - do you remember the diaries of Mussolini? that stopped his attention particularly on contemporary history. From left to show that fascism was not defeated, and was even wearing the clothes of Berlusconi and Gladio and P2 and sbroc sbroc. And from the right, to show that for half a century, Italy had actually lived under the threat of Soviet invasion, with the horses of the Cossacks that they watered in St. Peter's Square. And sbroc sbroc.
Why 'many Historians have provided to the game, took longer to publish 'research articles in the newspapers that series? For many reasons, including this one: the historical profession, as most 'in general, all the professions university, was under fierce attack in the form of university reform . In short one should live, and even if 'professor.
And so ', while Tangentopoli was rewriting the history of the country in courtrooms, and it' made its way to the bizarre idea that the facts speak for themselves and the documents merely reflect the facts. And historians have found themselves wearing the clothes of the court. That is invested in 'the power to pronounce sentences or acquittal on the basis of reconstruction of relationships and complicity '. Woytyla few years later he explained to the world that the Church was composed of men and that men are wrong. A massive rewriting of history, that too. Aimed at theatrical ceremonies in which Catholics absolved if 'themselves in the name of good faith.
I know, I know, "The judge and the historian 'and' the title of a book on the process Calabresi. But I'm talking about anything else. And I ask the readers, where do you think is the difference between the judge and historian? Leafing in the archives of the Inquisition trials, just as a Peter kept his indictments and have never managed to find a complete and satisfactory to this question. But an interim response, right now, and 'this: the judges pronounce sentences, or perform, since there are rules and laws. In the work of the historian are not there.
Now, take a look at this article here . Sensational revelation. The Nazi Reich finance itself conspicuous, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini, founder of Palestinian nationalism. Volume built that beautiful 50,000 marks per month (the pay of a senior officer was 25,000 marks a year ). German Nazis and nationalist Palestinian-say-shared some ideas about how to improve the world. Beh, non proprio una rivelazione sensazionale, che i due movimenti avessero qualcosa in comune era diciamo noto da tempo: il contesto, come dire, ci e' noto, e solo qualche allucinato alla estrema sinistra lo nega, ed ha la stessa credibilita' di quelli che ritengono che la Terra sia piatta .
Portare alla luce questo fatto signfica condannare i terroristi palestinesi in qualche tribunale di Norimberga? Magari ! , dico io. Purtroppo non va cosi', ed a considerare il nazismo per quello che e', come ho scritto qualche post fa, sono davvero in pochi. L'argomento delle complicita' nello sterminio e' decisamente impopolare, e di questi tempi sono in molti a pensare che "gli ebrei" have expropriated some of the highly profitable category of weak status of victims.
The point 'that Nazis and Jews , have become symbols that have little to do with reality' history. And any discussion of the tried and provatissime complicity 'in killing Palestinians and Islamic, is expected to meet the phony argument about the Stern gang, and their unrealistic project of alliance between Israel and the Nazi Reich. With whom the Nazis pulirono Q , preferring to divert cartload of money to the other front.
Why 'this need for symbols? Perche' chi gioca a fare il giudice con i fatti storici, non ha un apparato legale da applicare e in base al quale pronunciare condanne o assoluzioni. Ha un proprio ordine di valori, come tutti. Fino ad un certo punto, tra questi valori ci stava anche il progresso, ed ogni storico aveva una propria idea di progresso; che poi e' sparito dal Pantheon, o anche solo dalla cassetta degli attrezzi degli storici.
E io non sono sicuro che questo sia un male, ma magari lo spiego meglio un'altra volta. Grazie a chiunque vorra' intervenire. Non necessariamente storici, eh.
0 comments:
Post a Comment