Genocide denial gains ground 25 years after Srebrenica massacre

What is the relevance of historical knowledge? How does the present affect our views on the past?

Related: “Villain or hero? Sarajevo is split on archduke’s assassin Gavrilo Princip”

With survivors and perpetrators living side by side, and given the country’s divided politics, it is hard to imagine closure and reconciliation coming soon…

Schooling, like so much in Bosnia, is still divided along ethnic lines. Pupils are split into separate classes for “national subjects” such as history, and while the Bosniak textbooks cover the genocide, the Serb textbooks gloss it over. There is little hope of a unified curriculum in the country in the foreseeable future. “The main nationalist parties that continue to benefit from social division have no interest in changing a divisive status quo,” said Valery Perry, of the Democratization Policy Council in Sarajevo.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/10/genocide-denial-gains-ground-25-years-after-srebrenica-massacre

 

Why it Matters Podcast: Living with History

Whether you think we are making history or repeating it, it’s safe to say we are living in a historic time. In this episode, Why It Matters asks three historians to weigh in on how to use the past to examine the present and make better choices for the future.

Annette GORDON-REED: Things that may seem perplexing to you, have their roots in things that happened in the past. It would be as if you were trying to tell your story to someone, but you didn’t know where you were born. You didn’t know who your parents were. You didn’t have any memories of things that had happened when you were a child. History consists of, of things in the past that have had a bearing on the present that you might wanna know. That help you explain why you’re in the situation you’re in, why we are in a situation in a given society.

Screen Shot 2020-07-17 at 3.22.24 PM

https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/living-history

As Statues Fall, What’s the Best Way to Evaluate History’s Heroes?

Seriously, this is the last time I’m posting anything about statues. The first is a thoughtful piece that compares how we think about morality in history to the progress of science. The second is a podcast that delves into the questions around why we care about monuments and statues. For previous posts about this topic, click here.

Are these long-overdue corrections in the name of social justice, or simply ideologically driven acts of anti-historical vandalism? The answer depends on how we judge the moral actions of figures from the past, a question that in turn requires us to consider the nature of morality itself…

Knowledge is a relay race. It is a fundamental misunderstanding about how it works to criticize a swift runner who effectively passed the baton because he did not complete the race on his own….

All of which to say, there is a vital difference between being wrong and being blameworthy….

When it comes to praise and blame, intention and context matter, not just a snapshot of the final result.

https://quillette.com/2020/07/16/as-statues-fall-whats-the-best-way-to-evaluate-historys-heroes/

The Inquiry Podcast: Why do we care about statues?

The killing of African American George Floyd ignited anti-racist protests around the world – many centred on statues associated with colonialism and slavery. Why do these figures of bronze and stone generate such strong feelings? And what do they tell us about how countries deal with their past?

Screen Shot 2020-07-17 at 1.35.27 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszl3k

 

Roosevelt Statue to Be Removed From Museum of Natural History (and other related links)

Below are a few resources surrounding the recent removal/destruction of statues.

“The world does not need statues, relics of another age, that reflect neither the values of the person they intend to honor nor the values of equality and justice,” said Theodore Roosevelt IV, age 77, a great-grandson of the 26th president and a museum trustee.

From the artist, John Russell Pope, in 1928:

“In the center of the terrace…will arise a polished granite pedestal bearing an equestrian statue of Roosevelt with two accompanying figures on foot, one representing the American Indian and the other the primitive African. This heroic group…will symbolize the fearless leadership, the explorer, benefactor and educator….”—From a description of the architect’s design approved by the Memorial Commission, 1928

Commenting on the recent controversy: “Pope refers to the figures as a ‘heroic group.’ That’s important. In some criticisms, the standing figures were taken to be lesser than Roosevelt. That was never the intention. They are allegorical figures representing Africa and America, emphasized by the animals on the parapet reliefs.”—Harriet F. Senie, Director, M.A. Art History, Art Museum Studies, The City College of New York

What’s the point of statues?

To the minds of people in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, public art had a very clear purpose, which seems to have been forgotten in the minds of many people today. Rather than teaching history, or even celebrating the memory of a particular person, so much of the art that still dots our public places was explicitly about inculcating virtue – good morals, and good habits.

It’s a notion that sits uneasily with us now. It’s hard to think of any artist today who would be so bold as to tell us all how we should think and act.

https://fl.ink/explore/whats-the-point-of-statues

Some Statues Are Like Barbed Wire

Activists fighting to remove statues of slavers and colonizers understand better than most how public memorials can be a form of violence.

Thinking about how and why statues go up might help us to think about if they should come down. Once a statue is in place, it is easy to think of it as an eternal and inevitable presence—a view that informs the notion that removing statues is tantamount to “erasing history.” However, statues don’t happen by accident; it takes the concerted will and money of an individual or group to have a monument take form in stone or metal in a public place. Thinking through the intentions of how, where, and when a given statue came to exist in a given space at a given time offers a way past scaremongering about slippery slopes and the erasing of history to consider the story a statue tells, and if that is a story that belongs in a public place in 2020.

https://bostonreview.net/race/jonathan-beecher-field-some-statues-are-barbed-wire?utm

Foreign Affairs Magazine January/February 2018 The Undead Past

An excellent collection of articles discussing the role of history and memory and how different nations including the U.S., Russia, China, Germany, Rwanda, and South Africa have dealt with their pasts.

From the introduction to the issue:

How do nations handle the sins of the fathers and mothers? Take genocide, or slavery, or political mass murder. After such knowledge, what forgiveness—and what way forward? The Germans have a word for it, of course: Vergangenheitsbewältigung, or “coming to terms with the past.” But the concept is applicable far beyond the Nazis

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/issues/2018/97/1(may be behind a paywall)

Here are a bunch more posts about historical monuments and history.

https://toktopics.com/tag/monuments/

 

 

Are there laws of history?

Historians believe that the past is irreducibly complex and the future wildly unpredictable. Scientists disagree. Who’s right?

‘Historical facts’ are not discrete items, awaiting scholars to hunt them down. They need to be created…

The danger here, of course, is that these approaches tend to assume that the natural sciences are capable of producing objective knowledge, and that mirroring their methodologies will produce ‘better’ knowledge for the rest of the academy. Half a century of research in the history of science has shown that this perspective is deeply flawed. The sciences have their own history – as indeed does the notion of objectivity – and that history is deeply entwined with power, politics and, importantly, the naturalisation of social inequality by reference to biological inferiority. No programme for understanding human behaviour through the mathematical modelling of evolutionary theory can afford to ignore this point.

https://aeon.co/essays/if-history-was-more-like-science-would-it-predict-the-future

Nothing was the same: Historical parallels for the coronavirus should be avoided like the plague

ICLAGU5OR5FQBLEAJZGVVGI4FAPutting the current pandemic into a historical context has undoubtedly served a purpose. Linkages to the past can serve as warnings, and they might even offer solace…Drawing linkages always requires simplification, and oversimplification can lead to anachronism….When we hunt for similarities, we overlook everything that’s different – and that is dangerous. Sure, finding proof of our arguments is satisfying, but often, what’s most important is what we’ve had to ignore to find it.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-nothing-was-the-same-historical-parallels-for-the-coronavirus-should/

Nietzsche’s “The Use And Abuse Of History” How historical knowledge can be both a blessing and a curse

In Nietzsche’s view, his culture (and he would probably say ours too) has become bloated with too much knowledge. And this explosion of knowledge is not serving “life”–that is, it is not leading to a richer, more vibrant, contemporary culture. On the contrary.

Scholars obsess over methodology and sophisticated analysis. In doing so, they lose sight of the real purpose of their work. Always, what matters most isn’t whether their methodology is sound, but whether what they are doing serves to enrich contemporary life and culture.

https://www.thoughtco.com/nietzsches-the-use-and-abuse-of-history-2670323

American history textbooks can differ across the country, in ways that are shaded by partisan politics.

The latest in a never ending series of discussions about the nature of history textbooks and the politics that play into what students learn about. This article does a good job surveying differences more than making larger points about the nature of history but still worthwhile. Here are more links to more articles about controversies over history textbooks.

“At the end of the day, it’s a political process,” said Jesús F. de la Teja, an emeritus professor of history at Texas State University who has worked for the state of Texas and for publishers in reviewing standards and textbooks.

The differences between state editions can be traced back to several sources: state social studies standards; state laws; and feedback from panels of appointees that huddle, in Sacramento and Austin hotel conference rooms, to review drafts.

Podcast: What Our Monuments (Don’t) Teach Us About Remembering The Past

Screen Shot 2019-08-05 at 2.23.35 PM

Monuments don’t mean things on their own. They mean things because we make them mean things. So this Robert E. Lee statue, which I suspect most Charlottesvillians would have walked past and ignored as well, has taken on a new valence. And I think that’s an important reminder. Monuments are not static things that have a single narrative behind them. Monuments are things that we create. Monuments are objects whose meaning and significance we create daily.

 

Debating the history of the Stonewall Riots

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the famous New York riot that is credited with having given birth to the modern LGBT rights movement in the US, much has been written about the popular history of the event and how it is remembered. In addition, there was a 2015 movie about Stonewall that drew a lot of criticism because of its portrayal of the event. This issue raises a lot of interesting questions about history, how it is written and how it is remembered. It also raises interesting questions about the historical accuracy of movies and what responsibility artists have to being historically accurate.

Who Threw the First Brick at Stonewall? Let’s Argue About It

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the internet can spread misinformation, but why had this particular fantasy of Stonewall taken on such importance in the queer imagination?

To find out, I interviewed people who participated in the Stonewall uprising, historians who had devoted years to studying L.G.B.T.Q. history and contemporary queer writers. It turns out that it wasn’t just the question of who threw the first brick: Apparently no one can agree on almost anything about Stonewall.

Gay rights activists give their verdict on Stonewall: ‘This film is no credit to the history it purports to portray’

Roland Emmerich’s film about the 1969 riots has been labelled an offensive whitewash by many critics and campaigners. So what do some of those who were actually there at the time make of it?

Promoting the film, Emmerich defended both his narrative decisions and choice of lead, saying that he’d made the movie for as wide an audience as possible, and that “straight-acting” Danny was an “easy in” for heterosexual viewers.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/25/stonewall-film-gay-rights-activists-give-their-verdict

I was at the Stonewall riots. The movie ‘Stonewall’ gets everything wrong

But “Stonewall” is uninterested in any history that doesn’t revolve around its white, male, stereotypically attractive protagonist. It almost entirely leaves out the women who participated in the riots and helped create the Gay Liberation Front, which included youth, trans people, lesbian separatists and people from all other parts of the spectrum of our community.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/stonewall-movie