The historians in the reading have been an interesting, and in some cases, intriguing group of people to read about. What they accomplished, and the insights they shared as well as their lasting influence has been an integral part of this interesting journey in Historiography. It is also interesting to see what a lot of these historians actually looked like. And on the internet, of course, you can find out. Micheal Ignatieff's expressions are amusing, serious, contemplative and in some places, lighthearted. Marc Bloch's expressions in the black and white photos seem sympathetic, cerebral, kind and slightly sad. Fernand Braudel's expressions seem slightly morose, a little standoffish, focused and in a few photos, slightly amused. Lucien Febvre's expression is a firm one and one expressing, perhaps a little impatience, a slight touch of severity, and perhaps the miss-impression that he might have had other things on his mind when the black and white photos were taken. Some people might claim that reading a lot of History is a good solution for insomnia, but it depends on who is reading about who and perhaps when.
I felt I knew each of the historians in the reading a little better after seeing their picture and reading about what they wrote. And some of them amaze me to no end, like Marc Bloch, who was one of the founders of journal Annales d'histoire and who had a significant influence on Historiography regarding multi-disciplinary cooperation. Not only was he at the forefront of a lot of rational, significant and novel approaches to historiography, but he died in 1944 by firing squad because of his involvement in the French Resistance (the Vichy Government) in World War II. The people who worked in the resistance in France (and other countries) during the war were not faint of heart, but ventured, at the risk of their lives to shorten the war in their own sphere or domain of influence. I can only have admiration for people like that.
Another amazing person was Michael Ignatieff. Some of his quotes are so profound and thought provoking that I was tempted to post them on social media. For example, “The chief moral obstacle in the path of reconciliation is the desire for revenge.” And how true this is. I have spent some time as an ESL teacher in South Korea. I have met lovely Korean people and lovely Japanese people. From time to time, I had to sometimes remind my Korean students (some of whom sometimes stated that they hated Japan and Japanese people) that the government of Japan, in the past, did terrible things (comparable to the Nazis, but for a longer period) but that this did not mean that most Japanese people were, or are bad people. Nevertheless, something specific Michael Ignatieff wrote is very appropriate here. “This last dimension of reconciliation - the mourning of the dead – is where the desire for peace must vanquish the "longing for revenge.” And perhaps, this might be precisely what the problem is in regards to Korean and Japan.
Korea is a beautiful and amazing country and Japan is also a wonderful and exotic country. One of Korea's shortcomings is that the letting go of the “longing for revenge,” does not appear to be forthcoming. One of Japan's shortcomings is that a genuine and holistic account of history has not appeared to be fully forthcoming (which continually angers Koreans). I am making no attempt whatever to wade into the controversy and I am simply stating my observations.
The ideas of Michael Ignatieff were instrumental in the years after World War II. The contrast between the countries who foreshadowed his prescription for peace and those who did not is massive, and even this word is an understatement. What he said about the past reveals an insightful revelation about this man's ability to understand the heart, or the root of the matter. “When it comes to healing, one is faced with the most mysterious process of all. For what seems apparent in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, and in South Africa is that the past continues to torment because it is the not the past. The people are not living in a serial order of time but in a simultaneous one, in which the past and the present are a continuous agglutinated mass of fantasies, distortions, myths and lies.” The basic idea was that time made no impression whatsoever in respect to those who thirsted for revenge and who were still emotionally imprisoned in the tragic wrongs of the past, committed, as viewed by the victims, by those they could only see as the aggressors. It is common knowledge that the Nazi's committed unspeakable, heartbreaking atrocities against not only their own citizens, but citizens of other countries in their death camps. Similarly, yet not of so severe a nature, the government of Chile, at one point, also committed great wrongs against its people. The respective leaders of the two countries later took measures to heal the nations they ruled. Ignatieff spoke of President Alwyn of Chile and of German Chancellor Willy Brandt, and how these men, by taking responsibility for a great wrong they were not essentially guilty of, helped their nations heal. I felt that Michael Ignatieff's solutions were brilliant and I hope more countries, or world leaders can follow suite. Accepting responsibility for the wrongs of someone else, may not have seemed desirous to these world leaders, but healing did take place because world leaders like President Alwyn of Chile and German Chancellor Willy Brandt thought more of national need than their pride.
Fernand Braudel was another interesting historian. He achieved understandable notoriety for his part in helping to establish the Annales school as preeminent along the lines of research in France regarding historiography. As a historian, he was one of the most prominent trailblazers in Historiography in France (not counting other countries) from the 1950's to the 1960's. I found a number of his quotes to be sensible and food for thought at the same time. “Strictly speaking, an event can acquire a whole series of references and associations. It can sometimes point to profound movements and as a result of the artificial (or genuine) game of 'cause' and 'effect', so dear to the historians of the past, it can dominate a time period far beyond its own bounds.” By a convenient coincidence, a perhaps, loose example of this might happen to be, in some ways, the French Revolution which is the topic I am undertaking in my Historiography essay.
Some observations are not out of harmony with the idea of 'cause' and 'effect' that Braudel mentioned as being able to dominate a time period far beyond it's own bounds. I might be incorrect, but it is my understanding that Bastille day is one of the most important holidays in France today. The storming of the Bastille could not, in my reckoning, be separated from the French Revolution. Neither could the French National Anthem, which, to my knowledge (and I am not above being corrected by someone who knows more about it than I do) has hardly changed in tune or lyrics since the French Revolution, even though there have been several lesser national upheavals since 1789.
Everyone at one time or another has probably looked forward to enjoying their favorite soda not knowing that some rogue or rascal has tampered with it, and of course, if you are not expecting it, you can't help but be surprised when upon opening it, it is far more fizzy than you felt you wanted, and you end up with a reflex brief shower. Hopefully some of it got whoever had that terrible idea in the first place. In some ways, the French Revolution was a tragic parallel to a can of soda that someone shook up and of course, Historians in France and other countries were not immune to this. Voltaire died a year before the French Revolution occurred, otherwise, what he might have said about it might have been interesting if he avoided an acquaintance with the “national razor.” The shock of rulers, academics of the time, noblemen and military leaders was certainly palpable. Edward Burk, in his “Reflections on the French Revolution,” published in 1790, does not mince words.
“Were all these dreadful things necessary? Were they the inevitable results of the desperate struggle of determined patriots, compelled to wade through blood and tumult to the quiet shore of a tranquil and prosperous liberty? No! nothing like it. The fresh ruins of France, which shock our feelings wherever we can turn our eyes, are not the devastation of civil war; they are the sad but instructive monuments of rash and ignorant counsel in time of profound peace.”
The Duke of Brunswick at that time was a military leader and had this to say. “After arbitrarily violating the rights of the German princes in Alsace and Lorraine, disturbing and overthrowing good order and legitimate government in the interior of the realm, committing against the sacred person of the king and his august family outrages and brutalities which continue to be renewed daily, those who have usurped the reins of government have at last completed their work by declaring an unjust war on his Majesty the emperor and attacking his provinces situated in the Low Countries.”
My first inclination is to theorize that the interpretations by Historical scholars previous to the French Revolution might not be easily applicable since an event of so much magnitude, so stark, dark, bloody and ruthless had occurred up to that point in recent history, but I intend to test this theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment