History and Memory
Last Sunday was a day for sorrow and emotions. Everybody was trying to overcome the rage caused by the tragedy that took place on Sept. 11, 2001. Obama and Bush shared the podium and speeches at New York’s Ground Zero. The president began with Psalm 46, whereas Bush invoked President Lincoln, the favorite one and the source of inspiration for some of Obama’s speeches. Tears were falling from the eyes of both New Yorkers and citizens of the entire world.
That cruelty, executed with such accuracy, still gives the shivers. How can the professionalism of those who sacrificed themselves by demolishing the most emblematic signs of the American system be explained? I am not in favor of seeing conspiracies before big events in history, but rather in the rationality of events that can be proven.
Journalism tells the facts as they are happening, and it does so with no nuances. History will explain what was occurring. Any society needs to know its history without fantasies and without trusting memory. I want to pay tribute to Josep Termes, who was a great craftsman of recent Catalan history. He did not resort to preconceived ideas but searched in archives, leaflets and popular stories.
Memory is not enough. Tzvetan Todorov distinguishes between history and memory. Collective memory is subjective and reflects the experiences of one of the constituent groups in society, and because of that, that group can use it as means of acquiring or strengthening a political position. History is not made with a political goal, but with truth and justice as the only imperatives. It aspires to objectivity and accuracy.
According to Todorov, history does not help to leave the Manichaeist illusion in which memory often shuts us: the division of mankind into two compartments — good and bad, victims and executioners, innocent and guilty.
Turning back to the 10th anniversary of 9/11, it is worth remembering that in one of the first speeches of then-President Bush, he addressed the Muslim community to tell them they were not at war against Islam. Interestingly, this is the same thing that Obama said last Sunday night in Washington. The beliefs are respectable. What is not acceptable is the damage caused on behalf of them.
That cruelty, executed with such accuracy, still gives the shivers. How can the professionalism of those who sacrificed themselves by demolishing the most emblematic signs of the American system be explained? I am not in favor of seeing conspiracies before big events in history, but rather in the rationality of events that can be proven.
Journalism tells the facts as they are happening, and it does so with no nuances. History will explain what was occurring. Any society needs to know its history without fantasies and without trusting memory. I want to pay tribute to Josep Termes, who was a great craftsman of recent Catalan history. He did not resort to preconceived ideas but searched in archives, leaflets and popular stories.
Memory is not enough. Tzvetan Todorov distinguishes between history and memory. Collective memory is subjective and reflects the experiences of one of the constituent groups in society, and because of that, that group can use it as means of acquiring or strengthening a political position. History is not made with a political goal, but with truth and justice as the only imperatives. It aspires to objectivity and accuracy.
According to Todorov, history does not help to leave the Manichaeist illusion in which memory often shuts us: the division of mankind into two compartments — good and bad, victims and executioners, innocent and guilty.
Turning back to the 10th anniversary of 9/11, it is worth remembering that in one of the first speeches of then-President Bush, he addressed the Muslim community to tell them they were not at war against Islam. Interestingly, this is the same thing that Obama said last Sunday night in Washington. The beliefs are respectable. What is not acceptable is the damage caused on behalf of them.