Elsewhere

So much of blogs is 'elsewhere.' For those of you who may not be familiar, anytime you click a hypertext link or read something indented, and unless the author be engaging in a bit of Guy Debordian self-plagiarism (an interesting topic in itself, for sure), you are reading what is (optimistically, yet necessarily) "someone else's words."

Nathanael Robinson has graciously translated several passages of Arno Klarsfeld's report, "Law, History and the Obligation of Memory." I like to consider myself "serious" about French history and politics, but in truth I remain mostly ignorant, so this is helpful. Perhaps the multilingual readers of this humble blog will take the time to critique his work, or comment on the passage, I don't know. I don't know enough about the context of this document, but his translation strikes me as lucid. In summing things up, he reads

Toutes ces mémoires sont différentes, parfois elles sont antagonistes, mais toutes ont été meurtries et font partie de la mémoire collective française. Leur devoir de mémoire respectif leur impose de militer pour que les injustices et les souffrances subies collectivement par leurs ascendants soient solennellement reconnues par l’Etat, que ce soit la Nation, la République ou la France.. Les enjeux de la mémoire sont importants pour assurer la cohésion de la société ce qui amène le politique et donc le législateur à intervenir [...]

Les signataires estiment qu’il appartient aux seuls historiens « d’écrire l’histoire » Les historiens n’écrivent pas l’histoire, les hommes, les peuples font l’histoire; les historiens se contentent d’écrire sur l’histoire.

Les pétitionnaires concluent : « L'histoire n'est pas un objet juridique. Dans un Etat libre, il n'appartient ni au Parlement ni à l'autorité judiciaire de définir la vérité historique... Nous demandons l'abrogation de ces dispositions législatives indignes d'un régime démocratique ».

Ces historiens se trompent. Apprécier le passé c’est aussi le champ du politique et bien sûr des parlementaires représentant la Nation. Il est essentiel de promouvoir parfois des lois mémorielles qui, comme ce fut souvent le cas dans le passé favorisent l’union de la Nation et de notre peuple et aussi de reconnaître l’ensemble des identités qui coexistent dans la République.

Si ’historien établit les faits avec rigueur et précision, il ne peut assumer la tâche du législateur qui est de protéger et de concilier ces mémoires dans le souci prioritaire de la cohésion nationale. Les lois mémorielles ne sont pas une exception spécifique à notre République.

as

All memories are different, sometimes they are antagonistic, but all have been painful and all are part of the French collective memory. The respective obligation of memory forces [those who suffered] to militate so that collective injustices and the suffering are solemnly recognized by the State, whether it is the nation, the republic, or France. [...]

The signatories claim that it is only for historians to ‘write history.’ Historians do not write history, men, people make history; historians content themselves to write about history. The petitioners conclude: “History is not a juridical object. In a free state, neither Parliament nor judicial authority defines the truth of history ... We demand the abrogation of these legislative provisions that are unworthy of a democratic regime.”

These historians are wrong. Interpreting the past is also a domain of politics, especially for the parliamentarians representing the nation. Sometimes one must promote memorial laws, like those of the past that favored the union of the nation and the people and also that recognized the ensemble of identities that coexist in the republic. If the historian establish facts with rigor and precision, he cannot assume the task of legislating who is to be protected and consoled in the interest of national cohesion.

In the past legislators often organized commemorations of historical events in giving them a political meaning, and organized compensation for victims of global and colonial wars, or even domestic events .... France is not alone among the democracies where the legislatures “write history.”