Controversial stuff
Dec. 12th, 2005 11:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I've been watching a tv program for about 2 hours about two very important subjects for us, French people, especially if you are a teacher as I am. It's a debate, something we so love here in France, between personalities, either politicians or historians or intellectuals or religious people. And I've been jumping on my chair for an hour! I wanted to slap the journalist who is leading the debate because he was just stupid sometimes and some of the points made were quite simplistic or mixing up everything.
The first topic was the anniversary of the Law of 1905 separating State and Churches and establishing a model of laicité that is very different from what English or Americans call secularism, that I'm very proud of, and that completely splits religious phenomenons/signs and State places (like schools). I think it's nowadays more important than ever to stick on this model and even to correct the infrigements that have endured until now and that still favour Catholic Church over other religions that are newer (like Islam).
The second topic is about a scandalous and villainous law voted lately by the Parliament and saying that school books, History Books that is, must show the positive role of colonization! Are we regressing damnit?
First off, it's very serious that deputies dare to say they can decide what *we* historians must teach as if we lived in some totalitarian State with an official History! Are we in USSR now?
Secondly, speaking of "positive" sides, or postive role is totally contrary to the work of Historians. We don't do statements of accounts, there's nothing positive or negative, there's no balance to draw. History isn't morality and doesn't separate the wheat from the chaff. This is meaningless for us. We try to understand periods according to facts and to sources, we don't judge, we don't blame and we don't absolve. That is not the goal of History. It isn't meant to be edifying nor judgemental. Thinking in terms of positive and negative stuff is the best way not to understand at all historical periods and to keep making anachronisms. The deputies who voted that law are real morons.
But one of my former Masters (Professor at the Sorbonne) was there, Jacques Marseille, and said what had to be said on the matter at least.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 10:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 10:32 am (UTC)But we point out the connections, explaining post-colonial situations, heritage, we don't say this is good and this is bad.
For instance I pointed out that buildings that were made by French prior to 1962 were the only one that didn't collapse during the last Earthquake in Alger. I didn't say "this is a positive side of colonization in Algeria", I simply showed that colonizers left substructures and built sturdy buildings while they were there.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 10:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 10:49 am (UTC)As a citizen, as a person, they are things that I think morally good or wrong, or that I think have/had bad effects or good effects on society. We live in a democracy, I can be anticlerical, anti-Islam, anti-Judaism...and actually I am for several reasons!
But as a Historian, I have no problem doing my researchs on Inquisitors at the end of Middle Ages for instance, and as a History teachers I have to teach everything and to make my pupils exercise their intellect by parsing sources and to make them understand past times.
This is why laicité is so important btw. It's all about studying in school and no influence from the oustide must intervene.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 10:50 am (UTC)Shouldn't you be in bed trésor?