Due to his tireless work, his presence in the French media and his drive to question all the myths endorsed until now by official history – “the one taught by the teachers of the Republic”, he often says – Patrick Boucheron today represents the voice most powerful of the renewing current of modern historiography, which seeks to review the beliefs that until now we believed supported by data and scientific findings.
He has just published in Spain and in the same publishing house, Anagrama, two very different books. One is a small booklet, a short essay that calls not to be overcome by pessimism in the face of the rise of the extreme right in the world, although it warns that we are already late in the reaction. It is titled The time we have left.
The other is Dates that made history a work of greater significance, with 550 pages that address 30 cases or events that have marked, in one way or another, the calendar of Western history. In them he uncovers the misunderstandings, the manipulations, the mystifications and in general how fickle history as a science can be if rigor and methodology are abandoned.
Boucheron was in Barcelona a few weeks ago, at the Palau Macaya of Fundació La Caixa, to debate with the philosopher Josep Ramoneda about the cases highlighted in his book.
This is the conversation he had with elDiario.es and it has been edited to facilitate its understanding.
The title, ‘Dates that made history’, is striking because it is reminiscent of ‘Stellar Moments of Humanity’, the famous work by Stefan Zweig, which was a mythologization of important dates for the West. Is there an intention in it?
There is not, although I recognize the appropriateness of citing Zweig, but in reference to The time we have leftbecause he was one of the first to warn of the emergence of fascism in Europe in the 1930s and we can draw many lessons from what he said then.
But going back to Dates that made historyit is true that there is a contrast between Zweig’s work that you quote and mine, because he, as a writer, wanted to literaturize those events and in a certain way mythologize them. In my book I approach them with the intention of relativizing them and sometimes explaining that they were not created based on scientific discoveries but on narratives by romantic artists or skilled politicians.
This is the case, for example, with Vercingetorixone of the French national myths, but also with the crucifixion of Christ, of which we have the story of the gospels, written and reinterpreted many generations later by people who did not know the Jewish prophet they spoke of.
The same thing happens with the fears of the year 1000, which were invented many centuries later by the romantic poets of the 19th century. They describe a general panic at the absurd change of millennium, since those people were not aware of living through a change of millennium, there were no calendars then.
It seems that in Spain the book, particularly the chapter referring to the discovery of the American continent, has not gone down well with some intellectuals. The former Minister of Culture César Antonio Molina has dedicated a harsh review to him in which he calls him a “poor historian” and an “impostor.”
In France some time ago I published a book called The world history of France in which I propose, given the obsession that we French have with our national history, a reading of the history of France that involves the nation’s relations with other countries in the world, a review of our history to adapt it to the globalized world, with other sources and points of view.
What I want to tell you is that this also applies to what you are telling me: the resistance of some people to reread history itself with the points of view that we have today, not only in Europe. The way we tell it today is not about reducing it only to the national framework, nor about a principled or combative position, but about a methodical position based on proven data. This is how history is explained today.
That’s why in the book, at the end of each case, we have the section “And what was happening in the world in the meantime,” because things happened. For example, 60 years before 1492, the Khmer empire of Ankgor, in modern-day Cambodia, had fallen after almost four centuries dominating Southeast Asia.
In the same way, I propose how the fourth centenary of the discovery was celebrated in Chicago and Madrid. The first was an old colony that then, in 1892, enjoyed a thriving vitality. The second was the capital of the largest colonial empire ever, but already in pronounced decline. We cannot give history, today, a single point of view.
There is a lot of talk lately about the decolonization of museums. Should we also decolonize history?
I don’t want people to think that my book, which although I signed it, is a collective reflection, made by the team of the documentary series When history datess for the ARTE channel, has a political intention or media provocation. It is a serene and serious job.
Perhaps it is necessary to apply a certain decolonization to the field of history to achieve a more fair and realistic story that speaks to everyone, not just Europeans.
But, in effect, perhaps it is necessary to apply a certain decolonization to the field of the history of nations, although we could also talk about globalizing or globalizing; to integrate stories from all points of view to make a single story that is more fair and realistic, but above all that speaks about everyone, not just Europeans.
An example: in the West the figure of Mansa Musa, the king of Mali in the 14th century, considered one of the richest men of all times, is barely known. Only the Catalan Atlas talks about an immensely rich black king. On the other hand, on the other side of the Mediterranean there are abundant sources that tell us about this character who traveled to Mecca causing a great impression. That the West did not talk about it was like saying that it had not existed. Now this is no longer admissible.
Let’s talk about two myths that I mentioned before: Vercingetorix and Jesus Christ. Did they really exist?
They existed, but their historical dimension is undoubtedly due to the myths carried out a posteriori; in the case of Vercingetorix almost 2000 years later. Because we barely know about this Gallic leader from what Julius Caesar tells us in his writings about the Gallic War, where he also greatly inflates his merits to strengthen his resume compared to other generals who, like him, wanted power in Rome.
Thus, Caesar tells us about a brave leader whom he defeated and took to Rome for execution, whose name was Vercingetorix. No one ever names him again. But in the French historical imagination, that defeat against a much superior enemy lights the flame of national sentiment, even if it is that of a defeated nation.
And it was not until another defeat, that of Napoleon III in Sudan in 1870 at the hands of the Prussians, when the myth was reborn with force. Because the emperor wanted to see himself as Vercingetorix in his day: the leader of France. That is why he orders to erect a statue of the Gallic king with long hair and a long mustache… But it is a lie! That was the face of Napoleon III. And although this vision reaches even the Asterix comics, we do not have any information about what Vercingetorix looked like.
And as for Jesus, the Nazarene?
Well, we know very little first-hand. His story was written by the evangelists several generations after his death and, of course, we do not know how much of it was invented. We know from the chronicles of Flavius Josephus that there was a preacher and miracle worker named Jesus of Nazareth. As for the time of his death or his birth, nothing is really certain.
Of course we must do ‘fact checking’ with the hoaxes, but with that alone we historians will not win the battle against populism
But the fact that makes us think that Christ did indeed exist is his atrocious death on the cross. It was a very exceptional and ignominious punishment, which was only applied to slaves who rebelled. It was very unusual in Judea and even less so for a free citizen. Therefore, this death was widely reported in the chronicles and gives consistency to the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed.
To finish and link with his other book, The time we have left: We are experiencing a boom in populism in which hoaxes have a lot of weight in gaining followers for far-right causes. What role should history play in combating them?
First of all, history teaches us that we should never underestimate the power of hoaxes, no matter how crazy they may seem to us, since they are not appealing to people’s reason but to their emotions, and it is very difficult to arrive at that with reasoning. . And even less so now that what I call “chaos engineers,” like Elon Musk and other owners of digital platforms, can greatly amplify their power.
Of course we must do fact checking with these lies or half-truths, but we have to keep in mind that with that alone we historians will not win the battle against populism. After refuting the hoaxes, it is necessary to articulate a story about the truth that can appeal to people’s emotions like the hoaxes do.
#Patrick #Boucheron #face #hoaxes #fact #checking #create #story #truth #moves
