The words that give the title to this article are taken from a book by the historian José Álvarez Junco (What to do with a dirty past), in which he ponders the weight of traumatic pasts in the life of nations, as well as their political and its manipulation in the service of current objectives. And I have chosen this title because I consider that the treatment of a traumatic past is, indeed, very complex.
For this reason, the subject of historical memory has interested me a lot, and not because of a sectarian impulse, but because of the desire to understand each other and because of my rejection of its frequent and rude biased use. In addition to the aforementioned, I remember reading three books on the subject: Against Memory”, by David Rieff; Memory of evil, temptation of good, by Tzvetan Todorov, and The Amnesiacs, by Géraldine Schwarz. I plunder everyone.
Rieff supports a capital idea: that the memory of conflicts can serve three objectives: 1) The truth; 2) Justice (or reparation); 3) Peace (or coexistence). And that the three objectives are laudable separately, but difficult to achieve simultaneously, since it cannot be argued that doing justice or establishing the truth should come before the search for peace.
Todorov shares this same idea when he says that the positive or negative effect of memory must be weighed from the consideration of its consequences for peace and the coexistence of citizens, which is why the "totalitarianism of memory" must be avoided, based in the sacralization of "one" version of history until it becomes untouchable.
And Géraldine Schwarz renounces both identifying with the victims and denouncing the executioners, because she wants to understand how the tragedy occurred and what made it possible for such unspeakable crimes to occur, whose maximum perpetrators are identifiable and condemnable, but without exposing the responsibilities of the rest. of the citizens, who with their collaboration or their cowardly silence were necessary collaborators in the crime; reason for which she concludes that only a complex treatment of the past favors the development of democratic and tolerant citizen attitudes.
“Let us therefore vindicate –says Álvarez Junco– complex visions of the past, from which multiple political and cultural legacies are derived. (…) If, on the other hand, we create identities that identify with only one side, (this) will trigger uncontrolled emotions”.
Therefore, undertake the repair of the damages caused with greatness and generosity, without failing to dig up any victim, to compensate the compensable damages and to avoid the glorification of the victors, but do not pretend to impose a truth. “Knowing what happened, imparting justice, reforming the institutions, morally and materially repairing the victims, evoking them through a commemorative policy, are various aspects of historical memory,” says Álvarez Junco.
Now, historical memory is only useful if it is not Manichean. You have to remember, but you have to remember well. Therefore, what can never be done is to take advantage of the past in a sectarian way. It is not acceptable that today's social and political groups set themselves up as heirs or successors of yesterday's victims and demand to be recognized and compensated as such. According to Schwarz, a complex and honest treatment of the past favors the development of tolerant and democratic attitudes. But if we generate a memory that identifies with only one side (the loser), this memory will make any rapprochement impossible, since emotional duels are insoluble.
A recent example. I assume the exhumation of José Antonio is convenient, and I even think that he would have accepted it willingly because he was naturally generous. But the editorial of a newspaper with airs and the start of a public television newscast make me think that a good part of the perversion of historical memory is found in the biased fondness of certain media, simple spokespersons for some parties with each passing day. more untied
