University historians show their rejection of the law of concord registered by the members of the Consell (PP-Vox) and their “deep concern”, considering that it contains “serious scientific deficiencies due to ignorance of the basic foundations of the issues it addresses” and that suffers from “a rancid nationalism.”
In their opinion, this rule may result in the implementation of public policies in this area that are “clearly insufficient and even counterproductive for the objectives sought,” which is why they ask the parliamentary groups not to approve it and to show themselves willing to meet to discuss the matter. regard.
This is stated in a joint statement signed by the departments of Modern and Contemporary History of the Universitat de València (UV), Contemporary Humanities of the Universitat d'Alacant (UA) and History, Geography and Art of the Universitat Jaume I (UJI). from Castelló. The bill, which is being processed in Les Corts, was registered to repeal the Democratic Memory Law of 2017.
Historians assure that the conception of history in this text “is clearly typical of a rancid nationalism without any type of critical sense.” “The task of History should not be to 'honor and protect the history of Spain' or that of any other country or community, but rather to construct a rigorous historical discourse and provide solid knowledge about the past,” they emphasize.
According to them, the authors of the proposal intend to use the assumption that “there has never been a consensus account” about the period between 1931 and 1977 “neither among historians nor among citizens.” In his opinion, it is a “very vague” statement that shows “a clear lack of knowledge of how scientific disciplines in general work.”
Historians believe that PP and Vox try to make people believe that “in historiography everything is relative to the point of view of the historian, which means ignoring what the profession consists of.” On the other hand, they emphasize that it is impossible for there to be “a single story about the past” and that “History is neither a dogma nor any profession of faith.”
“Within the historical discipline, inside and outside Spain, there is plurality in certain interpretations of events, but with a broad consensus when it comes to establishing the fundamental facts about the history of the 20th century,” they state, and defend that it has been built a “solid” field of studies and “very basic consensus” regarding the Second Republic, the Civil War, Francoism and the Transition.
On the other hand, they denounce that the "biased and tendentious" historical assessment of the law of concord "demonizes the Spanish democracy of the 1930s as a 'convulsive' time, full of 'dynamics of confrontation' and 'social and political violence', to the point of defining it as a 'catastrophe' comparable to a bloody civil war and a 40-year dictatorship."
All this when they emphasize that there is a consensus in Spanish historiography and international Hispanism that the Second Republic was the first democratic form of government in 20th century Spain. Therefore, they consider that "with its errors and imperfections, like any democracy, it is comparable to the rest of the democracies existing at that time."
For historians, the proposition lacks “the objectivity and impartiality that it claims to seek” because “nothing is said nor is the Franco dictatorship valued, to the point that it is never named as such” throughout the text, at the same time that "the focus of the debate moves away from the period 1936-1975" because more reference is made to the "Republic" (five times) or to "terrorism" (eight times): "That is, terrorism receives, by itself, the same mentions as the Civil War and the dictatorship together.”
At the same time, they warn that the text “ranks among terrorisms,” by focusing only on ETA and does not mention the extreme right, the GAL or the Islamist attacks of 11M, and also “ranks among victims” by stating that “it does not "The side does not matter, nor the origin, nor the beliefs."
While he "doesn't say anything" about the victims of Franco's regime, he talks about those of terrorism on five occasions, in addition to "inventing the category of victim of the Second Republic" when in his opinion it doesn't make sense any more than one could talk about "victims." of the Bourbon monarchy.
Another criticism from historians is that the law shows a “false equation” between dictatorship and democracy, by “confusing personal-family memory with social memory and commemoration by institutions.”
First of all, they remember that in democracy there is the right to remember relatives who died during the war and after the war, with “the only difference that thousands of families of victims of Franco's repression still do not know where they are.” Secondly, "never in democracy, and even less so from a public institution, can we talk about 'teaching that the side, nor the origin, nor the beliefs matter'."
“Would the proponents of the law apply that same phrase to Nazi Germany or the ETA terrorists?” they ask, emphasizing that “the equality of victims in pain can never be equivalent to an equalization of the causes.” for which they died”: “There is no possible 'balance' between those who defend democracy and those who fight for 40 years to destroy it and prevent its return.”
Historians also reject the proponents' claim that they seek to “restore the lost balance,” as they point out that “there has never been a balance and memories in the public sphere regarding the traumatic history of the Spanish 20th century”; neither before 1975 because of the dictatorship nor after because “the institutions did not carry out decisive policies of democratic memory.”
“This imbalance had only begun to be partially corrected in the last two decades (...) But it has not been compensated nor has it ever disappeared,” they assert, warning that it will continue until there are unlocated reprisals or the legislation is not complied with. international in this regard. For all these reasons, they urge not to perpetuate this imbalance and to help correct it.
The declaration has the support of the board of the faculty of Geography and History, the area of Didactics of Social Sciences and the classroom of History and Democratic Memory of the UV, the dean's team of the faculty of Philosophy and Letters and the magazine 'Past and Memory' of the UA and the chair of History and Democratic Memory of the UJI.
