Politicize and moralize History like a film about the good guys and the bad guys; or disseminate biased, simplistic or false explanations of historical processes; or consider the past as a sort of extension of the present in reverse; or, in short, to conceive of History as a black and white interpretation where there is no room for gray, nuances or contours. All this responds to historiographical populism, a growing trend multiplied by social networks and exploited by the demagoguery of many leaders on the right and left.
The diplomatic conflict between Mexico and Spain, following former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s request to King Felipe VI to seek forgiveness for the excesses of the conquest, represents the most recent dispute born of historiographical populism. However, historians specializing in the subject criticize in this dispute both the imposed indigenism of Mexico, on the one hand; as the justification for the beneficial imperial dreams of the Spaniards. In short, neither black legend nor pink legend.
Xosé Manoel Núñez Seixas, professor of contemporary history at the University of Santiago de Compostela, defines historiographic populism as “the application of moral, political and cultural categories from the present to the past” and questions high voice: “How far back do we have to go? ask for forgiveness? Should we, Spaniards, demand that France apologize for the barbarities of Napoleon’s troops? On the other hand, the Spain of today has very little to do with that of Hernán Cortés at the beginning of the 16th century. In fact, neither Spain nor Mexico existed at that time. »
How long should we go back to ask for forgiveness? Should we, Spaniards, demand that France apologize for the barbarities of Napoleon’s troops?
Xosé Manoel Núñez Seixas
— Professor of contemporary history
National Essay Prize in 2019 for sighs of Spain. Spanish nationalism 1808-2018 (Review) and author, among other books, of Wolf dens. Memories of authoritarian Europe (Critic), Nuñez Seixas insists on the need to always take into account the context during any analysis, because otherwise we would fall into a dangerous presentism. “If we reviewed, for example, the historian believes, the careers of revolutionary leaders, none of them would of course resist accusations of blatant machismo. »
Historian and philosopher, professor at the University of Barcelona and expert on the subject, Edgar Straehle recognizes that the current dispute between Mexico and Spain is a complex issue that must also be placed in context. “It is true,” he emphasizes, “that a lot of time has passed, but the conquest has not been fully digested in Spain because it affects national identity. Moreover, on this occasion, national memory merges with imperial memory. In any case, we must not lose sight of the fact that López Obrador uses the past to create an external enemy that allows him to overcome his internal problems. This is why we should ask indigenous victims how they position themselves in relation to the Mexican elites who have ruled Mexico for two centuries.” In this sense, specialists remember the latent conflict in the Mexican state of Chiapas which provoked a Zapatista rebellion in the 1990s or problems in other states which also have significant indigenous populations.
Hurricane season October 12
With great irony, Bernat Hernández, professor of modern history at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and researcher at the Center for the Study of Colonial America, comments that as the date of October 12, the Spanish national holiday, approaches , “a hurricane season is unleashed. » on the role of Spain since the conquest.
Without a doubt, the anniversary of the arrival of Christopher Columbus on American lands continues to be a source of controversy, although Hernández is very categorical. “There is a broad historiographical consensus,” he asserts, “on the way in which the conquest took place, its lights and its shadows, on the heterogeneity of the indigenous world… Of course, there were aspects positive in the more than three centuries that colonization lasted. and, at the same time, there were massacres and attacks of all kinds against indigenous peoples. So we must be clear that conquest means destruction and construction. “It’s clear.”
López Obrador uses the past to create an external enemy that allows him to overcome his internal problems. For this reason, we should ask indigenous victims how they position themselves in relation to the Mexican elites who have ruled Mexico for two centuries.
Edgar Straehle
— Professor at the University of Barcelona
Whatever the case, the unstoppable rise of populism in history has put historians on notice because it runs counter to numerous serious and scientifically based investigations. Straehle, Hernández y Núñez and the majority of their colleagues emphasize that their work meets criteria of rigor, methodology, adequate use of sources and citations, among other requirements. In short, they demand academic support against hoaxes and biased, partisan views. But this effort, according to Núñez Seixas, is greatly altered by the expansion of social networks.
“It seems obvious,” says the Galician professor, “that in line with the political polarization that invades us, the networks welcome all kinds of apprentice historians, propagandists of lies who go much further in their demagoguery than the revisionist positions of authors like this. Pio Moa. In any case, academic historians are losing their presence in the public sphere and some of them are even accused of being “academic or left-wing” by conservative sectors, underlines Edgar Straehle in an opinion shared by many colleagues.
On the other hand, the most right-wing views of history have sold more books in Spain in recent years due to their exaltation of the Spanish Empire or its manipulations of the Second Republic, the Civil War or the Franco regime, according to editorial sources. . And in this sense, it is still contradictory for the right to appeal to the third parties of Flanders or to the conquerors of America five centuries ago while accusing the left of erasing the past with a memory as recent as the mass graves of the Franco dictatorship.
While recognizing that historical research is enjoying a good time in Spain today, Professor Straehle regrets the academic elitism and the lack of high-level dissemination in this country compared to the Anglo-Saxon model where historians intervene more in the media and in public forums. . From his position as an influential author among the general public, Núñez Seixas admits that narrative history enjoys less editorial success here than in other countries and also points out the absence of good academic publishing houses, with a few exceptions .
“Raising the historical culture of society requires good dissemination and a vocation of historians to reach the general public,” explains Núñez. For his part, Bernat Hernández emphasizes that historians must take sides but always demonstrate rigor. Regardless, populism is generally cross-cutting and feeds on political polarization, a struggle that goes back five centuries, as demonstrated by the eternal debate on the black legend.
It seems obvious that in accordance with the political polarization that invades us, the networks welcome all kinds of apprentice historians, propagandists of lies who go much further in their demagoguery than the revisionist positions of authors like Pío Moa.
Xosé Manoel Núñez Seixas
— Professor of contemporary history
Author of a biography on Bartolomé de las Casas (Taurus), the friar who defended the Indians at the beginning of the 16th century, Professor Hernández explains that the black legend is as ambiguous as the conquest itself and adds: “The judgment on the conquest” had already begun to be carried out in the 16th century when De las Casas demanded to return the properties and wealth of the Indians. Furthermore, it must be considered that at that time there was not one Mexico but several Mexicos and that all of Central America was conquered by the indigenous peoples themselves.”
Although he is skeptical that populism can be stopped, Straehle points to the increase and quality of academic research, the rejection of presentist categories for judging the past, and the need to apply filters to enormous and anonymous from social networks. But this specialist’s criticisms are also aimed at “a very precarious, endogamous and productivist academic world”.
Núñez Seixas, for his part, emphasizes that “the Internet society is moving towards the agora where the charlatans of the bar counters appear whose opinions are amplified on social networks”. This professor underlines the relevance of the historical study by emphasizing that family memory generally does not extend over more than three generations and that collective memory does not go back much further. Speaking of his specialty, Hernández laments the glaring void in American history, not only in secondary education curricula, but even in faculty curricula in that field.
Meanwhile, hoaxes and demagoguery continue to gain ground among an ever-widening audience that buys, in the case of networks and literal books, conservative and falsified interpretations. As Edgar Straehle argues, “the paradox is that the black legends denounced by nationalisms are creations that come from other nationalist historiographies and that, at the same time, they are fought, they are imitated”.
