|
View the h-hoac Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-hoac's March 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-hoac's March 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-hoac home page.
I cannot find the words to express my deepest thanks to Harvey Klehr for his post on Holocaust Denial and Stalinism Denial. I am in complete agreement with him on the matter. However, I do have a number of questions. Is there not a difference between those who intentionally falsify history (and I am not referring to writers of fiction) or those who simply disregard the most basic rules of historical research, and those who do not necessarily deny, for instance, any of the Stalinist crimes, but argue instead that barbarity and misery is as much a part of the human condition as compassion and felicity, and that, as the saying goes, sometimes you can' t make an omelet without breaking an egg? More precisely, should we also shun, for example, Eric Hobsbawm? Why should we choose to reject (if I may) the 'Omelet School of History' if it does not injure historical accuracy, but does offend a morality to which one may not feel any attachment? What if someone rejects, outright, any notion that history has ended or that the 'struggle' is over? In any case, what is wrong with a no fault ideology and history? Are historians obliged to make moral judgements? Do we or do we not have the right to accept and embrace, at our own peril, various forms of violence to promote social revolution, a fast track to modernity, maybe even redemption? Leo Gluchowski --
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|