ENSAIO MODELO - Nº12
“All readings are also mis-readings, re-readings, partial readings, imposed readings, and imagined readings of a text that is originally and finally never simply there. Just as the world is originally fallen apart, the text is always already enmeshed in contending practices and hopes.”
To open a History book is always a great opportunity of reflections. Not only because of the content, but especially thinking about how it was put in place. Émile Durkheim, in the beginning of 20th century, started the study of Social Sciences, especially Sociology, and said that they should be analyzed in the same way as Natural Sciences. In this context, he proposed that impartiality and distancing from the facts were necessary for guaranteeing the analysis’ quality and accuracy.
The philosophers and thinkers that came after Durkheim built almost a consensus against this affirmation, saying that an “autarchy” is not possible and that including individual thoughts is part of any analysis on Human Sciences. So, consequently, the method of these Sciences, per se, started to be constructed and to distance itself from the one used on, for example, Biology and Chemistry.
Nevertheless of that, until now at days a debate about impartiality and manipulation of facts still occurs. Some groups claim that, for a person to be considered as good and fair, especially leaders and authors, a nearly sacred distancing from all facts and “sides” is necessary. Although, this creates a false notion of intellectual purity that, not only divides societies, but it also can be manipulated to serve very specific interests.
This happens because complete impartiality is impossible. No one can give opinions or analyze anything from the social point of view without involving itself with it. Even though, not every person knows that, and this makes way for some powerful groups to sell a false idea, telling opositors are not fair and transforming themselves in an image to be desired as a perfect leader or author.
Although, this not only happens in a national scale or in a specific moment. There is a big number of events in History that, though they involve a deep level of cruelty and disrespect, there is still people to relativize and to discredit any author or political leader that propose a critic to those events. It may be the Cold War, dictatorships or even slavery: every criticism to that faces “arguments” that it could have been more impartial.
So, in this context, it is important to examine some cases in historiography that until recent days provoke passioned debates. Even though some of them are completely absurd and are condemned, there are still arguments that look to relativize and demand “impartiality” from criticism.
1. SLAVERY
To start, it is true there were slavery on African peoples and cultures since a long time ago. Although, use this fact to, at any level, try to soften historiography about slavery and human traffic is completly absurd and disrespectful. What European countries did was the institution of an complex, organized scheme of capturing and selling of people from Africa, especially the West of the continent.
Some of the many African tribes did practice slavery and, not to enter on judging the right and wrong over this, it was something localized and inside the peoples, especifically. So, in this context, it cannot be compared at all to what countries like Portugal, Spain and Netherlands did, that was invading cities looking for "human specearies”, treated like mere products by centuries.
The worst about it is the reason why slavery was prohibited: the Industrial Revolution. When industries were stablished, it was more interesting to owners free works, because they receive salary and can buy the products that come from those businesses. The humanitarian reason, considering no human should put under slavery conditions barely was considered and it took some time for this new production logic to be assimilated. It is still possible to see comparable-to-slavery jobs nowadays.
In this context, the cruelty was very deep and high when it comes to this matter. Even though, in the XXI century, there are still groups that defend “it was another historical period”, or even that “slavery is not correct under economic liberalism logic”. The first one is completely out of logic and respect, because, even on that time, there was conscience that judging and classifying people by their skin color, and using this to put some of them under terrible conditions, was something wrong.
The second one, even though it does not defend or relativizes slavery, shows that “economic liberalism” basically means wild capitalism. Those people even say that slaves do not profit as well as free workers. Well, this shows the logic of self-proclaimed “liberals”: the liberty is to explore people and get the most of money from them. It simply does not matter if slaves profit more or less of their owners. No people should be slaved because this is a fundamental and natural right, not to be slaved.
Those kinds of arguments come from people that demand “impartiality” from historians and social scientists that condemn slavery properly. Not to be partial, no to take a part on this is to defend, or at least to neglect and disrespect millions of people that were slaved, and their descendants, that, until nowadays, try to preserve the memory of this great exploration and violation, and have to deal with the consequences of that.
2. COLONIZATION
This is a topic that, until not so late times, it was completely normal and good to defend colonizing processes. When European countries, from XV to XIX centuries, needed more markets, lands and mineral resources, because the bourgeoisie what too avid to explore even more people and places that they already had, those States started to expand themselves in ultramarine territories, initially called as colonies
In different times, there was also other intentions, such as expand catholic influence; this, specifically, was highly successful. The “justification”, if it is possible to call it like that, for colonizing land peoples in other continents and cultures, was, always, to give “civilization” and “educate” the societies. This is obviously absurd and it was only a created narrative, but it does shock a lot to see books on 1970 and 1980 decades containing those kind of content, passing this information to young students.
The best proof that even European countries knew this practice was wrong is the name changing. In neocolonialism, the word “colony” was no more used. It was substituted by softer words like “ultramarine department” of “mandate”. The cruelty on the process was the same, but the time was different: people from the colonizer countries and on the whole world were more conscient than before.
Although, it is still possible, really more than what it should be, political groups relativizing colonization, with arguments like “it was another time”, “it was necessary” or, believe it or not, “if we were not colonized we would be like wild people”. No words can express how absurd and disrespectful this is with the History of the own people that say these affirmations.
In this context, as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie say, this is the danger of a History that only considers one point of view: to neglect what really happened. The debate, the reflections and the reccourent process of changing and redefining historiography, always keeping respect and giving voice to different visions: to all readings. Though, even in order to guarantee this, visions like the ones presented should not be considered, because they represent values that must left on the past.
SINTETIZANDO -
Autor da citação: Donna Haraway (1944-)
Posição em relação ao autor: Concordância
Tese do ensaio: Adicionar a observação de Haraway que, assim como não existe imparcialidade completa, historigrafia e culturas políticas são formadas por vários pedaços de construções sociais e pensamento, os quais, de alguma forma são naturais, mas pode ser usado para disseminar preconceito e violência.
Autores usados em suporte: Chimanda Ngozi Adichie (1977-)
Ensaio escrito por João Vitor Zaidan