Rewriting wrongs?

The ways in which historians reinterpret the past – and the dangers inherent in doing so – have proved a hot topic in recent months. ANNA WHITELOCK charts the latest developments

Writing in the New Statesman W in December, historian and broadcaster David Olusoga (@DavidOlusoga) declared: “Historians should repeatedly point out that the ‘rewriting of history’ is not some act of professional misconduct but literally the job of professional historians.” Other Twitter historians agreed, in strident terms. David M Perry (@Lollardfish), for instance, responded with an all-caps “LITERALLY OUR JOB.” Another David (@History David) concurred, issuing the rallying cry that “it’s time to fight for the soul of the discipline – misinformation is destroying history’s credibility”. Corinne Fowler (@corinne_ fowler) made the important point that “if we want historians to share their research or assist institutions without being fashioned into targets for hatred, intimidation and smear campaigns we need to act. Today it’s someone else. Tomorrow it could be you.”

Reflecting on 1930s Germany, Sir Richard Evans (@RichardEvans36) wrote: “Rewriting history, done with due regard to the constraints imposed by the evidence, is fine – normal, indeed, for the historical profession. What’s not fine or normal is deliberate distortion, manipulation of the evidence, omission or invention – as, for example, with Holocaust denial.” To which

Roger Moorhouse (@Roger_Moorhouse) responded: “I suppose the test here is whether the rewriting and reinterpretation is being done honestly or not. After all, the Nazis and Soviets rewrote history, but we wouldn’t accept that as merely ‘part of the process’. [In my opinion] some of the modern rewriting falls into that same category.”

N647 (@night647) also sought to make a distinction between the various forms of rewriting. “If history is rewritten to fix misconceptions or previous mistakes, to try and get a more accurate history, sure… but when it is done under a political standpoint, you are no longer a historian, you are a propagandist.” That prompted Jonathan Dallimore (@jvdallimore) to ask: “Isn’t ‘fixing misconceptions’ often political? I’d say it is and I’d say it’s a good thing, especially if the original misconceptions were shaped largely by political forces.”

The final words on this subject, for now, go to Susan Wabuda (@Susan Wabuda), who wrote: “When people raise new questions about the past, the role of historians is to provide new explanations.” As she went on to explain: “This is what I tell people at the supermarket who accuse me, as a historian, of ‘rewriting the past’. I say: ‘But you have questions you didn’t have before, right? You deserve a satisfying answer, based on evidence, that makes sense.’ And they like my answer.”

I agree – and, on a more minor point, I’m also impressed by how much more interesting Susan’s shopping trips are than mine!

The test here is whether the rewriting and reinterpretation is being done honestly or not