Controlling The Historical Narrative II

Continuing on an earlier post on this topic, consider the foundational myths of countries. Take Serbia as an example. Under the rabidly nationalist rule of Slobodan Milosevic, the country precipitated the breakup of Yugoslavia and later fought a bitter and genocidal war in Bosnia. Throughout this period, the Serbs were the aggressors and generally had the upper hand. Foreign intervention eventually ended the war. Yet the Serbs consistently viewed themselves as victims throughout. Why? The answer goes back to their history and the way they interpreted it. Much of Serbian history over the last last 600 years or so was spent in battling the Ottoman Empire. These were battles they generally lost. The defining event of their historical narrative was the Battle of Kosovo which technically ended in a draw but practically left the Serbs with too few men to resist Ottoman aggression. Out of this history of loss arose a narrative of the Serb as a hapless victim of outside aggression. During the breakup of Yugoslavia, when the Serbs themselves were the aggressors, this history was used as a justification.

The US provides another example. The Founding Fathers are viewed as wise, farsighted men who rejected the monarchical, class bound ways of Europe and instead embarked on a bold, continuing experiment of democracy under which all peoples would be treated as equals. The basis for this was the constitution they developed which is viewed as a remarkably farsighted, almost sacrosanct document. This is the foundational myth. The truth is a little more complicated. The men who wrote the US constitution disagreed on major issues which at many points threatened to derail the whole project. Many of these men owned slaves. When they talked about the rights of men, they generally had white men (not even white women) in mind. Far from embracing democracy, they were suspicious of it. To limit the effects of a popular vote, they instituted the electoral college system. The result is that the President of the United States is actually chosen by the electoral college which theoretically can (and in the past sometimes did) choose against the popular vote.

As another example, consider the 1947 partition of India into two independent domains. How is this event to be viewed? The history taught in Pakistan actively seeks to link Middle Eastern Islamic history with Pakistan. The colonial period is depicted as one of repression and strong Muslim subjugation. The creation of Pakistan is viewed as the end result of a historical process that started almost 100 years earlier. Yet the man who effectively led the Muslim movement, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a strong proponent of Hindu - Muslim unity in his early career. As late as 1946, just one year before partition, he was willing to agree to a compromise that would have prevented partition. Since then, the historical narrative in Pakistan has been that India is constantly seeking to reverse partition.

If we are all products of our personal and national history, then anyone who can control our historical narrative has great power over us. Before blindly accepting conventional narrative, that perhaps is an important point to ponder on.