Carlo Greppi: "Debunking politicians is the most important battle we historians face right now."
Historian, author of 'stories that don't make history'
BarcelonaThe Italian historian Carlo Greppi (Turin, 1982) argues that a much more human history should be told, full of stories of common lives that can reveal many things that we do not find in official history. In fact, Greppi did so with The man who saved Primo Levi (Criticism). In stories that do not make History (Eumo), translated into Catalan by Eloi Creus, reflects on the power we can wield to make events take an unexpected turn and warns of the danger of a public use of history with a high rate of ideological toxicity.
Why is it so important to trace the trail of history with a lowercase h?
— History is the history of humanity, of all human beings. The history of power is important because it can provide a backdrop, but it's very risky to forget the history of each of us, to not look from below. If we don't, we can't understand what we are like.
What can you gain from knowing the story of someone seemingly insignificant?
— Every human being has the opportunity to influence events. They can do so in persecutions, in wars... An individual always has the possibility of changing the course of history. I don't believe history should be told as something distant, something that has nothing to do with us, devoid of emotions or meaning.
Lately, we've seen how history is being exploited by those in power, and also by the far right, and a sense of helplessness in the face of major tragedies is spreading.
— I can give you Spanish examples of how people without power have influenced history. Paco Roca and Rodrigo Terrasa explain this very well, for example, in The abyss of oblivion, where the descendants of the victims of Franco's regime fight to open the graves of Paterna, or in The furrows of chance, with the story of the Republicans who liberated Paris in August 1944. It is the story of anti-fascists from different places who changed the course of history. Or the case of Lorenzo Perrone, the bricklayer who saved Primo Levi.
And who cares if we believe we can't do anything and that everything depends on others?
— Those in power are interested in the history of great achievements, most of which are carried out by men: military personnel, politicians, men with economic power. It's a perception of history, but also the transmission of a type of society. There are human groups that have been persecuted historically, whose history has been very rarely told. However, there are powerful groups that have a very long history and have many sources. They have ensured that this is the case in order to explain their version. Our duty, as historians, is to rebalance this.
He states that the historian should make clear his ideological position or stance regarding the subject he is speaking about.
— Yes, I think it should be that way out of respect for the reader. And you should also detail how you conduct your research, what your conclusions are, how you arrive at your information, and be transparent about the tools you use. The reader can also be critical.
There's a perception, perhaps mistaken, that the moment we open our computer, we can access all knowledge. However, there's a lot of opacity, and many lies circulate that are instilled in the collective imagination.
— There is a positive side, which is the democratization of knowledge, but questions should always be asked, like the five basic questions of journalism: who, what, how, why, when. And any investigation should be linked to sources of knowledge that are not on the internet: letters, photographs, witnesses... It's very worrying that some people believe they'll find all the answers with AI. There is a huge amount of historical information that isn't on the internet.
What harm can the historical lies currently circulating cause, and which ones worry you most?
— The ones that worry me most are those of the politicians. In Italy, Spain, Germany, and Argentina, there is a far right that, through historical lies, has achieved political fortune. It is very difficult and exhausting, but all these fallacies must be debunked. Debunking politicians is the most important battle we historians face right now. For years, a political class has dedicated itself to discrediting intellectuals, and one of the consequences is a loss of credibility. After the long anti-intellectual offensive, ordinary citizens don't have much trust in people who study.
Do you think, then, that historians' greatest battle is against the political class?
— Yes, an intellectual must criticize, discuss, and defend documented and verifiable reality, things that politicians often ignore. They readily tell lies; many have been told in Italy about the Italian partisans.
How should history be taught in schools so that we aren't so gullible to lies?
— Knowing history well makes people stronger intellectually. But it doesn't work if history is taught as a list of events and famous people. History must be told with a certain passion and documented with testimonies, photographs, sources... to build a narrative.
Has the victimhood paradigm done much harm in cases where the story has been told from the perspective of witnesses? Has there been a "hunt" for victim IDs?
— In Italy, real victims, such as the children deported to Auschwitz, have been equated with the fascists who played an active role in this deportation and were later executed without trial. A fascist killed because he defended an exclusionary, racist, and violent world; a partisan defended a democratic world, not an oppressed society, and this is a substantial difference.
And what danger is there in equating victims?