I tried to
ignore the whole thing and kept telling myself “at least, they are trying…
and it’s ok to try in our present time when no one wants to exert any effort”…
however, I could not ignore any more. I here mean the seminar or you can say
conference held by the Supreme Council of Culture titled “January and June revolutions…
objective evaluation or unbiased vision”. What made it even worse is that the history
committee supervised the seminar and most of the names lecturing were history
professors.
I tried to
understand why we shall present an evaluation or vision about the two
revolutions right now while we are still living the events. I found no answer for
this. I tried to expel the shadows of my late history professors; Ahmed Ezzat
Abdel-Karim, Ahmed Abdel-Rahim Mustafa and Muhammed Anis, and my friends of history
professors still alive, Assem ed-Dessouki, Abdel-Khaliq Lashin, Ali Shalabi,
Muhammed Fou’ad el-Morsi and others… but ghosts kept haunting me, calling: “do
not stand still or you will be an accomplice in that crime”.
We were taught
– and I guess those who were in the seminar of the Supreme Council of Culture
headed by a historian were also taught the same thing – that history scholars
shall tackle the study of events and circumstances after a sufficient period of
time passes following the completion of those events and circumstances. This period
of time is specified by the British National Archives department to be 30 years
in order to release the documents related to the elapsed era. However,
sometimes whole or part of certain documents may not be allowed to be released.
There is a great
difference between the eye-witness participating or watching the incidents and
history scholar, as the latter does not have the right to practice his job over
himself. Meaning that the eye-witness who witnessed or took part in the
incident – while narrating what he lived or watched – is in need of someone else
to read his testimony in a critical way adopting discipline scientific tools
known for all working in the field of history. I believe no one of those history
teachers and university professors who participated in the seminar have applied
the well-known agreed-upon discipline rules over their visions.
What is more
catastrophic is that some big names of history professors reported to be taking
part in that seminar are known to be unyielding and impartial. I have no idea
how those big names could violate the scientific rules agreed upon in the
discipline of history and do what they did. Maybe it is for the sake of the
reward… or even feeling embarrassed from the Council chief who is a history
professor as well… and maybe because participation in such seminar means staying
under the regime and government’s spot lights… and maybe this seminar is held
upon request from top authorities.
I do not
understand how a scholar and teacher of contemporary and modern history can
have the audacity to do the job of or replace the scholar and teacher of
political sciences, sociology and social psychology. The three of those social
sciences; political sciences, sociology and social psychology, can deal with
events while they are still running, and even some social sciences’ researchers
can put assumptions, scenarios and make comparisons among them. Some others can
detect the mechanisms and dynamics of both the event and humans and then
present their analysis based on the research tools used in the discipline they
belong to. I really do not understand how a historian can take the role of
political sciences, sociology or social psychology professor and vice versa. Meaning
that if a political sciences’ professor addressed the study of historic events
or presented an analysis for a certain historical figure, that would be
considered invalid. This is part of the problem we have nowadays as no one does
his job. No one commits to his discipline. Many work in fields other than their
specialization and do not commit to the agreed-upon scientific rules known in
that field. Actually, we live in a total jumble.
I do not know
if the Supreme Council of “Jumble” – which became a place for the inefficient cronies
of the minister or ex-chief of the council – will publish the outcome of such
seminar and what those history philosophers discussed like no other did in
history before; not even Toynbee, Marx, Plekhanov or all historians of idealism
and materialism philosophies, or whether they will keep the papers in the files
printed and then put them in the storing rooms until they find their way to
Rakta paper manufacturing company in case it still exists.
Dear gentlemen
teaching history in university… will you please, for God’s sake, stick to your
discipline and do your job so that you do not mislead your students.
This article
was published in Almasry alyoum newspaper in June 2, 2015.
To see the
original article, go to:
#almasry_alyoum
#ahmed_elgammal #Egypt #supreme_council_of_culture #history
No comments:
Post a Comment