British historian E.H. Carr (Edward Hallett Carr) published his famously controversial work entitled, “What is History?” back in 1961 to the shock of some and the furor of many academics who responded by denouncing it as a work by an arrogant historian who rejected previous notions of history and historians as unreliable or unbelievable. Another British historian by the name of Jeffrey Alton wrote a whole book denouncing Carr and said about the latter’s approach to history as being, “’whimsical distinction between the “historical facts” and “facts of the past” saying that it reflected an extraordinary arrogant attitude both to the past and to the place of the historian studying it.”
The question of what history is still a controversial subject in academic circles sand has impacted historiography for over 60 years. There is no such academic discussion in Ethiopia since everything that happened in the past is roughly considered to be history while historiography is not much known as an independent subject of study in its own right. Serious lack of knowledge about what history is or what the job of a historian is has led to the erroneous attitude or opinion that history can be approach by anyone interested to write about it. As a result of this, many people who have had personal experiences of certain events have been writing books that are often considered historical works.
Consequently, there are many history books that have been written on recent Ethiopian history. The market is sometimes saturate with books dealing with historical subjects. At one time in the recent past, there were many books that were written and sold by former military officers of the Derg government that had a semblance of historical facts but are only personal experiences or reminiscences of the military officers that were written by civilian leaders of the Derg regime. These are largely accounts of the Revolution of 1974 in which the army had taken part and later on took total control of the political process.
Many books are indeed written about the 1974 Revolution from various perspectives, by Ethiopians as well as foreigners. Some of them display elements of history but they are not written dispassionately or from a neutral and objective point of view. For this reason alone, these books cannot be taken as historical accounts. History requires a dispassionate approach to be plausible. Otherwise, all the accounts turn into personal stories or outright lies and fiction intended to defend or justify certain actions by certain groups of people.
Dispassion and objectivity are also essential in writing about non-military or non-political issues if the authors expect achieving some degree of historical authenticity from their efforts. There are also books that have the appearance of being “economic histories” of a certain period but upon closer examination, they turn out to be ideological discourses justifying a set of policies that a certain government adopted as a developmental approach to the economy. Top officials of the defunct EPRDF regime too had written such ideologically-tainted books that had the impression of being the political history of the 27 years prior to the reforms.
Books by Ethiopian officials bearing titles like “The Struggle of the Eritrea people from Where to Where?”, or “The struggle of Oromo People from where to Where?” are of course both ideological or subjective analyses and not true history as we know it. They are not about the history of Eritrea or Oromia although they were written with history in mind, as the titles suggest.
Some of Ethiopia’s past leaders were also fond of writing historical books. “Ethiopia and the Journey of my Life”, “Our Struggle” or “The Ethiopian Revolution” may be useful reference materials whenever someone writes biographies of these leaders but do not serve as references for books on Ethiopian history because they are too subjective and too partisan.
As we said above, the main reasons why ideologically-tainted books cannot pass as historical accounts is that they are written from the point of view of the authors, lack solid research and references and are not free from partisanship. Such books are not taken seriously and do not have long shelf lives. Who remembers now that above mentioned books let alone use them as reference materials?
During the Stalin period in Russian history, the history of the ruling communist party was written many times depending who was in power. Joseph Stalin for instance had ordered his own version of the “History of the Russian Communist Party–Bolsheviks” to be rewritten by changing facts and figures from the original book that bore the same title. And the book lost all authenticity as soon as Stalin’s authority vanished.
I guess military history is a component part of the history of a country. Most of the books dealing with past wars in the north of the country were written from the point of view of the commanders and generals who fought in the many warfronts. Most of them are not however written by non-academic historians as a result of which they are not backed by solid facts and substantive and researched data.
These books were popular when they appeared and enjoyed great sales figures. But this may not make them genuine books of history as they were written from the point of view of the commanders who took part in the fighting and ended up in defeat. The books may be some kind of justification for their defeat but not true accounts of what happened. I guess military history too should be written by professional historians and should be impartial, objective and well-researched. Fortunately, there are a few historians who wrote on Ethiopian history in accordance with the generally accepted rules and practices of historiography.
One notable exception may be Ethiopian journalist Paulos Nionio, who wrote history books on Emperor Menelik’s era and earned the respect of many Ethiopians, including academics. Paulos was said to have followed his formal studies up to the fourth grade and became a famous journalist and writer all through his natural talent, honesty and hard work in making his writings well-researched and as authentic as possible. This is an excellent proof that one does not necessarily need a college degree in history in order to write history books.
All historians who have gone through college and earned prestigious degrees have not written books although most of them were celebrated academics. Being a historian is one thing and writing books another matter. Writing history books must require a solid knowledge of history in addition to mastery of the art of writing which is either learned or comes naturally. Herodotus, the famous Roman historian did not go to college to produce monumental works of history that are still being used as reference materials and a great source of pleasure to read. Writing history is not the same thing as writing a story. So, the dilemma can be formulated as follows: who should write Ethiopian history in this country and when? Many writers who have the “courage” or some degree of self-confidence often indulge in a practice that requires great knowledge of history, a mastery of the skills required to produce such book, serious research, impartiality in their approach to historical facts, and great patience and time and energy consuming hard work.
There are also other people who write history books while their subject matter is still in the process of unfolding or when history is still in the making. These are people generally driven by commercial considerations and the urge to be the “first” to write about a subject as if they were writing breaking stories for newspapers. Some historians argue that a relatively long time should elapse between the events and the decision to write about these events. In other words, history has to unfold fully before it becomes a topic for writing a book. The time that elapses in between should serve as a gestation time and writers need to compile all the available source materials before rushing into putting pen to paper. And according to other history books take a long time to write and a slow and meticulous digestion of the topics.
The other point is that Ethiopian history has to be written by Ethiopians. Many foreigners may have an axe to grind when they take up a subject of history and write lengthy books about them. There were also those who wrote their books with an Ethiopian mind like the late Richard Pankhurst who was no less Ethiopian than most Ethiopian intellectuals. However, some of the misleading interpretations of history written by some misguided foreign authors might serve or be used to promote interests contrary to Ethiopia’s national interest. Most of the diplomatic rows that we now see around the GERD have emanated from a wrong understanding of the history of the Nile written by wrong-headed authors. The distortions and deliberate lies of these authors have obviously gone into creating a wrong impression of Ethiopia among a substantial part of the international community. As we see it, this is hurting both Ethiopia’s image and national interests.
This task could have been better dealt with had there been an academy of social sciences which would be an apolitical and independent institution for the study of Ethiopian history that would be passed on to the next generations. We cannot afford to write and rewrite Ethiopian history every time there is a change of government or disagreements among the educated elite who often use their historical perspectives for the promotion of right or wrong causes that often lead to bitter disputes that end up in conflicts among their followers in many parts of the country. History should be a factor of national cohesion and not of divisions, disputes and armed confrontations since many of the wars fought among rival political groups and engulfed the ordinary people largely emanate from erroneous and/ or conflicting interpretations of the past.
History books written in haste and without adequate and objective reference are often put to the test of time and sometimes rejected or changed by another version of the same history written by other people. In this way, students of Ethiopian history are often confused as to which version is the true one. These partisan interpretations of the same history have also caused many damages to the study of Ethiopian history around which most researchers agree. One option would be for the educational authorities to set up a committee of expert historians with an objective approach and assign them to come up with what they agree to be the right version of our history or any aspect of it.
BY MULUGETA GUDETA
The Ethiopian Herald 29 May 2021
