26-07-2009

                          NOTICE

we ll  make radical changes in the site of HOMO NATURALIS

We want you to help us make the right changes.

Please send us an email at  Αυτό το ηλεκτρονικό μήνυμα προστατεύεται από spam bots, θα πρέπει να έχετε ενεργοποιημένη τη Javascript για να το δείτε and tell us if you read the Greek or the English version or  both

                                                 ***

An old but famous History lecturer of the University of Athens, in one of his rare outbursts of honesty had mentioned in one of his lectures once : “ God wisely allowed man to make his own history, but either He should have taught him how to properly record it or He should have deprived him of the privilege of doing so”.
Nowadays, in all lawful and civilized societies, where the roles are (or should be) experiential and separated, they are not pretended or faked; besides of those roles which are performed in plays. Thus, expropriation is not only a lame, but also in many cases, an unlawful course of action. To be an amateur or to lack method in your course of action is both ridiculous and dangerous. Especially, when it comes to science.
Because as far as scientific knowledge is concerned, the rules of its acquisition are strictly defined and the rules of its specialization are binding for its operators. To trespass into a professional group of specialized knowledge is forbidden. The “ Free Entering of visitors” and the taking over of knowledge space which “de juro et ipso de jure” belongs to others, is also forbidden. Because to be a charlatan, to be involved in monkey business, to be fake, is not just a ridiculous disguise alone. Its consequences are primarily dangerous.
These restrictions are applied in all the disciplines but for the field of History. Anyone has the “right” to record History. In  Greece, particular.  Retired citizens, politicians, retired army officers, public servants, when they are not writing fiction they busy themselves with the writing of historical texts. Even autobiographical narrations are changed and transformed into historical texts. Embellished with a narrative language personal incidents, memories, names and dates are turned into “historical events”.
To mention just a few, the importance of the research of the archival resources, the need for them to be critically read, the discovery and the understanding of the historical events (one of the principal aims of the science of History), require specialized knowledge and trust, to both of which the “Historians” of that kind are both indifferent and unfamiliar.
But this is not history’s sole problem. Almost as significant as that, is the problem which is linked to the personality of the historian when it comes to its efficiency and its ability to cater to the needs of history. “ Thoucidides’s Science” not only requires knowledge and specialization but both “ethos” and “consciousness”  should be cognate and parallel in a historian. All these virtues are taken for granted and ring like melody in our ears, elegant like decorative adjectives.(Objectivity, critical ability, impartiality, selflessness) . Sadly, we have to admit that by rule, they lack from the ethical equipment of the historians and in the past their lacking has been proved irreversibly harmful to the chronography-historiography and even to the plain and critical narration of the events. But the fact that they are still missing in the modern historical science torments its research work in finding, in interpreting, in understanding and discerning the sources, and finally in choosing between many  remarkable people and significant actions and including them in the historical sphere. Half-truths and lies, tendentiousness, prejudice, pettiness, are all filtered through distorted pens and are presented to the generations to come as “history”. Sometimes spiteful and sometimes paranoid the pens of the historians suffocate with their colourless ink crucial historical events and significant personalities, thus blemishing their creative work.
Such attempts have been made in the past and they were quite notable.  The more they are the merrier though. Maybe some time in the future they will be transformed into a river which will wash away the historical ordure. Only then, does History have the power, as a humanistic science, to play a decisive role in the progress and the evolution of humanity. History could constitute the cornerstone in the construction of the human civilization. Otherwise, it would be better and wiser for us to trust its pages less; this way, it would be less harmful!             

                                                   B'     

One does not have to be an expert to perceive that written History, the way it has been delivered to us today, is not the true History of the Past. Neither is Science nowadays, in a position, to resurrect the entire (written) History or to detect the amount of falsification and alteration History has been submitted to.
This inaccuracy and distortion of History is due to many reasons; for instance the lack of different sources to compare and contrast their contents and the related events; another reason being the inadequacy of the historical ethos, which is a common characteristic of the majority of the Historians; in particular, their influence by many different national, ethnical, religious and other backgrounds. (This refers mostly to older historians because in modern and contemporary History, that is not the case).
Par example, The Peloponnesian War, was recorded in its biggest part by the Athenian Historian Thucydides and since 411 B.C. (before the accepted date), Xenophon started to record it too. Xenophon was of Athenian origin but later he took to the Spartans. Consequently, as far as Historians is concerned, it is their national identity, to mention only one reason, which by itself invalidates or even renders their historical narration as suspicious and flawed since Historical ethos (objectivity, impartiality) can not be just a state of mind but it must be proved in practice. 
This is exactly the case with Polivios Megalopolitis  and his work. A conservative Peloponnesian writer of Roman upbringing whose writings span over a long period  of time full of important events; in his writings he makes a number of arbitrary judgments on people, on causes and on effects and his writings are the sole historical source of those years. He has been often cited and copied almost to the last word, from other historians who can not stand or dare to question in the least his prestige as an engaging historian. That is why, the Spartan King Navis, who fought against the Romans and against the general Likortas (father of the historian) becomes the prey of Polivios’s predatory pen and thus, Navis’s work is blemished, he is slandered as an individual and the historical portrait of his friends and his colleagues is distorted.
The situation is exacerbated in the later years (the Byzantine era, the Middle Ages). The way History of those years has been delivered to us is either a religious frenzy of cleric men (Efsevios Pamfilou) or a libel of some opportunists or mercenary writers against their foes and their opponents. (Prokopios, Kekavmenos).
To name some of these historians, who in fact wrote in Greek, is only indicative and it does not mean that they are the only one “lacking” historically. Indeed, the vast majority (of Greek and non-Greek writers) falls under the same category and they all differ slightly but not essentially.
Just by briefly mentioning a few of these issues, it is easily understandable that what we acknowledge today as History of the Past, might bear rare, close or none relation whatsoever to the true facts and events that took place; consequently, its judgments regarding people and actions could be entirely or partially distorted or slandering. It could be that serious events that took place sometime in the past, have been entirely burked and significant individuals who played a leading role in those, have their names obscured from historical memory. And this is the reason why we express our skepticism and our distrust for the pages of History, since the true History of the past is not truly recorded in those but only a part of it is. Truth is we will never be informed of that part. (That applies to us today, because as far as the future is concerned, no one can really tell about the possibilities that might rise due to the developing Science and Technology).

                                                 C'

In winter 2005, in a Conference at Shevchenko University, Kiev, the historian Nikos Adamopoulos mentioned in one of his lectures(published in Greek as well):

“ In a symbolic gesture we decided to change the intonation of the word History (pronounced as Histori’a ) from the penultimate to the antepenultimate syllable ( thus turning it into Histo’ria). The reason why we did so was in order to indicate that the traditional form of History, the way it is taught and the way we know it, often unquestionably accepted by us, is not “ History” itself. To be more precise, it is not the entire History. For reasons which will be analyzed below, traditional History ignored, obscured (either on purpose or accidentally) and even misrepresented big parts of the human activity, of the “Historical Being” as we call it. Surely the problem is not new and in no case do we claim to have raised the issue first. With all the problems mentioned in my speech I do not take pride in having stated the obvious. Tens of historians, sociologists and other researchers of related sciences, have pointed out the problem and international bibliography can be content to have included in its pages excellent studies relevant to the issue we are analyzing today in this scientific Conference.
The so-called “ leery” historians of past and modern times, have located and pointed out the serious problem of the truncated and unreliable History. Most of those historians, in their remarkable studies, have thoroughly recorded and have critically stated the reasons why this has taken place. Certain historians, the so-called “extremists” (the term is used here as synonym of the word radical and not necessarily in the sense of the fanatic or massively leveling researcher) definitely question the objectivity of traditional history. They are the ones who deem it to be in its whole untruthful and committed to certain interests (serving certain purposes) ,in short they consider it to be false. We do not fully support this opinion; mind you, though that what we stand for does not differ much either. To be objective and to do justice to the historiographers of all times, be they ancient or modern, we would have to mention that the “products” of their historical pen are always linked and thus, affected by the range of their education, their national identity and their social class, their ideology, their own personal purposes and interests etc. When all the afore-mentioned reasons-characteristics are prevalent in the historiographer’s personality, they eliminate his objectivity, they charge his pen in a negative way and they render his writing doubtful and his historical judgment as “personal”. (Note that the term is used as antonym of the terms objective and impartial). This is one very significant characteristic, which automatically renders his writing unreliable, false and thus dangerous.
To be more understood, it will suffice to mention a few examples of older and modern historiographers. In mentioning them, by no means do we support that they are set as warning lessons or that they are automatically rendered as insufficient or that their historical work is entirely useless. Such a leveling belief would show lack of respect to some historians, whose presence was very significant because they recorded even with some mistakes, omissions and with a sense of tendentiousness their “Historical Being” of their time or of older times. It would also damage irreversibly the historical memory of the generations, discarding into oblivion and into depreciation significant historical figures and their actions or important events taking place just because they were recorded by these historians, mentioned later on. Our stand though, even if it is severely criticized by others, is not a belief of “Christian” tolerance and forgiveness; in other words absolution. These historians take their share of responsibility and our being tolerant does not rid them off their mistakes nor does it rip their bad historical self away. The stigma of the recruited historian, remains on them and it will always follow them, as long as there will be people who  respect truth and fight for what is fair.
To start from the ancient Greek historiography such examples of historians are Xenophon the Athenian and later on Polivios the Megalopolitis. Their “historical ethos” can not be compared to that of the great ancient Athenian colleague of theirs, to the historian Thucydides. Xenophon, was what today we would call a reporter or even a war correspondent; if we pay close attention to the man’s life and to his career, we will find it full of adventurism and an easy conversion from the one camp to the other. Xenophon offers freely and easily enough praise to those he is fond of or to those who serve his personal interests. At the same time, he refuses to narrate contemporary historical events of great significance and he obscures others, which are equally important and defining for his time and the years to follow. Xenophon was of an Athenian origin, and when his co patriots turned against him , he fled his country and became a Spartan citizen; finding shelter under the protective umbrella of the Spartans; they in return to his conversion to the Spartan camp, provided him with a huge property near Ancient Olympia where he lived in prosperity, protected against the threat of the Athenian law. And Xenophon, himself, grateful to his protectors and his new “masters”, paid his due, offering them lavish pieces of his favour and dissimulation, by covering up many flaws of their system of government and of their educational system or even of their historical crimes in the pages of his history. He will make no reference and hide brilliant Athenian actions, he will blemish figures who he happened to dislike and whose opinions he did not support. The saddest issue being that after Thucydides’ death, the narration of the events of the great Peloponnesian war, from 411B.C.and onwards, will be continued by Xenophon, making no reference, obscuring and even distorting many of these events, slandering the figures who played a leading role in those.
Polivios the Megalopolitis is the second example. A friend of the Romans, since he spent a big part of his life in Rome., in a “golden cage”, an aristocrat and thus, a conservative, from  a wealthy  Peloponnesian family , he hated every revolutionary action and the entire democratic Peloponnesian community; throwing in the nether of Historical falsification rebels and historical figures who fervently supported their democratic ideas. A characteristic example is the Spartan King Navis. Navis, took the throne after a revolution broke at a time, when in the historical city there was ethical and economical abjection, he took radical political actions, so remarkable and evolutionary for his time, that are still considered to be excellent . He redistributed the land, taking it away from 100 free-rich Spartan citizens and dividing it to the destitute, poor co patriots of his. He set free all the slaves (helots), he gave equal rights to women, he exported the Spartan culture and mentality to other cities, calling the rest of the democratic cities of the Peloponnese to do the same and he offered his assistance in achieving that. A sworn enemy of the Romans and an opponent of their imperialistic tactics, he stalemated the Roman legions on the outskirts of Sparta and he cancelled the Romans’ plans. On the other hand, the father of the historian Polivios, a general of the Achaic confederacy welcomes the Roman invaders and agrees to cooperate with them. Yet his son Polivios in his story, he will be relentless against the ”nerve” of the Spartan helot, Navis, who has become a King and has up surged the Peloponnese with his revolutionary ideas and actions. Due to his different social class background, his ideology, his beliefs and general philosophy in life, he will handle Navis in his narration in such a way and he will manipulate the great Spartan King so that he will render him unrecognizable. He will make him look like a ridiculous tyrant, a lame criminal, a rapist, a bandit, a beast. Every lame and gruesome characteristic that can be traced back in human cruelty and perversion, are all attributed to Navis. Polivios shows no mercy for Navis, not even a minute particle of appreciation for his work, not even one single word of objective historical narration of the actions of the Spartan rebel. He consciously covers up serious historical events, he hides historical actions of great importance, he alters and smears the “Historical Being” which he voluntarily took up to write and to pass judgments on. By blemishing him, Polivios handed over Navis to history. But he did not stop burking Navis’ work; he continued and so he distorted it completely and historically “slaughtered” the revolutionary helot. The modern historians, picked Navis up from there and as such they recorded him to be; historians of the same historical ethos and the same ideology as Polivios’. The huge blanks of History, the covering up of events, their falsification, their alteration, killed in cold blood the objective historical truth concerning the Spartan king Navis, in the pages of  Polivios’ history. 
And we come to later historical years, to the so-called Proto-Byzantine era. Two historians, Efsevios Kessareias Pamfilou and Prokopios were contemporaries of two great Historical personalities. The first, of the Emperor Constantine the Great and the latter of  Justinian.  Efsevios being a man of clergy himself, he writes cleric history. And if he had stuck to that, if he had not moved into unknown territory, as he had no right to do , if he did not decide to busy himself with recording, analyzing and judging political events, which were beyond his duties and beyond his knowledge and his perception, he would not be accused of distorting history. Instead, he continued writing and through his distorting religious lens, he attempted to see and to interpret events and figures, which can not be interpreted or analysed using the religious approach alone. Thus, Constantine, an abuser of the Roman power, a hunter of the “ national” Greeks and a visionary of the authoritarian, theocratic system of government, constituting himself the representative of God on earth, he is proclaimed as “Great” in Efsevios’ History. Many criminal actions of his are swept under the rug, his lack of Christian ethos is turned into deep Christian faith and he is proclaimed equal to the apostles and a saint by the Church. He is the one who was baptized at death’s door, without being aware of the ritual and of the deepest meaning of it; he was the one who until the end of his life, he was the first and the greatest priest of the Roman religion, he is the one who is proclaimed from the committed and fanatic pen of Efsevios as a respectable Christian. His gruesome actions against the “nationals” are forgiven and are claimed to be “a work of God”; and his victories are a product of  Providence’s direct dispensation. God is the leader of the Emperor’s armies, leading them ahead, bearing the flag with the cross on it and reading the phrase” in this, conquer”.
Prokopios is set as the fourth example; a classic example of its type for burking, distorting the events and for providing praise to the protectors of the system for reasons of his own. While he is enjoying Justinians’s protection, he is paid lavishly and is considered to be the Emperor’s closest person; for this he dedicates to him pages of praise and proclaims him a great general and political leader, with a range of virtues and talents. But when Prokopios ceases to be Justinian’s favourite, he therefore stops being considered one of the courtesans; and at that specific moment his dips his biased   pen into the ink of envy and bitterness, of slandering and of smearing. The mud he will sling against the Emperor and his libels will be unprecedented. Justinian, who up to that point was a brilliant Emperor and his kind, noble, genius and moral wife Theodora, once a perfect example of a life-partner and Empress, are now turned into ridiculous, immoral, cheap, non-human individuals and poor Theodora is proclaimed the lowest of whores of Constantinople. What a nerve, what a decline, what a debase of the Historian and his work!!!
The examples mentioned above are not the only ones. We would be able to make an endless list with names of historians, of the ancient, middle, modern and contemporary times who belong to the same category as the ones mentioned above; that is, in the category where consciously most of the times but accidentally too, they failed  to record important events of periods they write about in their historiographies. On the other hand, they consciously made no reference to some events for obvious reasons and other events they distorted and altered. The same goes for the historical figures which as remarkable and as significant as they have been, they have remained in oblivion or they have been blemished or misrepresented entirely.
We are tempted to mention just a few of those. For example, by whom, how and why was Efialtis killed? Efialtis was the leader of the Democratic Party in Athens and later on Pericles took over the leadership after Efialtis was murdered. Did Pericles have any involvement in Efialtis’ murder? When and how this huge blank will be covered, of a historical period which commences with the accession to the leadership of the democrats from Efialtis and ends with his murder and Pericles’ proclamation as a leader? We move on to mention Alexander the Macedonian. How and from what did he die of? Where was he buried and why is his tomb still unknown to us today? The historians’ arguments are naïve and suspicious, stating that he died of exhaustion, of a virus, of a sexually transmitted disease, drugs or alcohol and the reason why his tomb is hidden from us is  even more naïve and suspicious. Who wanted to avoid having an autopsy of the dead body, which would apparently solve the mystery of his death? We move on then to the Byzantine years. How did the committed pen dare to add next to the name of the great philosopher and Emperor Julian the depreciating adjective violator? Why was his extensive work hidden and degraded? Let us take a few steps forward. It is the 29th of May 1453.  Constantinople, the City of cities, the stronghold of Christianity and of the Greek culture, falls in the hands of Mohamed. Who handed in the city to the Turks? Was it the insane politics of the last emperors, the corruption, the economic, social decline of the citizens in the shrinking Byzantine Empire, the conjunction of circumstances, or the drive of the beginner and the decline of the older? These too are some reasons. But, why no one has ever mentioned the conspiracy of the Clergy of The Orthodox Church and its treason of the Last Emperor Constantine Palaiologos?  What about of the clergy which stated out loud then, that “it’s better to put on the Turkish turban than the pope’s crown”. Who is that higher-rank  priest who on the eves of the fall of the city, met with the Sultan and agreed with him to hand in the city ? How and why immediately after the fall, the divisive Gennadius-Scholarios was ordained Patriarch with unprecedented privileges given to him by the Sultan, privileges which are still enjoyed by the patriarchs today? And now as far as our days is concerned. The Nazis burned in the crematoria and in the furnaces millions of people, Jews, gypsies and other “inferior” races, who did not belong to the Aryan Race. Why did some “ historians” start a lame attempt of covering up this huge crime against humanity? Why are they trying to put off the fire in those furnaces, when you can still smell the burning flesh of people and they disrespect the historical memory and human dignity?
History not only does not write the truth but in many cases it “ forgets” to write it; it hides it and it distorts it. Big parts of it are laying in the dark and others are buried deep or altered. In the chain of human actions, recorded as history, there are many rings missing. Some of them were hidden and others were transformed or totally destroyed. This is apparent and thus unquestionable. We stated the reasons why this has happened. But by tracing the problem we must reach to its solution. That is to reform history. We must seek and find the missing pieces of the puzzle which are either laying around waiting to be found or are hidden skillfully. And they are many; too many.
We must find all these rings of the chain lost and hidden alike, we must straighten them up, give them their original shape. To be able, thus, to make the chin one-piece again. To narrate a round, real, objective history. To rewrite History. That is one tough, difficult piece of work, yet necessary but not impossible. And until this happens, we will stress the history we have in the antepenultimate syllable, pronouncing it histo’ria; while the History we will be eagerly awaiting to be written we will stress it in the penultimate syllable. We will pronounce it Histori’a then, when it is completed; only then will this change  be corrected and the stress will be brought back to its original place. Only then will we be allowed to call it HISTORI’A written in CAPITALS and with the H letter written proudly in capitals too.                               
 
 

                                                   D'

It has arrived the time to examine the concept History. Which is the real history and how much the meaning most people have on their minds corresponds to reality? The classic historians (writers, teachers etc.) they couldn’t, even if they would, confer about the specific subject and define the actual essence of the history. They would characterize it as the science or the lesson, which gives us knowledge about bygone events (consequently, it is nothing more than an accurate description-narration of the past, for example Marathon’s Battle). They also could call it informational conductor. Nothing more, nothing less. Afterwards, with great facility, they could recite the names of illustrious historians, and if you ask them why those names are considered so they will respond you that the centuries have established them as such.

However, they do not seem to have awareness that what they call history is only a broken mirror of the history. There are two possibilities, or they are confused about what is and what not history is, or causes of convenience (prepossessions, national, religious and racial convictions, enlistment etc.) keep them from accede to the heart and being of that science. Consequently, the outcome is the same: “Thucydide’s science”, in her traditional, existent countenance was lucky enough to run into countless servants. Contrariwise, from the antiquity until nowadays, history in her real aspect and essence did never have serious delegates to rely on. And we will never know if such historians have ever existed.

This is the tragic aspect of the problem. In other words, the incorporated historians do not wish to read into what they serve and what really history means! However, the whole issue has also a funny side. Nowadays, especially those who depend economically on the state, (employees) history teachers in the schools and universities or lecturers in congresses and other similar actions controlled by the country, people who pretend the connoisseurs (in reality they are just mercenaries), advocate they do not have reasons to manipulate history. The same thing allege those who charge the desks of the publishing houses with “historical bumf”.

All these professionals profess that the fact they get paid for their job or the fact they may have a specific prepossession (they call it ideology), has nothing to do with their science and does not mean they comply with the demands of their employer or mentor. But if these affirmations are solid (because it does not count only believe in something, you must also bring it into effect) why they don’t quit their positions? And the others, why they don’t kick over the traces of the enlistment once for all? (Well, let’s face it, turning a blind eye to the situation and behaving like ostriches, is just the easy way to move on. The rest are only alibis).

Now, to continue our imaginary conversation with the traditional historian, after the definition he spoke previously, if we asked him to go on with a more circumstantial description of the historical subject, he would answer us pouncing the canons the worldwide historical community uses to classify an event as historical, in what way we can distinguish it, how the past transforms into history, which are the historical sources etc. With great facility, also, he would respond to the apropos (but not so innocent) question if the history repeats herself and if he belongs to the idealistic historical school (opposite the material school).So, he would wind up with an epiclesis at the Muse Chloe, asking her to bless history for all the benefits that offers in the spiritual and the cultural development of the nations.

Assuredly, we must mention that from the beginning he had emphasized to the etymology of the word history, saying that arrives from the ancient Greek verb oida (istor= to have a deep knowledge). Therefore, the historian is something like an omniscient. And concludes with an ancient maxim: beatific those who understand the history, and other similar dictums. So, we can affirm that the substance of history is commentated in the same identical way by all the conventional historians.

At this point, we must remind you something else, also important: Everything that connects with history (lessons, lectures, books), are expressed with crabbed and colourless words that the scientists recognize as their scientific jargon. We refer to a language full of pompous terminologies, abstruse terms, neologisms, very long phrases, in order to exalt the corruption… of their scientific reflection. And if we talk about books, consider they “decorate” every page with numbers and letters which refer in countless bibliographic notes. And the number of those notes determines the scientific value of the book, not only in the scientific entourage but also in the eyes of the benighted and the naives.

Arriving at a conclusion: History, for all the traditional historians, without regard to their disagreements, is the science that teaches us our glorious past and our origins. It shows us the way to learn from our mistakes and how to avoid our weaknesses. Points our future, but in the same time advise us to look over it with caution without forgetting our past. With this trivium and other similar, they consummate hours in the classrooms or they fill glittering printed pages. These triviums do not have any actual use. Commonly, they are announced by school principals and mayors in national feasts, in order to raise the national beliefs.

So, this is the history, the “specialists” give over-transmit from generation to generation. The result is that people deeply believe history is that book they have been taught in highscool, which sometimes found funny, others original and some others boring, accordingly to the impartment abilities of their teachers. This flat and nihilistic view dominates our culture and the modern governments are always very austere with those who try to straggle from the fixed historical line, the authorities have established.

Moreover, they are particularly severe with national, racial and religious distinctivenesses and for that reason they do not tolerate variations from the sounding boards they call historians. On the contrary, they demand absolute obedience and dedication to the traditional history, which can easily change or be altered if the times, the circumstances and the conveniences call for it.

Everything we have mentioned since now explains us why nobody has preserved other historical forms, other names of historians and other historical books besides the ones we already know about. Because the state has rescued only what was convenient. The “stories” that did not fulfill the specs each authority had established and the historians, who dared to deflect from the official lines, got into the fire (literally and metaphorically depending on the epoch).

In a few words, the survived history is being used to serve the interests of the actual governances by keeping in actuality everything the nation needs to hear in order to feel proud and confident about the past, the ancestries and the virtues, whose guardians are these archons. This is the way to cultivate historical memories, bonds and the feeling of a continuous course among the persons of a nation.

Thence, the terminus is to use the made up history as a tool for the alleviation of the differences between the co nationalists, to bring them closer in terms of behavior and customs, so they can be stronger and tougher to affront their peaceful or warlike situations. We already accentuated that the writing, the preservation and the teaching of that propagandist history, is being assigned by the authorities to chosen persons, who proclaim their selves into historians and they live in a prestige status. Behaviour relative to the one of the legislators, who assume the responsibility to create laws with divine behest. So, we can deduce that history has been very important for the different authorities, from the antiquity since nowadays. But these authorities feed themselves with the convenient history (sometimes with football also), in order to indulge their collective egoism.

C.F.  Congestion… of historians (ΗΟΜΟ NATURALIS.BLOG.28-9-07).

The truth about Mrs. Repousi, the government and the book of history.

Mrs. Repousi, in collaboration with other historians, assumed the responsibility to write the history school manual for the 6^th elementary class and in exchange she would receive an honorarium. And this happened. Mrs. Repousi and her team wrote the book, then it was approved by the pedagogic institute and finally it got printed. The question is: is this an historical manual (like every other historical manual) which treats properly the didactics? Is this the right manual to teach history at the elementary school? To answer we have to appose another two queries:

1. Who is Mrs. Repousi who took over the writing of this book? Answer: She is one of the incorporated-established historians who a. was elected by the usual “Greek way”, which governments use to elect all the public employees academics, teachers of all grades, b. her scientific background and her original auctorial work, simply do not exist, c. since her job is to produce ideology for the authorities she serves, falsifying the history (as she gets paid to do this), we have serious doubts about her professional morality.

2. Who placed her in charge of the writing team? And exactly which of her credentials mattered so she was considered appropriate to assume such responsibility? Answer: Some other employees of the Ministry of Education, counterparts of the government, chose her, after a virtual contest, based in one and only asset: The good collaboration and the obedience of the team. That means: Team’s members should write the history without aberrances from the government-national lines, should also have the faculty and the conscientiousness, in other words to have the flightiness, to falsify the history without consequences and moral inhibitions. Mrs. Repousi and her team did not need and did not have anything else. And this is the reason that she finally took over the project.

Consequently, we can easily deduce that Mrs. Repousi neither wanted neither could write the real history, because she and her collaborators are specific public employees who work in the specific public services (universities, schools) and get paid to do exactly this job. Consciously, they try to deceive and besot the consciences of the young people. If the employers of Mrs. Repousi had the minimum suspicious that she could deflect from the limits and serve the real science, not only she would not have assumed the project, she would not even serve coffee at the university’s bar.

So, as an obedient and “national historian” like Mrs. Repousi is, they assigned her to write the history manual for the 6th elementary class. And now, let’s reveal (after we have straightened out the procedure of the assignment) the secrets of its writing. The team’s members should be: a. people with strong national beliefs, b. supporters or at least “friends” of the government, c. obedient persons, in others words they should be “collaborative” and willing to follow the commands of the ministry and the pedagogic institute. If the team fulfills these conditions gets the commission of the task, the didactics is equally distributed at the historians and in three or four months the book is ready. The foremost effectuates a quick control to assure they have followed the government’s behests, sends it to the pedagogic institute for deeper control, then arrives to the printing house and ends up to the minister’s hands for the final signature. What follows is the disbursal of the writers, who like we said before are the most appropriate to carry out this project, which was appointed to them with questionable ways, like every other thing that happens in Greece.

But what occurred and suddenly the nation turned against a fitly academic, whose only aim was to become wealthier and enrich her curriculum? In what way, in the book came along this… damned congestion of the refugees at Smyrna?

The situation is really simple, for someone who knows the facts from inside. Lately, after the development of tight economic relations between Turkey and the Balkan countries, begun an effort to bring closer those nations. The respective countries realized that history could be a useful tool to achieve this goal. So, they delegated “historians” from the Balkan universities to gather, sometimes at Salonika, some others at Sofia or Bucharest (of course with enormous payments) and discuss about the nationalistic discharge of the history. Afterwards, considering the anachronistic apperception the governments have for the history, they demand from the historians to adjust it in a convenient way by hiding and suppressing important historical events, which seem to encumber the approach of the Balkan countries and renew the hate between the nations.

Mrs. Repousi and her team worked exactly in that spirit. Which bygone events are inconvenient to speak for in this specific moment? And what can we do? We can just throw them to the garbage. We quote as an example the Clandestine School. In her career Mrs. Repousi has taught that the Clandestine School existed and used to wither us for declaring the opposite, considering there was no need for such existence cause the education and the religion of the Greek people were free. However, when her employer (State) changed point of view, she begun as a neophyte to sustain the exact reverse.

We used to ask aforetime, what genocide of the Greeks in ’22 are you talking about? Who was responsible for the transportation of the Greek people as refugees after the defeat of the Greek troops? And most important, how come the Greek troops arrived in M. Asia and Saggario? Consequently, about what genocide are you talking about? If the Turkish people wanted to massacre our people they could have done it in one night, like the way they did with the Armenians. If the winners (Turkish people) wished to do so, they would not have allowed the embarkation and the passage in Greece. These are only ridiculous affirmations.

We used to ask”: About what genocide are you talking? After the defeat of the Greek troops who led them in M. Asia and Saggario? About what destruction and genocide are you speaking about? If the Turkish wished to massacre the Greeks they could have done it in one night. Just like they did with the Armenians. They would have let thousands of Greeks to embark into the boats if they wanted to butcher them? Funny things to say.

And what about the survivals? Those who saw Smyrna burning down? Of course, those tragical days, many Greeks were killed, many women were raped and many shops and houses were robed. But a genocide, similar to the Armenian’s or the Kurd’s one, never existed. The Turkish did not do such thing. This is a dirty lie and an intolerable falsification of the history. A great congestion of Greek refugees who were abandoning Smyrna in every possible way, really happened, But not due to a genocide. Because of the criminal imprudence of the Greek government.

When we reported the issue, Mrs. Repousi and her like-minded almost excommunicated us. But when this lady received the order to eliminate from the book, those inharmonious comments like “complete massacre of the Greek people by the Turkish”, the dutiful employee hurried up to obey the instructions. In this way, the famous “genocide”, that until now professors used to teach, changed to “congestion” in the book Mrs. Repousi wrote.

However, all of them (Repousi and government), did not consider the voice of those nationalists Greeks. With foremosts Christodoulos, Anthimos, Papathemelis, Psomiadis, Theodorakis, Louka, Kaneli, Zouraris, Triantafulopoulos and Karatzaferis, the communist party and the rest “patriots” opposed to that “national Hubris”. The government realized that all this conflict could end up like Waterloo, withdraw from circulation the book, and let Mrs. Repousi open to criticism. This is funny, at the end Mrs. Repousi you should be aware of the fact that all betrayers have the same destiny. And you should also know that there many who passed up the Judas but nobody eventually accepted the Judas. Now, the only thing that remains you is to play the part of the heroin, like you did in an interview. Tell us only one thing: If you fell so aggrieved, why don’t you just quit?

This is the whole truth about the history book. It has come the time, for the government and the nationalist entourage, to realize that times have evolved. Lies cannot prevail against truth. This is history’s law and will never change. History’s laws are like natural laws.