Opinion Sur
We say that history teaches because it shows countless events that serve as inputs to support interpretations of what is happening in the present. However, it should be made explicit that those who investigate and explain historical processes do not make up a homogeneous whole, but quite the opposite. Each researcher analyzes with greater or lesser rigidity from his or her ideological perspective. That is, of the universe of factors and relationships that exist at any historical moment, each author prioritizes some and ignores others based on what s/he considers relevant to understand what s/he considers to be decisive. Enormous interpretative spaces are thus opened that, over time, are in fact questioned or deepened.
Thus, for example, in a present where an unbridled concentration of wealth and decision-making power prevails, it would be of the utmost importance to know and understand the modalities of appropriation in each historical phase. What forces struggled to get hold of that wealth and how they subjugated each other; what limits may have existed; the transfer by historical phase of the power of appropriation of forces; how we got to the present; what boundaries were violated; what were the values and consideration of “the others” throughout history. In short, there is valuable research that enriches the understanding and clarifies perspectives, but there is much more to investigate, revise, contradict or deepen, and not only in this critical line of appropriation of wealth.
An official story prevails, although there are several other rebellious stories. Where are truths and quasi-truths cornered? How much manipulation is imposed? Who finances the different historical researches?
Greetings,
The Editors
