Dear colleagues,

The Immediate History list has been operative since January 1st as agreed last year/century /millennium. It will take some time before it consolidates given its innovative nature. A nature that transgresses the traditional points of view of the academia on the historian, the profession and the present.

We are, therefore, aware of the historiographic transcendence of our debates on topical matters, which sometimes go beyond the ‘history of the present time’ as historians get involved, whatever his field of study, through their political and historiographic ideas and through the interpretation of historical events that are contemporary to them. We thus contradict the old construct of neutrality, an inheritance from Positivism that has staged a comeback lately and which contends that ‘ at least a 50-year time lapse is necessary’ before we can say that we are writing the objective history of an event’, an often-quoted but so far indemonstrable statement. We, along with history and the most immediate historiography are, therefore, moving towards a new, more global and realistic paradigm in the subject-object relationship, in other words, a more rigorous and scientific paradigm.

Throughout 2000 five debates took place within the general list on Ecuador, UNAM, Peru, the Basque Country and Palestine, which, of course, remain open. We hope that this new phase as an independent and homogenous list results in an intensification of its activity ( of which we shall keep you posted in the general list ) that will be more clearly reflected in our website . A few days ago a new debate on Colombia has been suggested and your suggestions are always welcome ( preferably from the country(ies) where the suggested issues originate).

The use of the terms ‘nazi’ and ‘fascist’ has offended some subscribers ( which is not necessarily a bad thing), specifically the accusation of nazifacism to ETA for its terrorist attacks and the State of Israel for its repression of Intifada . We, nonetheless, circulated these messages in 2000 because in our view since such adjectives are historiographic concepts the responsibility corresponds to the colleagues who use them in the current context. We shall, therefore, maintain the criterion of refusing only those messages that do not show due respect to people who are also their colleagues. The rest is part of the debate we wish to promote, the efficacy of which depends on the degree of freedom of speech and clarity to present the contrasting stances.

Finally, we would like to consult something with you. We would like to know whether it would be suitable to circulate or not messages asking for sympathy with current social, political or cultural problems in virtue of our specialisation as a worldwide network of debating historians . We have so far sent the manifestos we have often received ( usually from subscribers) such as those on the Amazon rain forests, the assassination of Ernest Lluch, or the women in Afghanistan to the subscribers to the general list we knew were interested. Should we now circulate them in the new Immediate History List ? Please send me your views directly to cbarros@retemail.es

With the best of hopes to Immediate History and my regards ,

Carlos Barros
Coordinador de Historia a Debate
E-mail cbarros@retemail.es
Web HaD http//www.h-debate.com
Web personal http//www.cbarros.com

Immediate History/History under Debate
E-mail h-debate@cesga.es
Web site www.h-debate.com
To become a member of the HuD list, please send the following messagesubscribe IH
To cancel membership, please send the following messageunsubscribe IH