Macmillan, Margaret. The Uses and Abuses of History. London: Profile Books. 2009
Most people, who have given the matter any thought, are aware that events in the past are used to justify, explain or condemn actions in the present.
What is perhaps not so apparent is the extent to which it has occurred, and is occurring, or the extent to which historical events are "invented", inconvenient parts ignored or entire episodes erased from the record when doing so suits the purpose of the protagonist.
Macmillan is not the first to make this point (nor would she claim to be) but what makes this an excellent book is the way in which she categorises the many ways in which History is so abused and provides such a rich catalogue of supporting evidence in the form of examples; from the distant to the very recent past. Moreover it is her erudite and concise style that makes it a "page turner".
The author breaks down the manner in which "bad history" is used into six main types which correspond to her chapter headings.
She argues, for example that history is used for "comfort"; that in times of rapid change a sense of collective security can be gained by seeing the past through rose or sepia tinted spectacles where things seemed straightforward and simple. The cult of Winston Churchill, particularly in the USA and the propaganda of Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Mao and others are cited as examples.
Macmillan believes that professional historians should be the "custodians" of History and if it is left to amateurs (e.g. politicians or ideologues) then "bad history" will be the likely outcome where facts will be squeezed into theories and inconvenient ones ignored. One example she gives is the way the Treaty of Versailles has been used to almost exclusively explain the rise of Nazism. Historians have a duty to make the subject accessible and not to use jargon.
"History and Identity" and "Nationalism" are fascinating categories and numerous examples of mythology to do with the origins of nation states, both ancient and modern, are cited
In the "History as a Guide" chapter the use and misuse of analogies with past events in order to predict, explain or justify the outcomes of current actions is considered. Had the USA administration understood more of the history of "French Indo-China" it may well not have adopted the catastrophic approach to the Vietnam War that it did.
The book is based on a series of lectures and is a collection of propositions that are substantiated by examples. There is little or no reference to texts and no footnotes. One sometimes gets the impression that the author assumes that the readers will agree with her. For example, she clearly doesn't have a very high opinion of Hugo Chavez and simply explains one of his decrees as "bandwagoning" without any further explanation.
In the final paragraph the author makes an appeal to historians to continue to be sceptical, self critical and wary of people who make "grand claims in history's name" or think they have unearthed the "truth". Who can argue with that?