Monopoly on history
Our history is a casualty of the supposedly «progressive» hysteria that gripped the country since the restoration of democracy. This came to mind as I was reading a letter sent to the paper by a professor at the National Technical University of Athens. I was struck by the fact that a university lecturer, i.e. someone who by definition should be open to dialogue, asked the owner of Kathimerini to «rein in this gentleman.» The reason was an article I wrote about Archbishop Makarios which, in my view, raised a number of significant questions. One is struck by the persistent, even frenzied, attempts of a certain group of people to protect the post-1974 taboos and preserve their monopoly on history. If you dare question Makarios’s role in the Cyprus issue, you are branded a fan of Dimitrios Ioannidis. If you want to know what really happened in the civil war and about the true role of the Democratic Army of Greece, you are an agent of imperialism. If you dare ask what really happened during the Royal Coup of 1965, you are a royalist. These people attack anyone who dares ask questions about matters that have remained closed, simply because they wish them to be closed. But history is a constantly evolving process that reduces such people to the level of cartoon characters. I have nothing against Makarios. When the Royal Coup took place I was only 4. But I want to know what really happened at those crucial crossroads for Hellenism by listening to all views and examining the conclusions of objective scientific research, not the tired cliches of a vain, «progressive» intelligentsia. The NTUA and other universities have been hijacked by academics who will do anything to prevent light from exposing the emptiness of the cliches and the poverty of the ideas held by a generation that saw a university career as a position in the civil service.
