会場を交えたディスカッション

吉田：Thank you very much for Professor White's comment and very good interpretation by Hiraga, so now two speakers, Ms. Kinjo and Mr. Nishijima are expected to make response to Professor White, it speaker is ? one or two minutes.

金城：Thank you very much for your comment Professor White, maybe, I imagine that he wants to develop his argument more because time is running much he couldn't articulate his opinion enough so it's hard for me to give a comment back but my point in the presentation is he explained that the Final Solution is like one of the, is considered to be the alternative to the difficulties to name the event holocaust, or Shoah or churban or other, something else, but in my opinion, Final Solution itself has the misdirection because, Final Solution to which, so this solution is for what, OK, it's very hard to explain, is, the Final Solution is to the Jewish question, so if we call this event as the Final Solution, it always related to the Jewish people, so if we use this word to name the event, we just can treat with this event as the Jewish experiences, but actually in that event there are many people, many non-Jewish people who died in the event, so I want to draw your attention to my footnote number five, I discussed here, so I, if time allows I want Professor White to make some comment on this point. Thank you.
Nishijima Sorry, in Japanese.

西嶋：僕は一つだけ、先ほどヘイドン・ホワイト教授が、個人の記憶は、歴史家に見つけられる前までは歴史にならないということだったのですが、例えばホワイト教授が例に挙げられているポストモダンにおいては、ランズマンの『SHOAH（ショアー）』や、あるいはプリーモ・レーヴィの芸術的な著作が歴史的な意味を持つということだったと思うのですが、それも歴史家に認められてはじめて歴史となり得るのか。
　つまり、やはり現在においても、歴史家が歴史についての権限というのを、ある種独占しているのか、そういう状態なのかどうかということについてお聞きしたいと思います。

吉田：OK. We have only a few minutes, so now please offer respond to the speaker and then we would like to invite questions and comments from the floor.

ホワイト：OK. Well, very briefly, Ms. Kinjo says the Final Solution refers only to the Jewish Question, as the Germans called it, and it really directs our attention away from the other peoples who were objects of the terror. That's quite true, that's quite true, but that's exactly the problem raised by what we call this event. It leads to different interpretations of the event because it focuses attention on different parts of the total historical period. Now Primo Levi, Primo Levi's book, Se questo è un uomo, or If This Is a Man is not a history, it's a personal memoir, but, and it's a literary treatment of a representation of real event, that is to say, it's not fiction, it's about a real event, and it tries to be truthful, and it tries to report only things that were witnessed or for which there is testimony, but that doesn't make it a history. Historians recognize Primo Levi as a historical document, that they can use, but my point would be that there's a genre of writing that is neither historical, neither factual nor fictional, that I want to call literary. And this is what many of the people that you talk about were trying to write. As for Lanzmann's Shoah, again, it's a documentary, it's not a history, and he doesn't purport even to be representing the history, it's a documentary about people who had something to do with the Shoah, so there's an important – my point is this, and it's a very important point, that great literary writers, poets, people who are witnesses to events can write about the past and contribute to our understanding of it, and they do so by using literary techniques, that does not make them fiction, but it doesn't make them history either. Now, historians, prior to the 19th century in the west, there was no such thing as professional historian, so professional history writing is an institution that claims authority to decide what is history and what is not, I think that they do not have adequate reason for this, and that is why I think , as Chairman Mao would say, let a thousand varieties of history bloom. (That didn't even get a laugh, everything's so solemn here. People are not allowed to laugh, no?)

通訳（平賀）：まず金城さんのコメントへのコメントですけれども、最終的解決、final solution ということで、それがユダヤ人に関してのみ研究してしまい、ユダヤ人以外の人々を対象外にしてしまうということですけれども、まさしく、これが、出来事をどのような名前で呼ぶかということが、その問題になります。
　といいますのは、その出来事を名前を付けて呼んでしまうことによって、ある特定の解釈が入ってしまうから、ですから、どのような名前で呼ぶかということが重要になってしまいます。
　それから、西嶋さんの質問への答えですが、レーヴィの『アウシュヴィッツは終わらない』、これは歴史ではないと私は思います。これは個人的なメモワールでして、証言とかウィットネス、見た人たちのこと、現実に起こったことを実際の出来事をもとに、そのことについて書いてはいますけれども、歴史ではないと。これは歴史的な文章と言えるかと思います。
　それから、ランズマンの『SHOAH』の映画に関しても、これはドキュメンタリーであっって歴史ではないと。これは歴史ではないですが、そういうジャンルとして、ドキュメンタリー、もしくは歴史的な文章として成立しているかと思います。
　文学的なスキルのある人、もしくは詩を書く技術がある人たちが、自分たちが体験したことを、そのような文学的な手法を利用して記述する、これはフィクションではないのですが、でも歴史でもないという状況だと思います。
　19 世紀以降、歴史学が職業的に、大学に歴史学という学問が確立しましてから、組織的に、専業的に職業的に歴史に取り組んでいる歴史家たちが、歴史というものを決めてきたと。
　最後に、毛沢東についてジョークがあったのですが。すみません、ちょっと受けが悪かったようなので、それは省略します。

吉田：Thank you very much. So now we'd like to invite the comments from the floor, so two or three speakers in two or three minute, any comments? Japanese and English are welcome.

会場：立命館大学の大谷と申します。英語はしゃべれないので、日本語で失礼します。
　ホワイト教授にお伺いしたいのは、人の記憶や証言といったものは、歴史的な資料となり得るのかどうかということが気になりました。その点をお聞かせいただけたらと思います。

ホワイト：Can the people's memory be the material for history? Yes, of course. One of the problems of modern historical writing, and of non-historical writing about the past, in novels, for example, in novels, but also in poetry, in the works of people like Pound, Eliot, and also Charles Olson, a large number of modernist and post-modernist poets who write about what people normally think of as the historical past, but which they are, which they approach as poetic, in a poetic mode rather than a realistic, literary, or narrative mode. Now, much of modernist writing has been concerned with the retrieval of the experience of those people who were lost to history. Those people who did not have a voice, whose voices were lost. Whose record of activity was lost. Post-colonial studies in the west and in India, I know, and Australia, tries to deal with these phenomena. This is a perfect example of trying to retrieve knowledge of the experiences of the people whose history was written only by their oppressors, were written only by those who had conquered them, so that the question here is how do you retrieve a voice, voices or testimony of people who have been repressed and oppressed and wiped out, erased from history. This is what post-colonial studies is all about, at least in my country and in India.

通訳（平賀）：人々の記憶が歴史の資料となるかということですが、答えは「イエス」ということで、なりますと。近代的な小説や詩をもって、例えばパウンドとか、エリオットとか、オルソンとか、近代的な文学者たちが歴史的な作品を書いていますけれども。
　いま実験的に、試みとして取り組まれているのが、これまで歴史に残されてこなかった人々の声をどのように歴史に取り戻すかという試みがなされています。これは、例えばインドとかオーストラリアなどで、このような植民地で占領した人々によって歴史が書かれてきていた地域において、いままで歴史に書かれてこなかった、失われた人々の声を取り戻すという取り組みが、試みとして取り組まれています。
　これを、ポストコロニアル・スタディーということで、アメリカなどでも研究が進められています。

ホワイト：The question is, becomes interesting for historical studies is how do you do this? And the way that post-colonial historians proceed is by using more archeology and anthropology in search of material remains of those, for example, kitchen utensils, the study of the way people cook their food and prepared their food have remained even though there's no document or written records of the life experience of people. So that one can use modern archaeological techniques in order to retrieve knowledge of the peoples that had been erased from history.

通訳（平賀）：この場合、植民地で失われた人たちの声を取り戻すのを、いったいどうやってやるかということですけれども、ポストコロニアルの歴史家たちは、そのために考古学や人類学の手法をフルに活用して、証拠となる、資料となる物を探して、過去の失われた声を拾いあげています。
　例えば、人々が料理をしてきた道具、用具というものは、これは文書ではないですけれども、物が残っているので、その物から失われた声を拾いあげると。このような近代考古学のテクニックを使って、現在、ポストコロニアル・スタディー、歴史家たちは、失われた人たちの声を拾い集めています。

吉田：Thank you very much for comments, so now is the time to close, so we take five minutes rest before the second part, professor White's lecture, so thank you very much for all person on the stage.