CatalàEnglish Site map Back to main page

Aureli Argemí

Almost every country in the world has public monuments that commemorate the history of people and places, statues of citizens famous for their contribution to society, allusions to the heroic deeds of the local populace, and so on. Such monuments are a means of fixing and constantly reaffirming historical memory in the mind of passersby, revealing the structure and foundations of a given society's collective identity. The reason for these monuments and other symbols that are perhaps less visible is obvious: but the reality that we are being shown is not always as transparent and edifying as we may think. This is particularly true when the fragments of the past that are being recalled, in order to write or rewrite historical memory, contain both positive and negative aspects, such as misleading representations of fratricidal conflicts that label people as bad and good depending on who is in charge of erecting commemorative monuments and other symbols. We might think of the monuments put up by the victors of the Spanish Civil War, for instance, who promoted a biased and partisan interpretation of history.

More than thirty years after Franco's death an initiative has been launched by democratic institutions to put things right, to ensure that historical memory is as accurate and objective as possible and to revise and rewrite it if necessary. No mean feat, especially when the authors, those who wrote history in the first place, the winners of the civil war, are still present, either because they are still alive or because they have been replaced by faithful successors. The interminable discussions on both sides provoked by such an initiative show just how difficult it can be to establish or rewrite historical fact as objectively as possible.

With this in mind, ideas for clearing the way and going beyond memories of wars between "goodies" and "baddies" may be particularly welcome and of considerable interest. It is worth focusing for a moment on conflicts that may have marked a people's history but are also the foundations on which bridges towards peace and understanding have been built. Surely the conflicts that have led to the strongest and most far-reaching bridge-building should have pride of place in our collective memory because of their vital role in reconciling enemies, both individuals and peoples, as examples of how society can transcend internal divisions?

Marking a hundred years since the birth of Aureli M. Escarré, who died in 1968, a number of events were held recently to remember (and reaffirm our historical memory of) a man who, in many ways, provides a perfect example of reconciling enemies. Dialogue and exchange were the mainstays of his approach, the model for collectively building the future, a future based on human rights, democracy, the ideal that it is only by defending people's rights that we can build shared and lasting peace.

The title of a book which pays tribute to and evaluates the role of this great figure of recent Catalan history, gives us an example of one of the principles that, to my mind, should be at the heart of historical memory: historical memory is valuable insofar as it acts as a referent for the future. The book, published by the the Fundació del CIEMEN, is called precisely that, Aureli M. Escarré, abat de Montserrat, referent per al futur ("Aureli M. Escarré, Abbot of Montserrat, referent for the future").