It's interesting how the discussion about history is shaping up in dehai
without deteriorating into "testatas" that one is accustomed to see in dehai.
The history of a nation is like the roots of a robust tree that keeps the
trunk (common destiny) and the branches together. You cannot destroy the
tree in toto unless you uproot it from underground. The Eritrean people
have toiled and bleeded to prevent giants from uprooting the roots.
Now, this generation and coming ones have to keep watering the tree.
While doing so, they should start knowing the color of the trunk, the
type of the leaves, the texture of the soil, etc...anything that is
related to the tree. This quest for the roots has to be done with utmost
honesty, and candid desire to learn history. History cannot be made in
the mind of the teller or listener; it can only be told based on the facts.
And it cannot be used to keep our future hostage. The future should
deserve its own history. The present has to make history, while the past
has to accept that its time has expired.
To me Eritrean history is replete with a host of questions that call for
open and honest discussion. Perhaps this generation will find it difficult
to unravel its history because the actors of history, winners and "losers",
are still very much alive in the Eritrean arena. Some as builders, some as
retired veterans in peace; others, restless because the past is too vivid
and living in the memories. However painful reading Eritrean history may
be - where brothers spilled each other's blood - this generation, for the
sake of the coming generations, has to deal with it and pass it to the
blessed of the 21st century.
It may be difficult to divorce from one's personal make up and interpret
history for what it's, a body of facts that cannot be changed now.
No nation in the world had a smooth history. Eritrea is no exception.
Is time on our side - six years after independence - to start open and
honest discussions about Eritrean history? Are we ready to be open-minded
and leave no stones unturned, without basking in the pleasure of hindsight?
Should we read history to apportion blame to one and uphold the other?
Are we justified to invoke the past in order to determine the future?
amanuel
toronto, canada