Vorbind despre faptul ca arhivistul, ca formator de istorie prin modul in care proceseaza arhiva, nu poate totusi lucra decat in niste limite, determinate in primul rand de mediul social, politic si cultural in care arhivele au fost create, se scrie in cartea asta:
“In both democratic and more authoritarian societies, it often requires negotiating as well between the cultures of the archive and those of the records-generating group or organization. The familiar story of the Nixon tapes is instructive in this regard. Until its sudden termination, the Nixon presidency was the most fully documented administration in U.S. history. As we know, almost every official Oval Office conversation was recorded, including those whose importance to scholars turned out to be that the people involved thought they were literally ‘off the record.” On one hand, presidential archivists struggled almost immediately to secure these materials as part of their formal “national heritage” mission. On the other, they served at the discretion of the presidential office and quickly found themselves in the midst of a bitter conflict over which of these presidential records belonged in the national archives.
The eventual triumph of openness in this struggle ultimately situated the tapes in the archives, but the clash of cultures it reflected had an unexpected consequence. No American president since Nixon (and we dare say no national executive in any country since) has allowed a similar real-space, real-time recording system to be installed, as far as we know. Almost all Oval Office conversations, on or off the record, have no direct transcripts for future scholars to examine. In a similar way, a court determination that the diaries of former U.S. Senator Packwood were public rather than private documents has also chilled a long culture of diary production. Even memoirs and other personally sensitive materials that find their way into paper or electronic form have become points of cultural, as well as legal and political conflict, further changing the culture of records production”.
- Nici un presedinte, in nicio tare de atunci… Autorii nu au informatii corecte. O actualizare AICI. Si, decurgand din asta:
- Arhiva ca oglindire a maturitatii democratiei: la aproape 50 de ani de la Nixon, societatea romaneasca nu a manifestat nimic din reflexul democratic pe care americanii l-au manifestat atunci. Mai avem mult de mers.
- Arhiva ca masura a misiunii sociale a Arhivelor Nationale: au cerut Arhivele ca acele inregistrari sa faca parte din arhiva oficiala a Presedintiei, asa cum s-a intamplat cu inregistrarile lui Nixon? Nu reprezinta oare o oglinda cat se poate de fidela a societatii? Oare ce pastram ca istorie, doar ce ne pun public demnitarii statului pe FB?