When we approach the study of the past, it is a common place to consider a problem of the discipline called history: a word that designates two different things. On one hand it is the reality in which man is inserted, and on the other it is the knowledge and study of situations and events that reveal this insertion. To overcome the problem, historians accept that the knowledge of past events adopt the name of historiography, considering that it is the word that best distinguishes the task of research on the past (against the word history, which would mean the reality proper history). As some have explained, the term history designates historical events and outcomes, while historiography refers to the writings of historians. From these theoretical considerations, it is deduced that the events of the past cannot be modified; they are incontrovertible. There is data that cannot be submitted to the light of opinion. In these two planes the historian moves: that of making the data known, the objective (the search for truth), and that of its interpretation, at which point we are determined by belonging to some historiographic current. A third level would exist in the ethical evaluation of the event, which no longer corresponds to the work of the historian, but this does not mean that it cannot be carried out. It is more, in my opinion, the task that is essential.
This reflection of a theoretical nature must be taken into account when dealing with some current events because we should not get used. The condemnation has given rise to a debate about freedom of expression and opinion. Although I understand the fact that the problem lies in certain events that cannot be placed within the scope of opinion, it has not been sufficiently highlighted. We can comment on why the Holocaust occurred, but we can never about its existence. Other times the problem comes not so much from the denial of the fact as from the desire to silence its existence. This happens with the task of recovering the historical memory when it is defended that revealing a part of our history can lead to ignoring a reality once presented. Although there are those who engage in the nullification of historical value and those who are annoyed with the task of reconstructing our most recent past, historians (or at least some of them) will continue to try to make our discipline more than just a anecdotal description of facts, a discipline that our present allows to interpret our past.
History is a knowledge sine qua non: only through the recognition of the useful processes, which are the antecedents that constitute me, I recognize myself as part of a community, of its cultural environment, by knowing the past I understand the present and I locate at. The study of history has been a fundamental part of the formation of children and young people because it allows them to know the evolution of human societies, the transformation processes they have experienced over time, as well as the influence that individual action or collective of men and women has exercised in the historical evolution. Thus, through the study of history, new generations become aware of their location in society and begin to understand the dynamics of social life, the characteristics of the community and the country in which they live, and the place that they are. Entities occupy in the world. Through how you learn history you can acquire a taste for it and understand its natural and social environment.
