{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02943722943722944, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017316017316017316, 'mean_word_length': 4.763092269326683, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Poland Restored, Reborn, Regained: One Hundred Years On

The many people gathered in this lecture theatre hold some very different convictions about the past, present and future. We cannot ignore the all too evident fact that the Polish, British and American nations today are all divided, polarized, riven . . . Riven to an extent I do not remember in half a century. We can no longer assume that it is normal to discuss the problems of pursuing the common good within shared human values. Institutions, communities, families and friends have been riven by the demagogues’ claims that whoever is not with us is against us; whoever thinks differently from ‘us’ serves the enemy; therefore ‘they’ must be barbarians, fanatics, criminals, or traitors. Politicians and journalists routinely sling historical terms such as ‘targowica’ as cheap insults. Historians are not immune from such pressures, especially when the politics of history and memory are an ideological fault-line. No doubt next year’s anniversary events will be especially difficult. For the moment, we are marking the centenary of 1918. Is it possible to discuss not only the facts, but also their significance, without party political point-scoring? I hope so. Polish historians and historians of Poland – the two are not the same, although there is a large overlap – are about as politically divided as any other professional group. They have, however, repeatedly shown themselves capable of calm and reasoned debate over emotive questions of the recent and not so recent past. Historians’ professional ethic obliges them to weigh up evidence carefully, and to subject narratives to sceptical criticism. It is impossible to lock the past in the past. The answer to the political manipulation of history is not less history, but better history. We can, I expect, look forward to some profound disagreements and lively polemics today. But I also trust that, both among our invited speakers and among the audience, that all arguments will be made ad rem, never ad personam. The subtitle of the conference is ‘one hundred years on’. Not all that long ago, only just beyond the limits of adult memory. A very few people can still remember those events from their childhood. Many more can remember the reminiscences of their parents or grandparents.