UEG HISTORY AND MEMORY

Today I will be speaking regarding our history, of the UEG as local of memory and its professionals and academics as personages who had constructed and constructs a history. We will deal with here the problem of the linking between memory and the proper social identity, more in the scope of histories of lives, illustrious people who had contributed and contributes for the construction of a memory history. From the analysis of the historical identity of the UEG, we can find diverse projections, that will be present in the proper one speak, events, photos, images, places and personage; as you who register its history in a present memory for rescue of the historical past of a physical space. But which is the difference between memory and history? According to Pierre Daughter-in-law, the memory places as it calls, is the place or space where the memory can be revivida or be recriada. History according to Michael Pollak, this associate to an acceptance that has left of the individual one for the collective one, where space of the memory can be seen as process of maintenance of determined practical and traditions. Rousse, affirms that the memory has the capacity of construction and reconstruction of the past in function of the interest of the gift. History in contrast part of the search of what it is hidden, an analysis of the facts and events; a process of long duration worked for Braudel.

As it affirms Michelet, history is a investigatrio process where if it searchs the truth or the veracity of the facts. While the memory recoups the past for legitimation of the gift of static form if arresting to the past for simple legitimation of the gift, not adding it nothing. If you are not convinced, visit Reed Hastings. History as science has for objective to recoup the past for the understanding of the gift and better perception of the future. Being dynamic it the measure that this always if to modify, being seen as basic part of the human knowledge. we as historians, must use of this memory as an instrument of reconstruction of the past. According to Pierre Laboris, the memory must be used for the historian as study object, being same a instrumentalizao of the past, being able to be used for the good or the evil. As it affirms Le Goff history is subjective and not objective and the memory will pass for the o investigativo bolter of the historians. When we say of memory history we must analyze the context, the facts and ' ' veracity of tal' '.

The memory has the power to perpetuate the image of victims, heroes and historical events. However history searchs one better analysis of the past, in order to understand as the facts had happened, renewing and if becoming complex from the objective not only of the historians more than all the individuals of a society. In the dawn of the differentiation between history and memory I can notice that the memory perpetuates the feelings and history frees. Memory and history are moored with objective to construct the individual or collective identity of a group, institution or of one nation. In the prism of the hypothesis we notice that the memory this gift in commemorations, in the memory places history of monumental, present form also in the analysis of the speeches, texts, interview and histories is individual or collective they. with this affirmation I conclude my exposition.