="justify">Late last night I finished a book by Emine Caykara that contains an interview of nearly 500 pages with Professor Halil Inalcik. In several parts of the interview, Inalcik, the doyen of Ottoman studies who used to teach me during my short academic career as well, asserted the importance of the concept of "total history."

 the interview, Professor Inalcik points out a fundamental dilemma faced by historiography: While the natural sciences, such as mathematics, offer a kid of even the age of 12 the opportunity to show genius, the social sciences, first and foremost history, require long-term dedication as well as experience supported by fastidiousness. Without knowing the fundamental elements and marking points of history one would lose the focus. This, in turn, demands knowledge about each aspect of history or the notion of total history.

The concept of total history is the most significant contribution of the "Ecole des Annales" to modern-day historiography. Born of the well-known French scholarly journal "Annales d'Histoire Economique et Sociale," the Ecole des Annales was founded in 1929 by prominent French historians Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre. However, the most popular name among those from annales has been Fernand Braudel, the author of "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II."

Previously, traditional history was built around the acts and facts of the leading personalities of the time. The Annales school, in turn, proposed a shift in the historian's focus and a global vision of history, particularly emphasizing the medium- and long-term evolution of societies and civilizations. Its followers pioneered a new and stimulating approach to the study of historical structures over events. Committed to broadening the range of history, they incorporated the other humanities, ranging from economics and sociology to linguistics and geography, into historical study. Over time mentalities (attitudes) became their focus as well.

The influence of the Ecole des Annales soon spread well beyond the borders of France, and Turkish historians, too, were not immune to its rapidly growing attraction. It was first Omer Lutfi Barkan who applied annales principles to his works. He then was followed by Inalcik.

The Annales school is actually the world-renowned foundation on which modern-day French historiography is grounded. It is in this regard that French historians' outspoken opposition against political involvement in history and historic events over the last two years deserves particular appreciation. Nevertheless, the reason I've touched on it is not because I naively believe that praising motivated by a narrow opportunism will help strengthen the Turkish standpoint. It is rather related to my desire to conduct a little projection into France's future.

As some French themselves admit, France, once the worldwide leading promoter of universal values, is a rapidly decaying power in this new global era. Paradoxically, the political elite rather seem to be merely mourning this self-imposed isolation. What I am particularly wondering about, however, is whether this gradual transformation, or the "long duree" as Braudel described it, is simply the outcome of some French politicians' narrow-mindedness or lack of vision. It is, of course, the French people that will judge their politicians. However, I humbly need to warn them that if this judgment is late in coming, sooner or later they themselves won't be able to escape from the transformation that has affected their politicians.

As far as some French politicians' attitude towards the Armenian allegations is concerned, there remains nothing left to say except to assert what my dear professor, Halil Inalcik, used to repeat during his lectures: "Understanding is forgiving."

How otherwise will we Turks be able to tolerate certain French politicians, with their longings to be geniuses in the field of history at age 12?