post your STP papers here
By americancultures
will be getting to them asap thanks
This entry was posted on November 1, 2006 at 12:41 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 1, 2006 at 12:58 am
Matthew Phillips
Trouillot
10/31/06
bobomrp@yahoo.com
American Cultures 1395
In Silencing The Past Trouillot talks about history and how it is recorded by historians and interpreted by people. His writing is very intellectual, but he is trying to spell out some very basic concepts and philosophies about the production of history and explain its process as it happens, as it is recorded, and as it is later interpreted.
Trouillot explains that the word history holds different meanings, but that those meanings can overlap. He says that history is both the event that happens and the telling of the story of that event. The telling of the story might change depending on who is telling it and their view of what happened. The side in power, or the winners, often control the telling of the narrative and therefore make the history of the event favorable to them. The historical narrative must pass tests over time in order to affirm its separation from fiction. Although Trouillot’s words often don’t make much sense to me I think I can understand some of what he was getting at. History is often controlled by the government, so we are taught a history that is favorable to our country. The history of one event may be recorded differently in historical narratives depending on what country you live in. At the same time a historical narrative must be able to stand up to criticism and investigation, otherwise it becomes fiction. Trouillot writes: “At some stage, for reasons that are themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy, collectivities experience the need to impose a test of credibility on certain events and narratives because it matters to them whether certain events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction.” He is basically saying that different events in history, at some time or other, are always questioned because of the significant impact of the history on the beliefs of a group of people. These are the tests that will separate historical narratives from fiction.
Trouillot also talks a lot about the construction of history and the historical narrative. He explains that there are three parts involved in history: agents, actors, and subjects. Agents are groups or classifications that people belong to, actors are people themselves (I think), and subjects are people who realize their capacity in the creation of the history and who become involved in the creation of the narrative of that history (from what I can interpret). Trouillot believes that it is most important to understand the process of how historical narratives are produced in order to understand history itself.
Trouillot talks about silences as being a large part of the process of creating historical narratives. He talks about silences entering the historical process in four places: at the time events occur, during the research of those events, during the creation of the historical narrative, and while looking back at the events as a final history. These silences are everything that is left out of the history of the event. Some omissions are more significant than others and they have no formula or consistency from event to event. Power plays a large role in the process of history and therefore plays a large role in these silences. This makes sense to me. Obviously not every single minute detail is going to be passed along in historical narratives, but groups in power often intentionally skip details in order to shape history. Both of these instances result in silences.
November 1, 2006 at 1:24 am
Jade Dant
Silencing the Past Intro and Chap. 1
10/28/06
italianbooty143@yahoo.com
Online 1395
We are all guilty of silencing the past, but when does someone draw the line between truth and what is said to be the truth? A long time ago my great grandmother moved to America, from Italy, with her past she kept secret and only told those dark secrets in Italian which my grandfather couldn’t understand. What was said? Sometimes whole histories are lost even cultures drown in the line of truth or lies. Michel Trouillot introduces his book about power and the production of history. Michel Trouillot says, “History is both the facts of the matter and the narrative of those facts. What happened and what is said to have happened.” As I grew to the age of college books my history lessons shifted dramatically, history that was once the truth became dark lies. Columbus is a prime example of the narrative of facts and how it twisted into modern history books as the truth. Where does one draw the line when writing history? Do they themselves see the line? Michel Trouillet writes about how history can be sided on who was the winner, the one with power in the end. Those are the influential leaders who have books written about their victories over heretics and savages. What about today, history is being written before the day passes, who is writing it and what view are the seeing from? Trouillet says, “ The exclusive adherence to linear time by western historians themselves and the ensuing rejection of the people left ‘without history’ both date from the nineteenth century. Did the West have a history before 1800? Well can any of you honestly tell me you have repeatedly learned about the history of the West before 1800’ when so called ‘savages’ ran wild? It is crazy for one to think that all of a sudden since the Europeans
Jade Dant
Silencing the Past Intro and Chap. 1
landed history was born for America. There was thousands of years of history before then, but it was told through stories and pictures. When genocide was committed upon the natives their stories were lost in battles and in a sense the history before the 1800’s, silencing the past. According the Michel Trouillot, “There is no narrative that is not also a bundle of silences, those moments of structural undecidability or inadmissibility that are erased for the sake of the narrative.” It is true that facts are forgotten in the telling of a story, I bet our prison bios are full of silences only because we had a window of opportunity to tell a story those facts become lost. What about our own fact retrieval? Our minds are not as easy to work as a light switch; everybody sees things differently so stories are told differently. Then how do you describe in the indescribable? So what would you do? Would you tell the truth about Columbus or our own Presidents, even to risk death or torture? Power controls people, people control knowledge, knowledge control awareness and history, so therefore those with power can make history.
So when Michel Trouillot says, “At some stage, for reasons that are themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy, collectivities experience the need to impose a test of credibility on certain events and narratives because it matters to them whether certain events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction.” The meaning is somewhat simple, for me is means that randomly someone, who is probably affected by history, will want to know the truth and whether those stories are fact or fiction. Maybe, this story that they are researching links them to an undesirable race or is just important to their past. Just because it matters to one person doesn’t mean it matters to everyone. Does it matter to everyone to know the truth about 9/11 and what really went down? Does it matter to
Jade Dant
Silencing the Past Intro and Chap. 1
everyone if the stories of the Holocaust were real? Some history writers believe a good story is a good story so what does it matter if it is true or false? Historians are scared of those who question history because then the past would catch up with the future. It is important for people to question history because then you can give the past a voice where it was silenced before.
November 1, 2006 at 2:59 am
Ben Basque
Human 6 1395
10/31/06
Trouillot
Pg. 1
Trouillots statement “it is at least possible that events otherwise significant to the life trajectory were not known to the individual at the time of occurrence and can not be told as a remembered experience.” (15) is a great opener to history as a whole. I feel that events are perceived differently be each person and in the retelling of the story or event it is altered by the individuals perceptions.
Some pieces of history are exaggerations on the event while other pieces are completely omitted. In my opinion these omissions happen because of different human factors. One would be guilt about how the event went down, another might be that to the viewer the event did not imprint as a significant event or the perceptions of the witness were different than that of other witness’s or than the event actually happened. Trouillot states” The ways in which what happened and that which is said to have happened are and are not the same may itself be historical.” (4) Every story, event or conflict has many interpretations. The person telling the event for the first time will inevitably leave their personal views woven in the event as if it were a part of the facts. “The role of the historian is to reveal the past, to discover or at least approximate the truth.” (5) It is the approximation of the truth that leaves room for even a professional historian to add their own interpretation of the event.
My belief is that all history is not an absolute retelling of an event, but at best a close version of the event with some actual truth colored by the teller’s perceptions threaded in amongst the facts. “The lesson of the debate is clear. At some stage, for reasons that are
Ben Basque
Pg. 2
Human 6
Trouillot
themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy collectivities experience the need to impose a test of credibility on certain events and narratives because it matters to them whether these events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction.” (11) To me this means that when someone sees history and they have a different perception on what or why something occurred based on what they feel the history means they want to challenge the facts that are being presented so that the history might tell the same events with a different meaning or occurrence of the events to support their own beliefs of actions. I like the statement “the problems of determining what belongs to the past multiply tenfold when the past is said to be collective.”(16) this idea supports the theory that as time goes on the recollection of the “facts” changes and each time the event is retold it changes further. History will always be something fluid. Yes, there are some undeniable events, but all the small details and meaning behind each event will have the historian or story teller’s influence in the retelling. It is important to look at history and try to weed out the subjective pieces and hold on to the actual factual parts. Recent history is easier to weed through, but older history was handed down word of mouth before it was written that I think there may have been many changes to the facts before it was finally written.
November 1, 2006 at 4:33 am
Jana Churich
Humanities Sec 1395
The way we, and by we I mean students, participate in history is by learning it in class and creating an objective or subjective opinion about it. From elementary school all the way up to college we are taught over and over again the same types of events that happened in history. Some examples of history lessons that repeat over the years are the first Thanksgiving, the World Wars, ancient Greek, Chinese and Egyptian philosophies and contributions, and many more. We being with basic understandings of the events that occurred and over time we are taught about why they happened, who caused it, and perhaps, what the real story actually was.
The best real life example I have is the change of events up to and including the First Thanksgiving. In kindergarten through sixth grade it was all about arts and crafts. Remember the turkeys that were carved out of the traces of your hand prints? The story of the Mayflower sailing into Plymouth came up every year as we dressed up as Native Americans with bandanas on our head decorated with red, yellow, and blue feathers and buttons. I remember making a card every year saying what I was thankful for. I was thankful for family, friends, good health, and probably, at the time, thankful for an allowance. We were taught early on that Thanksgiving should be a celebration of giving thanks, hence the name. The lessons barely permeated the surface of what really happened.
In junior high and high school we took more of an academic look towards Thanksgiving. We learned about the Europeans, and the Inquisition. We found out why people were so interested in migrating to the Americas even though there was very little established at the time. Our teachers influenced the dates of arrival, who landed where and when, and how it influenced the settlements. We learned that cute rhyme about Columbus sailing the Ocean Blue in Fourteen Hundred and Ninety Two. Every year the topic came up that we were celebrating the relationship between the Native Americans and the European Settlers and how harsh that first winter really was.
In college, however the story changed. In my American History class we study the other point of view. We were asked to analyze what we thought really happened. There was a book published once called The Lies My Teacher Told Me, or something to that effect, that told the real story about the first Thanksgiving. It exemplifies how, over time, the history of that Thanksgiving has changed in favor of the point of view of the Europeans. Well what about the Native Americans? What can be said for the unheard voices of the Native Americans that were exploited when the English came over? They were used and abused for lack of a better description. They knew the land and how to grow corn and grains and the Europeans took advantage of that knowledge then enslaved the Native Americans to help them work the land. (At the time European women were not allowed to work the farm nor did they know how). The first Thanksgiving was a catalyst between a European society that desperately needed reform to what came to be a flourishing colony that exploited slavery for several centuries. When I was a kid I do not ever remember saying in a classroom, “Thank you to the Native Americans for their hospitality, and oh by the way sorry for wiping out your entire culture, socio-political systems, and religious beliefs.” It just wasn’t part of the lesson plan back then. So over the years I had one expectation, or understanding of Thanksgiving, but as an adult that is
Jana Churich
Humanities sec 1395
being challenged by what I thought I knew I feel betrayed. Thanksgiving truly now more than ever holds no relevance to the reasons why Americans celebrate it, rather it is simply an occasion where we spend time cooking with family and friends. We might still give thanks, and the kids might still play Cowboys and Indians but like Trouillot pointed out they aren’t rushing to be the Indian.
As far as the meaning of that quote goes I think the easiest way to explain it would be to take the same story I just explained and erase me and input a Native American in it. So if you can imagine, a Native American boy or girl, learns the meaning of Thanksgiving as a time to rejoice, cook turkey, and celebrate the relationship between Europeans and Indians. Then have that same boy or girl find out that their ancestors were ran out of their homes in droves, beaten and bruised to death, and manipulated for the greater good of white Europeans. Can you imagine how that person might feel?
The same thing can be said not only for people of Native American descent, but also Jews, African Americans, Chinese-Americans, and every other non-white descendant that now calls themselves American. Not that they all feel like causing an uprising for the injustices that were forced upon their ancestors but some, maybe more than we know, would like to see their history be part of the truth or vice versa. They might like to hear their history come from their point of view rather than the Euro-American, elitist, religious, powerful point of view all of whom were probably the ones who told the stories originally of what we study today in history class.
The reason why the urge to let these feelings out is in itself important is because at some point they were silenced. Hence the title of the novel, Silencing the Past. We really have only learned one version of history because history is based on facts. Well these facts came from a certain type of person, whether they were European or a minority it all came down to who won and who lost, who had more money or privilege and who was educated enough to explain it to generations to come. The purpose of this particular novel is to decide if there are in fact lines that separate fact from fiction in a historical context. I also think there are a lot of Foucault’s theories mixed in with Trouillet’s debates. There is definitely a power struggle going on when he is talking about whose truth we keep as history and whose we ignore. And I also think that power is, like Foucault said, interchangeable with knowledge.
November 1, 2006 at 7:31 am
David Bynum
Human 6
American Cultures 1395
11/01/2006
Medic811@sbcglobal.net
Silencing the Past
I grew up in a religiously diverse neighborhood. My household consisted of an agnostic father, baptist mother and the other three houses in our court practiced: Judaism, Ahteism and Catholicism. Due to my religious, diverse upbringing, I found myself questioning the bible and its theories; how can so many different beliefs come out of one book? Silences are inherent in history and the bible has been rewritten many times. Some facts were rerecorded and others left silent depending on the power needed at the time. Different disciplines pulled out what mattered to them most. History is a creation of power.
Silencing the Past by Michel Trouillot is a book about history and power (xix). History must be processed through narration and facts and “each historical narrative renews a claim to truth” (6), however, some truths are silenced thus altering the narrative and distribution of power. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. was a great and well respected man. He built his reputation Christian beliefs and morality. In addition, he helped the black community and became part of the dominant elites. Sometime after his tragic death, silenced history was revealed; he had a mistress. If this truth were told sooner, would he have lost some of his power over the community? History was “packaged” for public onsumption by selective silencing to control the power.
History is dynamic; a never-ending rough draft. The past will always be debatable and this rule operates in all societies (8). It starts with “what has happened and what is said to have happened” (2). The goal is to approximate the truth (5). The first statement emphasizes the “sociohistorical process” and the second on the “knowledge of that process.” A scientific approach defines the knowledge and society influences the other. It is difficult to see a clear line between the two but in the end it is about “accepted history.” It is an accepted fact that six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust by the gas chambers. Despite the detailed facts, the Holocaust was tragic; however, the facts are being scrutinized and reevaluated. All that was said to have happened may not have happened how we originally believed. Trouillot believes the Holocaust narrative may benefit certain state policies of the US, Israel and Europe (12).
Therefore what is the point of the story and the parts we play? The point of the narrative is one of power and influence. Peoples play in three different categories: actors, agents and subjects. Agents are the class or structure we belong to, actors constantly participate in the story and subjects are in the voices. Trouillot believes the subject (voice) needs to be heard in the first person in order to give a clear description of the narrative (24). This “engages them simultaneously in the sociohistorical process and in narrative constructions about that process” (24). Picture a theatrical production, the actors are creating the narrative, their voice (subjects) carries the message or theme; the agents represent their social position in the play such as a mother or teacher. This is the story.
David Bynum
Silencing the Past
Once the story is told, a test of credibility is in effect. Without verification “for reasons that are themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy, collectivities experience the need to impost a test of credibility on certain events and narratives because it matters to them whether these events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction” (11). Narratives can dominate society because they are “accepted history,” but let’s remember the never-ending rough draft; facts and the process are always being scrutinized and may change with time. Historians and actors are checking these facts because the findings matter to them; however, what “matters to them does not necessarily mean that it matters to us” (11). A lawyer will verifiy facts and test credibility to benefit his/her current case in order to win because “at best, history is a story about power, a story about those who won” (5).
History is the event but “power is constitutive of the story” (28). Sometimes power has hidden motives and it is difficult to track; and power can enter the narrative at anytime for a myriad of reasons. The story isn’t always what it appears and Foucault and Trouillot wanted us to look beyond the obvious, to locate the power and reason. Power is about winning but “why don’t all winners tell the same story?” (6).
November 1, 2006 at 7:37 am
Jana, I believe Trouillot studied Foucault.. their writing is similar. I want to know how many people had to pull out the dictionary to read Trouillot? I can relate to your story about thanksgiving.. I was thinking back to what I was taught in second grade and what I found out later in life..
Ben – you wrote to rely on the actual facts of history instead of what is written but the facts need to be looked at as well. Trouillot hit upon this too. Even facts need to be verified.. who is recording the facts? more so who is funding the research and why?
November 1, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Ryan McGraw
Human 6
Week 8
STP pg 11 reaction
History is the most interesting concept in that there are many different languages throughout time that have helped to build a foundation of understanding. If you recall we couldn’t decipher the hieroglyphics without the Rosetta Stone, from a language we knew nothing about to a language we could read and understand. This I think has a lot to do with history, as the book says, I wonder how many things are lost in translation. It is amazing to me that when I talk to someone, and they speak Spanish, there are many words that mean something in Spanish but don’t have a literal meaning in English. This goes the same for the other way, English to Spanish. Now remembering that concept, think about the issue of time and how over thousands of years, one word could mean something completely different now from what it was supposed to mean then. It is possible someone miss read a word or it was spelled wrong in another language thus giving us only pieces of what really happened at a specific period or even. An analogy of this would be like when someone is writing a book and they use a bunch of different outside sources to create one main idea of writing. This same concept is used to create history. Many times scholars and historians have just filled in the holes for us where gaps were missing from the collection of these words, stories and events. Given this is there job and they do a very good job of it for the majority of the time but the concepts the book raises are very interesting. This makes us think about if those educated people got something’s wrong? There have been holes throughout history and time, with a huge amount of effort that has been spent to fill those gaps. When recovering issues in history really determines on what information was given at the time. There is no way to really know if it’s true is what Author Michel-Rolph Trouillot is saying. Similarly in the story, they talk about the one man that didn’t “cross the line” to fight in the battle of the Alamo. This is a legitimate argument because who is to say that the one person that stood against the whole army, to say he wasn’t going to fight, was the person that told the events in detail about what happened. It is curious when Trouillot says “they are scared the past it catching up to the present.” This implies that there is something that historians are not telling us, or keeping under wraps because it seems history is only history if they can make us believe its true. No one wants to hear that the battle of The Alamo was really a false hope for one man, and they all died for nothing with no support. This would contradict a historical landmark, which is treason in this country.
How do we participate in history? First of all we create it, and then we believe it. History is the only constant truth. Not that its true of false, the pure fact that it happened is true. You cannot erase history, nor can you change it, but this enlies the problem. History can infact be changed because its all a perception of how it was understood. Your ideas about what happened at The Alamo may be different from what Trouillot, and the reason for those beliefs is more then likely based on someone else’s findings. We believe things so blindly, it often turns to fiction and we have a hard time sifting through the nonsence, to find the truth.
On a personal note I find it hard to hear what Trouillot is saying about how history only matters to “Them”, and not “Us”. The them he refers to is historians, but I am unclear who “us” is in this context. I am my own historian and I as that person draw my own conclusions about events that have happened in pervious time. This comes full circle, because my interperation of the “us” is really the paying public. The battle of The Alamo is suffering from historical genocide. The iniliation of a actual events to make way for a “modern history” perspective that appeals to the consumor. “They” make money, “us” suffers lack of knowledge and our pocket books weald the damage.
November 1, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Kimberly Murphy
Trouillot- Intro and Chapter 1
November 1, 2006
Page 1
In my days of elementary school, middle school and high school, history was always a favorite subject of mine. I loved reading facts about all the huge historical moments that have created our world. Everything was laid out for me, in black and white, with dates and names of all the people who mattered. Then I entered college, and everything changed for me, history was no longer black and white, it made me challenge myself, it made me ask questions about what was really true. in my second semester at the JC I took an African American history class and that class actually changed my life. I was so interested in learning about the social and cultural events that happened with African Americans instead of just facts about when slavery ended and what day Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered on. Because I was so passionate about the things I was learning I made a life changing decision, I was going to throw my previous life plans of becoming a sports journalist out the window and I decided I wanted to become a history teacher. I wanted to be able to give students the thrill I received when I was challenged to think about history.
After reading the introduction and chapter one of Michel-Rolph Trouillot’s Silencing the Past I got the feeling that Trouillot, like myself loved to question what was really written in our Social Studies books and asked questions about what really happened. According to Trouillot, “The ways in which what happened and that which is said to have happened are and are not the same may itself be historical,” (4). Trouillot makes and excellent point with this statement, things have happened in our world’s history that we have all been told about, but are what we have been told the absolute truth? For example, elementary, middle and high school children are taught to worship Christopher Columbus, they are taught to believe that he was this great hero who found America. But what they aren’t taught is that when Columbus landed here in America he landed on the home of Native American’s, and because that did not work well with his plans he and his troops did a major genocide to many of the Native Americans who inhabited America.
Another great point made by Trouillot was “At best history is a story about power, a story about those who won,” (5). I find this to be true, most history books focus on the people who have been victorious throughout history, not the people who lost. Most of know the names of people in history because of some great thing they have accomplished to get themselves into the history books. But what about those who did not make it into the history books, those people still helped to create our history today, yet they are not mentioned. What gives people the authority to decide who and what goes into the history books? What makes someone worthy of becoming a historical hero? Do they have to be a great American president like Abraham Lincoln, a monstrous dictator like Adolph Hitler, or an activist like Malcolm X? All of these people had power and that is what made them historical figures. But what about the people who helped them along the way, we don’t know anything about them because they weren’t the great and powerful.
Kimberly Murphy
Trouillot- Intro and Chapter 1
November 1, 2006
Page 2
Trouillot also states that , “At some stage, for reasons that are themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy, collectivities experience the need to impose a test of credibility on certain events and narratives because it matter to them whether these events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction,” (11). I think that this means that people will only believe something is historically accurate they want to be able to prove that it really happened. They want documented tales of the event, or witnesses. But that is hard because you can’t always have witnesses or documented tales to historical events. Sometimes you just have to take the words of the stories passed down from generation to generation. History is much easier now a day to document, but that does not always means its true. Fr example, the war on Iraq, President Bush had his reasons for going over into Iraq, but many citizens of the United States choose not to believe him, especially after the troops found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, after President Bush said they were there.
I know that a lot of people believe that history is just names, facts and places, but there is so much more to it than that. Trouillot helps his readers to see that, he helps his readers to question what really happened and could there be more to the stories.
November 2, 2006 at 12:32 am
Donna Blanchard
Silencing the Past, Intro and Chapter 1
October 29, 2006
moxiedonna@gmail.com
Human 6, Section 1395
I’m finding Trouillot’s book to be very interesting and thought–provoking. Thinking of history in different aspects other than what we are taught, trying to find the true difference between history and fiction. We take each historical statement as fact and rarely does anyone stop to question anything we are told. If someone writes something new and different about an important and well-known event in history, how do we know the evidence used to back up the fact is also true? Should we just accept everything we are told and not question it? Is questioning any supposed part of history wrong and does it make us wrong as well?
In Trouillot’s statement on page 5, “history is a story about power, a story about those who won”, I believe he is saying that the person or people who win dictate what aspect of history is told. So, if the Nazis had won, would our history of World War II and the Holocaust be different from what we know now? Would Fred Leuchter’s and the other revisionists’ take on the Holocaust be the accepted version and the events we know as the Holocaust be considered historically incorrect? It seems to be true in that what we know as history seems to be recounted by the people who won and the “losers” are deemed as cowards or lesser people, when in fact the losing party or parties just lost. There may have been no extraordinary circumstances, no major flaws, but that doesn’t make for a good retelling. Who wants to hear about a battle in which the opponents were evenly matched and there was no underdog, no shining star? Perhaps this is why our historical recountings of the Vietnam Conflict are negative: We didn’t win. No one did. It was an unwinnable war in which the facts and the media coverage was skewed to make the United States seem to be the winning party. If someone had clearly won the Vietnam Conflict, what would its history be?
As Trouillot’s states, “at some stage for reasons that are themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy, collectivities experience the need to impose a test of credibility on certain events and narratives because it matters to them whether these events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction”. In this vein, did it really matter to Fred Leuchter whether or not the Holocaust happened? Or was it just because he felt Ernst Zundel’s right to freedom of speech was being violated? At what point does history stop becoming just a cool story and start becoming accepted fact? Who are we to decide that an event from hundreds of years ago may or may not have happened in the same way it has been recounted to us? None of us lived that long ago and there are no first-hand eyewitness statements. We must rely on written accounts from that era to be the truth. But if we do begin to question history, how do we start the process? Where would we go? Surely there must be documents challenging all other accounts of historical fact. When Leuchter test the credibility of the Holocaust, his own credibility was called into question and the facts of the Holocaust stood against his tests.
donna blanchard
silencing the past, part 1
Trouillot’s quote from page 14 – “remembering is not always a process of summoning representations of what happened”. We do not remember everything we know and we do not know everything we remember. Events that occurred in our families’ past may not have happened during our life span but we know them anyway. They become part of our being through retellings, as do most other facts of history. We were not alive for the Civil War but we know it through what we have learned about it in different ways; school lessons, media documentaries, historical reenactments, fictional books and movies, or maybe even an heirloom from an ancestor who was alive during that time. This is history – this is our proof that what is said to have happened really did take place. Whether or not it is relevant to our everyday lies has no bearing – for the history is engrained within us. It may not always be an active thought but we can recollect what we know. And because we take in and process so many facts, be they historical or mundane, we may forget lesser-relevant facts or facts we do not need everyday. But we can recall those facts as they are needed.
On page 28, Trouillot speaks of power by saying that “tracking power through various ‘moments’ simply helps emphasize the fundamentally processual character of historical production, to insist that what history is matters less than how history works; that power itself works together with history; and that the historians’ claimed political preferences have little influence on most practices of power”. He also ties historical power in with Michel Foucault and speaks of the hegemonic power history holds over us. We believe history because it has been a party of our society since it was written and anyone who questions history is wrong to go outside the lines. Hegemonic power can be culture-driven; it is who we are and what we know. Very few people dare to question the power that history holds over us because we have all learned the same facts from the same sources. For instance, Christians believe their version of the Holy Bible to be true because it is what is taught to them in church and by church leaders. When historical documentation arises or a historical documentary airs on television that questions the Holy Bible’s facts, there is controversy. Do Christians want to believe that the Bible they read and cherish and know as fact could be a fraud, a skewed account of facts written entirely by men in which women are deemed as lesser creatures, as whores or the reason there is no Garden of Eden? No because they have been taught that the Bible is historically accurate and that every new piece of “documentation” that proves the Bible isn’t as correct as once believed is wrong. Christianity is a history based on faith, a very strong faith with roots dating back thousands of years. But the history of Christianity may be skewed because of the documentation.
History holds a great power over us as a people and as a culture. Our culture is based on historical fact. It shapes our lives and makes us who we are. If that history is incorrect, does it also invalidate us and everything we know to be true? How history works and how it shapes each person, each race, each culture is a very relevant question to me. How would a people react upon finding out that its history is not true and has never been true? The cultural and political power history holds over us is great. History’s influence is everywhere, from the mundane to politics. Politicians feed off United States history, from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln and even to John F. Kennedy, Jr. They use the teachings of earlier
donna blanchard
silencing the past, part 1
American leaders to form their own opinions and to forge their campaigns. And we as Americans believe everything we know about our history to be true: it is an act of faith and believe. History is based on faith more than fact. We cannot refute historical facts from hundreds of years ago when the evidence may have been altered or destroyed over the years. We take everything told to us on faith. Not that faith is a bad thing: it is very good to have faith in something. To have faith in history is to have faith in our culture, in our society, in our ancestors.
November 2, 2006 at 3:06 am
Page 1 of 1
Crystal Pardo
October 31, 2006
Silencing the Past Ch. 1
American Cultures 1395
Pardofam4@sbcglobal.net
In the preface and first chapter of Silencing the Past, Power and the Production of History by Michel-Rolph Trouillot he first talks about his family and how his uncle was one of the few people he knew that earned a living from knowing history. He spoke of how Sunday afternoons were ritual times for his father and uncle. History was their alibi for expressing both their love and disagreements. So even at a young age Trouillot was exposed to histories which lead him to study it and its facts. Trouillot states that growing up he could not escape historicity, but he learned that anyone anywhere with the right dosage of suspicion can formulate questions to history with no pretense that these questions themselves stand outside history.
Trouillot begins to discuss history as we know it or how we have been taught, but is it really what happened or is the stories told in a way that we are suppose to believe it? I wondered that before and I wonder it even more now that I have read the first chapter of this book. History is taught in schools, but I feel that unless we or the teachers providing the information or facts have actually lived at the times of those events, then we will never know exactly what happened. Another example of this is religion and God. We only know what the bible says happened, but is it true or is it what we are supposed to believe? And why do we have so many different beliefs and religions based on the same bible?
The meaning and value of what Trouillot talks about on page 11 simply means that it matters to them (the people in history) if the events they experienced were real or not so they want to make sure that the truth is told. Trouillot then brings up what matters to them does not necessarily matter to us today. It’s true that certain events from the past have nothing to do with us today or that they matter for the future. Then again there are certain events that do matter, but not all.
Thinking back to when I was in school I remember briefly what was taught in history class, but I don’t remember ever using it again so it was obviously not that important to learn. I wonder what will be taught to my children twenty years later after I learned it. I wonder if they will teach the same thing or go farther into time. That will be interesting to see.
Trouillot speaks of how power plays a big part in history. Power operates in the making and recording of history. Who has this power and how do we know that the people who record history are telling the same story as the ones who made the history? We don’t know. Trouillot states that the production of a historical narrative cannot be studied, therefore through a mere chronology of its silences. Trouillot also states that the play of power in the production of alternative narratives begins with the joint creation of facts and sources for at least two reasons. First facts are never meaningless, they only became facts because they matter in some sense and facts are not created equal, the production of traces is always also the creation of silences.
I really don’t know how we participate in history other than one day our generation and the events that took place in our time will be history to the next generation and many generations after that. My life and the events that happen to me will probably not be important to anyone other than my family and close friends, but the actual events that take place in the world during my time will be recorded and only I and the people of my time will know what really happened. I guess that’s why they sometimes say that people take the truth with them to their grave. Sometimes the truth is never told; therefore narratives cannot always speak the truth.
November 2, 2006 at 5:12 am
Corinne Neuman
Silencing the Past, Chapter One
November 1, 2006
yourmomismad@yahoo.com
Section 1395: Human 6
The preface of Silencing the Past, by Michael-Rolph Trouillot sheds light into the way Michael looks at history. In his preface he describes how his father and uncle argued over history. “The brothers disagreed more often than not, in part because they genuinely saw the world quite differently, in part because the heat of their divergences, both political and philosophical, fueled their ceremonial of love.” (Page xviii). When I read this, I envisioned a young boy standing between the two brothers absorbing everything. I imagined a young boy who admired his father, and learned from watching him. He compared stories that he heard his father tell at the dinner table, to what he saw and heard his father do professionally. Bad or good, adults sure make impressions on young minds.
His impressions were formed early, and he quickly learned the importance of recognizing history recounts of “what was said,” and “what happened?” Even though words may appear exactly the same to two people, those words can be interpreted a thousand ways. I am reminded of a childhood game that clearly illustrates this. In the game “telephone” a message is whispered from person to person, and the last person recites the message. By the end of the line, the message ends up completely different. In Chapter One, Michael seeks to explain that what was said happened in history and what actually happened can be entirely different.
Part of the differences in “what is said” and “what actually happened” can be clearly sided in “one-sided” history. While doing my research for my Angola Biography, I found many examples of this. The prison’s official website had highlighted important leaders and history of the prison, but was incredibly vague about times when things went wrong. The history of Angola Prison has become what the prison officials said had happened, rather then what actually had occurred. As we learn and read about history it is important to always be thinking critically about what is being said, so that we can try to interpret fact versus fiction. Not to say that history is purposely written fictional, but rather it is an interpretation rather than fact.
On page 11, he says, “At some stage, for reasons that are themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy, collectivities experience the need to impose a test of credibility on certain events and narratives because it matters to them whether certain events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction.” Most writers develop a sense of responsibility to develop credibility in their writings to gain their readers confidence. I would believe that a person writing about History more so hold that responsibility, whether or not that is a spoken rule. For instance, when I read a peace of history I expect that the writer has some credibility for writing about the subject. However, all of us need to think critically when we do read such pieces of work.
Neuman, Corinne
Silencing The Past, Part I
Page 2 of 2
I came across a new word, positivism. After looking it up in Webster, I learned that it means “a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences.” Unfortunately, I still do not understand? I am left in a state of, what are they talking about?
Michael’s philosophy on slavery was definitely one that I had never heard of before or for that matter even thought of before. “The experience of African-Americans outside the United States challenges the direct correlation between past traumas and historical relevance.” Trouillot discusses that in comparison with the numbers of slaves that were drawn from Africa, the United States imported on a fraction. However, the United States is popularly known as encouraging slavery. While it still does not correct our wrongdoings, Troillot brings a lot of good thought to the topic and does put things into a better prospective.
The narrators and the actors of history overlap, and stories of history are a mixture of fact and a narrative of how somebody interpreted it. Power is introduced when one-sided historicities are created by the interpretation of one. For instance, a leader in a war will have a different interpretation of the wars events than the opposing side. If fact is fact, than how are these two stories interpreted differently? According to Troullot, it is “silencing the past” and it does not repeat in the same manner with each moment of history. According to Troullot they enter history in four moments; the moment of fact creation, the moment of fast assembly, the moment of fast retrieval, the moment of retrospective significance.
The war in Iraq is a good example of silencing our past, even though we are in the moment of it. The media has desensitized our society to the events surrounding Iraq. Does it really matter if one soldier has died of 200? Isn’t it all the same difference? Just as the Press Democrat has stopped publishing stories on the front page, we have stopped looking at the countless deaths. The despair, desperation, and death is shared by all – so what do the actual facts mean? Is it the facts that are more important, or the interpretation of the events taking place?
November 2, 2006 at 5:26 am
Melissa Duffield 1
Trouilliot
Due 11/1/06
1/11/06
Meld731@yahoo.com
1395
Silencing the Past written by Michel-Rolph Trouilliot is one of the first books I read that, although it may have controversial ideas I wanted to read more because I found myself agreeing with him. I really like his writing style, he is very direct and straight to the point in his sentences and paragraphs yet it is not hard to read or interpret (or at least compared to some of the other martial we have read in this class).
I really connected and appreciated all the themes and ideas Trouillot concentrated on in his book. I find myself asking the same questions when I read historical documents and wondering if I should believe what they say. Connecting power to history and saying how if you have power you can “bend” history is a very good point. I relate this to the Enron incident and how the people who ran Enron had so much power of the workers at Enron and the citizens of United States of America and led us to put our trust and invest our money into their company. In the end many of the investor’s lives were ruined as they lost everything they owned.
Another interesting point brought up in the book is how much of history is true and what can we trust. Trouilot asks the questions, did incidents like the Holocaust and slavery in the United States really happen? I always believed that these two things did happen due to the factual evidence however I could have been brained washed by others beliefs and the information I read. I know that when we first learned about Thanksgiving in history class when I was younger was total different then what “really happened.”
Melissa Duffield 2
Troilliot
When I read historical document I try to be as critical as possible and try to compare the facts to see if they agree or disagree. In this day and age it is so hard to know what to believe because of technology like the internet. Anyone who has an opinion even though they are not educated on a certain topic can post anything they want. Also another way of bending the truth of history is the way sentences are wonders. Switching words around can have readers interpret the authors meaning completely different. Trouillot gave a few examples of sentences in his book and I as a reader could have interpreted those sentences a few different ways depending on what words I emphasis. Overall I will enjoy reading more of Trouillot’s book, although I will stay critical it will be interesting to see what he brings to the table.
November 2, 2006 at 5:31 am
Do people tell people what they want to hear? Or do people hear what they want to hear?
I have always told my father that I think he has selective hearing. His selectivity is especially prevalent when I ask “Hey Dad can I have some money to go shopping?” For some reason I have to repeat myself four or five times before I get a response other than “What!, I can’t hear you!” Sometimes I am lucky if I get a response other than that or any response at all. One of my favorite one liners in the movie “White Man Can’t Jump” is “You listen to ….. but you can’t hear ……” when arguing about who can and can’t hear the music of an African American artist. My father may have been listening to me the entire time but he does not hear me because he has no idea of the meaning my shopping has to me. It makes me feel better. It’s therapy to me after a bad break up, but unfortunately he does not see it that way. My point is that people see things differently and everyone has different backgrounds and points of view from which they absorb and retell information such as history.
Michel-Rolph Trouillot, the author of “Silencing the Past” uses similar language in his theory of history as Foucault did in his theories. In the first Chapter “The Power in The Story” Trouillot begins to explain the concept of determining fact and ficticious interpretations of history. Interpretation plays a large role in how an individual or group for that matter will respond to a story. Some people may ask themselves if the story the narrator has told is even believable given the knowledge that those people already have. Trouillot states that “historical narrative bypasses the issue of truth by virtue of it’s form.”(6) Due to the form in which a message or story is delivered affects the response of the audience. HHHMMMM maybe if I formed my question differently to my father he may have heard me the first time. For instance “Oh my gosh Dad check it out!!! I just got dumped. Can I have some money to go shopping?” It probably still wouldn’t work but it’s worth trying to at least get his attention. Usually if you hear the news telling you not to eat lettuce because they have tested the crop and it tested positive for ecoli and you are a fan of salad than chances are you wont be eating salad until the news tells you it’s okay to eat again. Most people believe this because it was told to us by the news which most people believe to be a credible source so they don’t question it. I doubt there were many people that actually looked up the publicly available test results of the crop and what local areas it affected most, but if you don’t eat salad than the ecoli factor is irrelevant and so is the research of the evidence. Because my ex boyfriend and I were always breaking up and getting back together I was deemed to my father as a source that was not as credible compared to the first time we broke up when I needed money to go shopping. Also the fact that we had broken up was irrelevant to my father because my shopping did not benefit him in any way. Little did he know that my moping around the house did not please him and he would have rather had me out of the house so that he did not have to hear my complaining. Thus his reason for having selective hearing. Evidence plays a key factor in history, but even evidence needs credible verification.
“The need for a different kind of credibility sets the historical narrative apart from fiction. This need is both contingent and necessary.”(8) The need for another source verifying ecoli presence in lettuce is contingent on the fact of whether or not you like to eat lettuce and is necessary if you are the one selling the lettuce Just as history verification of a story is contingent depending on it’s relevance to the individual or group and is necessary to those printing the history books for schools. The power of the history is just as relevant as the power of the source telling the history.
“…the collective subjects who supposedly remember did not exist as such at the time of the events they claim to remember.”(16) For instance in the video “The Rez” available in the SRJC library, is a perfect example of how stories of the ancestors and the history of such times has been passed down and lossed most of the real meaning to those living in modern day nor can the grandchildren today begin to imagine the actual feelings involved with in the events that their grandparents experienced. Sure it is easy for us to try and imagine or put ourselves in others shoes, but in no way shape or form can we realize those feelings and the facts of the story. Stories of the Alamo present the same issues due to lack of evidence and credibility from the information given. We only listen to what we are being told and we only hear parts of it that we can and choose to hear. Thus the filtration process of learning and weeding through our history books or any books for that matter to distinguish fact from fiction.
After determining what is fact and what is fiction, distinguishing relevance of the event, and deciding what is a credible source I pose the question regarding the creation of history is that it is not what is being told that is important rather could it be what is not being told or what is being kept secret that holds the true facts of history? We only tell people what we want them to hear just as a lawyer does not ask a question he does not know the answer to in court. Different groups of people have different points of view and will believe those referent to them that they deem credible. “how do we recognized the end of the bottomless silence?” (Trouilott 30) How will we ever no how we don’t know?
November 2, 2006 at 5:35 am
OOOps I meant to ask was How will we ever know how much we don’t know?
Dave I like you questioning who funds the research and why and who records the facts of such.
November 2, 2006 at 5:37 am
Jereme Robinson Page 1
STP Chapter 1 & introduction
November 1, 2006
Preludekid212@aol.com
Human 6 – Section 1395
Silencing The Past to me is a very exciting book to read about and easy for me to read as I love history so much. Michel Trouillot opens the book by discussion how history is produced and the power that history has in everyone. He talks about how history is created and formatted and that history is written by the stories people tell. I agree with his thinking because if you look back into the years when the pilgrims landed in New England. History about that time can only be written by the information that was written down during that time. I mean we didn’t have cameras and videos during that time so nothing really is for sure confirmed. This process really amazes me because we as Americans are leaning history that has been passed down from people to people not really knowing if the information given is correct due to people altering it from time to time. On page 15 Trouillot says, “It is at least possible that events otherwise significant to the life trajectory were not known to the individual at the time of occurrence and can not be told as a remembered experience”. I love this quote because going back to the example of the pilgrims settling in America, Columbus didn’t land in New England and say, and I just made history and need to remember this moment to pass on in life. I must say that this isn’t true so much these days because most of the time before history is made or during an historical event everything will be caught on video tape to confirm the accuracy of the event. Trouillot says, “There is no narrative that is not also a bundle of silences, those moments of structural undedecidability or inadmissibility that are erased for a sake of the narrative”. Trouillot is basically saying that there isn’t a narrative of
Jereme Robinson Page 2
STP Chapter 1 & introduction
history that hasn’t been written without someone forgetting something, which in that piece of history there will be a piece missing to the narrative. This is true in the fact that a story can be told over and over again by one individual and each time the story is told something new is remembered about the event. An example that I can share is for me being in Law Enforcement and finding information about an incident as I ask more and more people what happened I get different information that other people didn’t remember to tell me. Then like Trouillot talks about, you have to sit back and take in all side of the narrative and out the pieces together to make one narrative about event. Some information that you take might not be true but that the risk you take. To me that is how history is made. Trouillot says a quote on page 5 that talk about the role of a historian, “The role of the historian is to reveal the past, to discover or at least approximate the truth”. The very last part of that quote is very important because people believe that the history they are reading is 100 percent accurate which is not true because if a piece of the puzzle which I talked about earlier is missing historians can put there own piece in that place. On page 11 when Trouillot says, “At some stage, for reasons that are themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy, collectivities experience the need to impose a test of credibility on certain events and narratives because it matters to them whether certain events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction”. To me this means that when someone reads about history that person deserves to know if what they are reading is true or false. I think he is also trying to say that historians take an event and write about that event to just write about it not knowing if it is 100 percent accurate
Jereme Robinson Page 3
STP Chapter 1 & introduction
but don’t realize that in many years to follow that piece or writing will become a major historical event people want to find information about. I mean for me being Jewish and not living during the time of the holocaust I read historical information and really wonder if what I am reading is true or false, which is hard to really know when one narrative telling you one thing and another narrative tells you another. Sometimes I asked myself why do you learn and study history. When I think about that I remember some the answer I was given by 9th grade history teacher and that is we study history for only one reason and that is to learn from our mistakes that we have made in the past.
November 2, 2006 at 5:40 am
Ben – On page 5 the quote “The role of the historians is to reveal the past, to discover or at least approximate the truth” i agree with your thinking about this quote. I mean if you really think about historians could just plug something into history that isn’t relavent and most likely get away with it. It kinda makes you wonder is what you realy is really true.
November 2, 2006 at 5:43 am
Page 1 of 3
Todd Eastman
STP part 1
11/01/06
todd.eastman@comcast.net
HUMAN 6 American Cultures, Section 1395
After reading Chapter 1 of “Silencing the Past” and reviewing the class outline on this topic, I have to say that I am simply not getting the message. It seems almost as if the information the author is giving us is so complicated that it is flying right over the top of my head. Or, it is a relatively basic topic that has been smothered in the author’s excessive use of adjectives and metaphors.
My take on this material so far is that Trouillot wanted to share his love for History. At the same time he points out the failure of our society to identify and point out what really happened and comparing it with what we have been led to believe was the truth. He is warning us that what society knows and what society is led to believe are two very different components of history. This is what he refers to as “the facts of the matter” and the “narrative” of those facts.
I think this is similar to the concept used by our judicial system. A witness can provide testimony that describes only what event occurred, who was involved and all the other first hand observations that can be considered legal evidence. This would be the “what happened”, or “the facts of the matter”. On the other hand, if you arrive after a crime was committed and the victim tells you what happened, that information is second-hand and no longer permitted as evidence. This would be our “said to have happened,” or “narrative.”
According to Trouillot, history is a combination of the facts of the matter and the narrative of those facts. It is at this point where I have to ask if Trouillot understood that there are more than those two types of fact? How does “perception” fit into his theory? Going back to my crime analogy, if you were to interview each witness, you would get a broad range of “facts” that cannot all be valid. They were all witnesses, but their perceptions are going to differ. One will tell you the suspect was 6ft tall wearing a blue shirt, while another would describe the same person as 5’6” wearing a black shirt. The car was a white Toyota and a silver Honda.
Trouillot then looks at the two sides and labels them again. Positivists emphasize the distinction between the historical world and what we say about it. The “facts of the matter” camp siding with the side of world or event. Constructivists emphasize the overlap between the two sides. Is this where my issue of “perception” would fall?
Page 2 of 3
Todd Eastman
STP part 1
I’m not sure I agree with the author’s belief that history is a story about power, a story about those who won. He has it the other way around. Power comes from being the story-teller because the story-teller can embellish or withhold information. Even then, there can be more than one “winner”. Why don’t all winners tell the same story? For the same reason that my hypothetical crime witnesses didn’t tell the same story. It is all a about of perception.
Trouillot claimed there are four formal constraints that universally enforce the credibility and limit the character of historical debate: authority, continuity, depth, and inter-dependence. Nowhere is history infinitely susceptible to invention. I’m still not clear on this concept, but I have to ask again – what about perception?
According to Trouillot, silences enter the process of historical production at four crucial moments:
(1)the moment of fact creation (the making of sources),
(2)the moment of fact assembly (the making of archives),
(3)the moment of fact retrieval (the making of narratives),and
(4)the moment of retrospective significance (the making of history in the final instance).
Let me see if I got this part straight. Moment (1) would be the key incident that occurs. Moment (2) would be the gathering and collecting of information surrounding the event. Moment (3) would be the event as described by others not present at Moment (1). Moment (4) would the combination of the three previous moments into one story.
Between moments, periods of “silence” separate the events and allow additional modifications between each moment. This is necessary because it is not possible for all 4 “moments” to occur simultaneously or to have the same longevity.
Page 3 of 3
Todd Eastman
STP part 1
On page 11 – Trouillot says: “At some stage, for reasons that are themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy, collectivities experience the need to impose a test of credibility on certain events and narratives because it matters to them whether certain events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction.”
Imposing a test of credibility serves to re-examine how and why a history was created. It is not necessarily the facts and details that are being reviewed – it is the underlying truth that is being examined. For example, we have long been taught that Ponce de Leon went to Florida in search of the fabled “Fountain of Truth.” Upon re-examination, historians modified the history of Ponce de Leon’s purpose. Now we know he was there to capture the natives in order to sell them into slavery.
November 2, 2006 at 6:49 am
Dawn Rash
Silencing the Past
Nov. 1, 2006
Humanities 6 online
The meaning of the statement, “At some stage, for reasons that are themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy, collectivities experience the need to imposes a test of credibility on certain events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction,” (11) is that in any given event, there are at least two sides involved. Not all sets of collectivities tell the same story or are affected in the same way even though they are speaking of the same event. While credibility is definitely important to recording history, not all sides of history get the same consideration to be heard much less tested for credibility. This matters to all of the groups that are involved. It matters that their narratives be told, verified and documented because being understood on a whole historically coincides with understanding and respect in society today.
The positivism theory, distinction between historical process and historical knowledge emphasized that the more distant the sociohistorical knowledge is from it’s knowledge, the easier it is to clam scientific professionalism seems to leave out the people aspect of history. (5) The bottom line on this theory is, “who won?” To revile the past to discover the truth of the story of power is a bit one sided in my opinion. The positivism theory in concentrating on winners, will lose the narratives of the so called “losers”.
In the Single-site Historicrocity theory the history of reminiscence of important past experience is misleading. (11) Explicit memories change and sound different as time passes. Individuals only remember revelation, not the actual event. In the theory that the past is a position, I don’t think that memory in its ability to change and dim over time can hold a solid position.
Dawn Rash Silencing the Past
I think that we participate in history in many ways, but like Trouillot, beginning at the dinner table with our families. The subjects that we discuss or don’t determine how we will participate. As Trouillot couldn’t escape historicity and suffered overdoses, where as most of us spent time around the dinner table discussing no history at all. I may be wrong, but it has been my experience that most people learn a washed out version of history throughout their school years and don’t really think about history after that. Whether the case may be ignorance or of not caring about history in general, we become the people that Trouillot described as pretending not to be steeped in history. He goes on to point out that if we stopped pretending, we may gain in understanding what we lose in false innocence. So, the act of nonparticipation in discussion or thought to history is a way that we inadvertently participate in history. On the other hand, if we are lucky enough to be raised in a family that values history, our actions as people will reflect our knowledge and understanding of different collectivities. When false innocense is lost, we are left with the reality that we participate in history one way or another. The value of history that we pass down or don’t to our children will affect the way that they see and react to the world around them. If we choose to ignore the past, we really don’t see all of what is in front of us. Acknowledging that not all sides to historic events were evenly voiced is another way that we participate in history. We can then at least question the event. I think that as long as there are people raising questions, the silences are more difficult to keep.
November 2, 2006 at 10:21 am
Anita Vanderberg
Week 9: Silencing the Past: Trouillot
Sunday – November 1, 2006
Anita_Vanderberg@comcast.net
ONLINE Section 1395, Fall 2006
I believe that the statement by Michel-Rolph Trouillot on page 11, “The lesson of the debate is clear. At some stage, for reasons that are themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy collectivities experience the need to impose a test of credibility on certain events and narratives because it matters to them whether these events are true or false, whether these stories are fact or fiction.” (11) depicts the reality of lies and deceit that conflict in regards to someone such as Christopher Columbus. I was one who grew up being told how great he was and how he colonized America. I did not feel that I needed to research this information as I was learning it in school. Having data given to you does not mean that one will not be open to another idea or belief later in time though.
It was important in 1492 and has remained so up until recently that Columbus be known and recognized as the man who discovered America in that year and he is still considered a hero to many. This has been taught to American citizens by the educational system until the 1960’s when it was finally “let out” that the first European to document his arrival to North America was an Italian explorer Giovanni Caboto. What should have been taught about Christopher Columbus perhaps was that he is responsible for opening up the Atlantic slave trade and launching one of the largest numbers of casualties of genocide known in history. Another ugly fact that should be mentioned is that in August of 1500, Christopher Columbus along with his brothers, was sent back to Spain shackled in chains by Spanish Governor Francesco de Bobadilla for mistreating Natives in the section of Hispaniola now known as Haiti. However, upon arrival in Spain, they all were released and warmly invited back into royal court.
That the United States honors only two men with federal holidays bearing their names be that of Martin Luther King, Jr., who fought to remove racial prejudice and the remaining ties to slavery in America and then honor Christopher Columbus whose entire being appears to be that of a mass murderer, probably a sociopath liar, cheat, thief, and mostly evil. How can we as a people praise the lives of both men when the intent of their existences be so diametrically opposed, other than the value of the history of their stories, being exploited or expressed by those in a place of power at the time.
As Trouillot states” The ways in which what happened and that which is said to have happened are and are not the same may itself be historical.” (4)
Anita Vanderberg
Week 9: Silencing the Past: Trouillot
What really might matter is the manipulation of the concepts of an invasion, religious tolerance or intolerance and the hidden agenda behind it, the subjugation and genocide of weak peoples by warring people, and the establishment of colonies for countries fighting for more power. Who benefits from the stories that become our history? Which of course draws us into our current day events with our own President Bush, his invasion, his religious belief system, etc. I see his lips moving and I hear his words and they are written, recorded, and he has no problem denying statements, actions, moments lacking obvious clarity, as if he knows history will be simply be put as he wishes it to be. I find this to be frightening behavior.
Another statement of Trouillot on page 5 that, “history is a story about power, a story about those who won”. I for one was not aware that The Haitian Revolution was the first and only successful slave revolution in the history of the Americas. This was a fact that needed to be silenced, as it was feared that slaves in the colonies would also take up arms and fight for their lives. Again, by deleting it from the records and hiding the truth, those that benefited were the people currently in power and this allowed them to continue to use and abuse and disregard human life.
I had found myself recently on a journey researching the life of Socrates and I find he fits in nicely to this topic, at least for me. He was a man devoted to the truth. He was a critical thinker whose method of insistent questioning forced people to eliminate answers to serious questions, which pointed them in a direction toward a significant degree of intellectual independence. Socrates philosophy was that important issues of life and virtue were necessary to a human life and he would not be silenced. Socrates was convicted by a jury of corrupting youth and for religious heresies and chose to take hemlock poison instead of accepting exile or a commitment of silence. Perhaps his silence would have made as important an impact as his words. Socrates did offer society his credibility by his ability and wisdom thereby fulfilling Trouillot’s statement on page (8) “The need for a different kind of credibility sets the historical narrative apart from fiction. This need is both contingent and necessary.”
November 2, 2006 at 11:00 pm
David – You spoke of how later it was revealed that Martin Luther King Jr. had a mistress and you questioned if he would have still received the same respect if that secret was revealed while he was still alive. I believe that back then it may have caused some people to look at him different, but this day and age it almost seems common to have something revealed about yourself when you are a famous person. For example, Bill Clinton and anyone else who had a mistress. I believe that the drama is expected and that it gives people more to talk about when it comes to that person. Not that I agree with it, but it just goes to show that our history will tell a different tale.
November 3, 2006 at 2:38 am
Mathew: “The historical narrative must pass tests over time in order to affirm its separation from fiction” That is true, but after a while i don’t even think the historians know the truth after lies and silences are intertwinned with the story. Then where did the historians get their info, could the story told to the historians all ready have been narrated? Yes. I guess the tests put up aren’t strong tests because there is an unbelievable amount of fiction production in history books today.
Jana: I agree we have totally lost the meaning of holidays. We are just celebrating to spend money and get a couple of days off. Where has the real meaning gone? Why are we taught such lies as young children? Now even though people in college still know the truth about Thanksgiving, they still celebrate it. I think it is because we don’t live on reservations and our ancestors didn’t go through genocide. Every story in history matters to some people for reasons that are historical, but in the case of Thanksgiving not everys white person really cares.
Dave Bynum: You had mentioned the Holocaust and if the truth was there or if the story was ellaborated to help out certain parties. What i think is funny is that the Holocaust seems to be the only terrible event many people remember, could it be that those killed were of similar skin color? What about Mai Lai? Or all of the other uses of genocide the colonists spread across america. You see the indians that live on reservations were pushed there, their land taken, their history silenced, their culture destroyed with alcohol and poor conditions, where are their stories? I think the darker your skin color gets the less and less your death may matter. I can’t deny that the Holocaust was a terrible event produced by a mad man, but there are so many more stories that are still silenced and their are so many more stories waiting to happen in foreign countries where U.S citizens are safe from and will never know they happened.
November 3, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Hey Todd,
I like your prospective of:
“Power comes from being the story-teller because the story-teller can embellish or withhold information. ” I do agree with you in that a storyteller has a lot of power over the “interpretation” that others have of a historical event.
November 4, 2006 at 2:35 am
So for chapter three, the schedule says we have to discuss some of the issues listed in the schedule??? So our paper that needs to be written will not be on the questions in the schedule, but about everything we read???
November 5, 2006 at 1:37 am
Dina McCarthy
Silencing the Past
Dmccarthy5@sbcglobal.net
Americancultures1395
In Silencing the Past, Trouillot theorizes about the production of historical knowledge by elaborating on how the past is silenced in the same process by which history is created. It is necessary for the practice of history to generate an ambiguous awakening between what really happened and what’s written, between the people who actually endured such experiences and those who just talk about it. Much like the feelings of Michel Foucault, Trouillot states that power shapes what happened and what is said to have happened, which raises the voices for some and silences others. Power shapes people, sources, their assembly into records, their careful use by privileged individuals, and the context in which certain events achieve their presumed significance.
“For what history is changes with time and place or, better said, history reveals itself only through the production of specific narratives. What matters most are the process and conditions of production of such narratives. Only a focus on that process can uncover the ways in which the two sides of historicity intertwine in a particular context. Only through that overlap can we discover the differential exercise of power that makes some narratives possible and silences others.” (p.25).
Here, Trouillot is arguing that if we can understand the reasons such silences show up in a particular historical narrative, we will gain insight into the complete history. He seems to be saying that one cannot consider history without considering the silences also.
Trouillot also alerts us of history to the various ways that the making of historiography is bound to the enactment of power that silences the past. He goes on to explain that it is through the acceptance of these forms and a failure to critically interrogate them that we all consent to this pervasive silencing. Thus, he challenges native peoples to retell the history of Western domination to provoke a fundamental rewriting of world history. The goal of shedding light on
Dina McCarthy
Silencing the Past
Dmccarthy5@sbcglobal.net
Americancultures1395
the past is to focus on the complex ways European nations influenced Haiti’s past and present culture, economy and politics. (Paquette, 1997).
References:
Trouillot, M.R. (1995). Silencing the Past. Boston: Beacon Press.
Paquette, R.L. (1997). The Journal of American History. Retrieved from ProQuest Database on October 30, 2006.
November 6, 2006 at 7:37 am
I agree with Matthew about the telling of the story changes depending on who is telling the story. Perception as someone pointed out is how a story is told.
Like Jade, I took a class in History last semester and was stunned by the many silences that plagued the history books of my youth. I should also point out that it has been 30 years since I attended those classes, but American History was presented in a much different way than it is today.