Two Loosely Related Thoughts

Thought One

This week’s readings shed light on the continuing fight for the past. What gets commemorated and what gets ignored? When historical events or figures are placed in either category, it says as much about the people doing the categorizing as it does the importance of the subject under consideration. The same can be said of those who write more formal history, intended or not. It’s easy to see this phenomenon in writers such as Hernan Cortes or William Prescott. We have the advantage of temporal distance. We have the advantage of knowing the larger context in which they wrote. But what are the contexts in which we are writing? Alfredo Jimenez stated, “Although complete objectivity can never be achieved, a permanent search for truth is an aspiration that guides historians in their work. Absolute truths do not exist in human affairs; at best there are many truths to be compared and shared.” As much as we would like to see our carefully crafted views of the past as absolute truth, what intellectual baggage are we carrying? Perhaps one day in the decades or centuries to come, if we’re lucky enough to write something considered worthy of commemoration, critics will say it says as much about the early twenty-first century as it does the subject at hand.

Thought Two

How important are historians to the shaping of the past? In the fight for the past, are historians the generals? Or even lieutenants? On one hand, everyone who attended school has presumably digested a history textbook to some degree. And everyone who has attended school has heard a history teacher express his or her opinions on the past. And when a non-historian wants to understand a segment of history, they will most likely turn to a book written by a historian. (Or turn to Wikipedia, which throws a wedge into the argument.) This would suggest that historians play an important role in shaping the past. But what about collective memory? Phillip Gonzales calls collective memory “selective remembrance shaped preeminently by group loyalty.” Do group dynamics determine what is remembered and what is not, regardless of the importance placed on the historical figure or event by historians? Are historians trees falling in the forest? Do we only make a sound if someone is around to hear it? Do we only shape collective memory if the public wants to hear our voices? In the continuing fight for the past, perhaps we are the advisers to the generals. But some generals never heed even the best advice.