![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Do Politics have a place in Historical preservation?
Alas, whomever tells the story controls what story is told. One part of our American History includes how the Daughters of the Confederacy worked tirelessly to replace the story of what truly motivated their forefathers to rebel against the Union, which was clearly documented in both their public declarations and their private papers, with a different story, one that they very intentionally inserted into textbooks and other curricula. There are no doubt kernels of Truth in that story as well. Hundreds led the rebellion. Many likely had different reasons, different causes, than one another. But what useful lessons might we miss if we ignore the less palatable documentation and only tell the more noble sounding story?
Even five minutes after an event, multiple witnesses will give differing accounts of what happened. This has always been true. The books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not agree in every detail.
It is part of our job, as Historians, to understand social pressures, ambitions, and the perspectives and motives of the authors when we examine documents from the past. Some of this falls in the category of what you might call politics. But of course it has a place in history. Politics is merely the process by which a society organizes itself. If Historians tried to leave politics out of the study of society, how could we possibly understand the past?
In point of fact, advanced students of history are informed that we may never resolve discrepancies between contradictory accounts. Academic studies of history are thus different from the straightforward timelines and select "facts" taught in grade school. Real history is messy, and gloriously so. Gloriously, I say, because it is made up of millions of individual stories, and any moment the contribution of a group or individual might come to light, which explains something that was previously a mystery. And then the overall popular story can be retold, but better. Richer, for this newly revealed or rediscovered information.
Even five minutes after an event, multiple witnesses will give differing accounts of what happened. This has always been true. The books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not agree in every detail.
It is part of our job, as Historians, to understand social pressures, ambitions, and the perspectives and motives of the authors when we examine documents from the past. Some of this falls in the category of what you might call politics. But of course it has a place in history. Politics is merely the process by which a society organizes itself. If Historians tried to leave politics out of the study of society, how could we possibly understand the past?
In point of fact, advanced students of history are informed that we may never resolve discrepancies between contradictory accounts. Academic studies of history are thus different from the straightforward timelines and select "facts" taught in grade school. Real history is messy, and gloriously so. Gloriously, I say, because it is made up of millions of individual stories, and any moment the contribution of a group or individual might come to light, which explains something that was previously a mystery. And then the overall popular story can be retold, but better. Richer, for this newly revealed or rediscovered information.
no subject