Breaking the Silence

In reading Trouillot’s Silencing the Past, I kept thinking about the role of the state, or whoever controls the state, in how a society looks back at its past - it’s people, culture (or cultures), and the events that are claimed to have had a lasting impact on everyone. The “histories” of slave revolts and the founding of the New World have been told to us by people who have had an interest in making us remember certain interpretations of those events. The very idea that we have looked at events in certain ways because powerful people wanted us to is important, and a little scary. It’s all the more important and scary if we do not even know of certain OTHER events or people because powerful forces did not want us to know about those things. Of course, it’s fair to note that two people can remember things differently with no ill intent by either. That’s somewhat similar to pluralist theories of the role interest groups play in society: if you don’t like what one group is fighting for, join another one or create your own: two fairly equal groups believe in different things, and everyone can fight it out in the halls of government (or through different interpretations in the history books). OK, so what’s the interest group representing the homeless? Or graduate students? (And only a few decades ago, what was the great non-empire, non-conquest book about poor folks in Haiti?) Those interest groups (and books) exist for less powerful people, to be sure, but they are comparatively poorly funded and staffed with low-paid workers (who are very dedicated). Bigger businesses (and developed-world history narratives), with bigger budgets and more staff, are much more likely to see their preferences enacted through government policies (or published in the best selling books). Thankfully, with Trouillot and others looking at larger societal concerns, silences are getting a megaphone, and a wider array of historical interpretations can see the light of day. Now, if that graduate student interest group takes off....!

 Townsend, on the other hand, tells the story of how history’s winners, the developed western world, created the discipline of history that we are familiar with today. In fact, I think Townsend would like a little MORE state power involvement, with governments contributing larger amounts of money to all aspects of history work. I’d like that too!

 Not that Townsend needs my support, but I see nothing wrong with his approach, just as certainly as I appreciate Trouillot’s argument. In fact, I suspect that Townsend would love there to be greater opportunities for future Trouillots to push all sorts of boundaries, whether via finely written articles, archives uncovered from deeper depths, or teachers who use a wider variety of pedagogical devices to convey a broader array of historical narratives.

 Maybe Townsend and Trouillot are offering different sides of the same coin. It’s just that Trouillot wants us to know that there is another side to the coin and that it might look a lot different than the side we have always been staring at.