Silencing The Past Response

Trouillot's book is about history and power and how that power starts at the sources. He analyzes how historical narratives have unequal access in the production of history thus causing silences in history. "In other words, the very mechanisms that make any historical recording possible also ensure that historical facts are not created equal" (pg. 49).

While silences in history are often hard to avoid, Trouillot will argue "history does not belong only to the narrators, professional or amateur. Some of us debate what history is or was, others take it in their own hands" (pg. 153). In other words, the narrators must take the responsibility to adequately choose sources without undermining the silences. They need to look at every aspect of history they are writing about not just want they want to see or hear. But what if the narrator does not have enough sources to choose from? What if the topic at hand has little to no records? Then what? If the narrator chooses to write the narrative, with the limited sources, are they still not silencing history? On the contrary, if the narrator does not write the narrative at all, are they still not silencing the history? Silencing history is unavoidable.

Meanwhile, Townsend's book is about the history of history or the history of the AHA. Townsend does not go into great detail about the silences in history; however, I do believe he knows they exists. He  mentions throughout his book the limits and unequal access the archivists and researchers have to the sources which is similar to Trouillot's statement. To take it a step further, I believe Townsend himself exploits the notion of silencing history in his book. He barely mentions women in the discipline, as well as African Americans, or other academic institutions. Were they not part of the discipline as well? Or how about history regionally?