Silencing the Past

Trouillot seemed to argue that different people have different reasons for their silences while taking on the task of writing a history. Though he does not try to enforce the idea that these silences mean the person writing the history should not be taken seriously, he does establish that historians need to be more aware of what they are leaving out and try harder to find and present the “truth.” Every historian leaves some information out and sometimes it is just due to the sources they use, which may or may not be their fault. Trouillot called attention to individuals to understand sources better and try to think about the context in which they were written and how “truthful” they may be.

Townsend, on the other hand, did not specifically address silences, but I think he would argue silences in written histories separate the scientific from the literary historians. Leaving out information can sometimes just be to make other points more interesting, or historians may not think the information has much to do with what they are arguing. It is interesting since Townsend left out his recognition of the influence of gender and race within the history of history in his own work. Technically, since he did at least mention these individuals, he was not exactly silent. However, he did not draw attention to it possibly because he had a point to make or a certain flow that he wanted to stick with. Having a side discussion about gender and race would have likely, in his mind, been an unwanted digression. Nonetheless, Trouillot and Townsend are similar in their explanations of what is necessary for a good history.