The way we think about history

The way we think about history:

Module 3

By, Lee Davenport.

We are all familiar with the common quotes like “History is written by the victors” (Winston Churchill) and “History is a set of lies agreed upon” (Napoleon Bonaparte) and overall that is the way things have been written, from the point of view of the victors, conquerors, and literate. Modern history it seems is taking a turn for the better (in my humble opinion) in that more authors are taking what traditionalist are calling a “liberal approach” to history is in fact a compilation of unheard voices rather than the mighty few. This is by no means a new way to write and tell history; Aristotle in his Poetics argues that poetry is better than history because it tells of things that should be true rather than what is true “to bring about a greater good or ward off a greater evil” (Aristotle; Poetics P.51) and a century earlier Herodotus and The Histories (the father of history), told us that history was meant to teach us tales of morality, give us good lessons to follow, so we may learn and grow in the future. Back and forth the styles for telling history has gone, but in the 21^st century we are getting a “full” picture with historians like Zinn, Hine, Faragher, Einhorn..etc. Hopefully the days of “distinguished authors” like Samuel Eliot Morison are a thing of the past.

"The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks)-the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress-is only one aspect of a certain approach to history, in which the past is told from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats, leaders. It is as if they, like Columbus, deserve universal acceptance, as if they-the Founding Fathers, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, the leading members of Congress, the famous Justices of the Supreme Court-represent the nation as a whole. The pretense is that there really is such a thing as 'the United States,' subject to occasional conflicts and quarrels, but fundamentally a community of people with common interests. It is as if there really is a 'national interest' represented in the Constitution, in territorial expansion, in the laws passed by Congress, the decisions of the courts, the development of capitalism, the culture of education and the mass media. (Zinn, P.10) In this statement we see the “victors” or “big voices” penned as the “Heroes” and “founders” but to me a “hero” doesn’t have “victims” and a founder usually takes the credit for the blood and sweat of many others, but at least we see the word “victims” in there for the Arawaks (Tainos), a few years ago the sentence may have read “ The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and [the ones they liberated] (the Arawaks)” again this points out the crucial importance of hearing all available voices before we Penn our history for the next generation.

“History is the memory of states” wrote Henry Kissinger in his first book, A World Restored. (Zinn, P.10) and while we may not like this, it is ultimately true. It is up to today’s historians, as well as all social scientists to change that memory to accurately reflect the entire story. I think we have to start changing the way we educate our children, starting with the “big” things like Columbus as a hero. We do not have to show them the gruesome details at a young age, but we certainly should not lie to them about what we know to be false. Somewhere between Aristotle’s Poetics and Morison’s minimization there is truth, balance, and a great story.

Sources:

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: Volume one: American Beginnings to Reconstruction (New York, The New Press, 2003) 8-12

Kenneth Telford, Aristotle’s Poetics: Translation and Analysis (United States, Library of Congress, 1965) 51

Aubrey de Selincourt, Herodotus: The Histories (Baltimore, Maryland, Penguin, 1966)

Medieval Sourcebook: Columbus’ letter to the King and Queen of Spain, 1494, Paul Halsall Mar 1996 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus2.html (accessed Sept 9th, 2007)