So spoke with Tam and we discussed the many points, such as how we see history as fasolt says, “history expands our horizons beyond the narrow confines of the present” (page 3) That very quote makes me think of how far we’ve come as human race from all kinds of eras to now, ever changing times. A lot of the times I think back and I’m like did that actually happen? Did people realty build the Pyramids in Egypt did pharos live, are these real mummies. I find history so intriguing! At times all these historical events don’t seem real like it was a dream. The Evidence of the past is what shows us that these events surely happened. Which are amazing!!!
We also discussed the other side of history the incomplete side. Biased truths and countless errors that occur over time. “No wonder that we spare no effort in the pursuit of a complete and well documented history of everything”. This reminds me of the reenactment of the JFK killing we had done in the beginning of the semester. With the unheard story of Lee Harvey Oswald people never think to even write or talk about the “not so important person” which I found interesting, the motive and the connection of why it happened the way it has is important. This means getting it from all point of views, not just the general sense of the fact.
Which is what history is all about, what happened, where it happened and who the people were that it happened to. Since history is knowledge how we can miss the main component of capturing all of the angles and corners that we tend to miss. That in reality give us the different kind of thinking we wouldn’t have had otherwise.
As time goes by its like gravity, something you can’t catch just a distant memory that we have to take the time to work out within your mind. As Fasolt said himself (page 5) “The task of recovering something,somehow,from the silent depths of that immutable absence that is the past, so that it will not be gone forever but will remain alive in memories and images and, best of all, perhaps scholarly knowledge”. He couldn’t have put it any better if we didn’t have these things that remind us of what occurred wouldn’t history just be bedtime stories and all incomplete stories.
Since history can be as simple as someones accounts on what happened I agree with fasolt. I think anything passed down can be considered history in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of stories -- I kind of wonder what Fasolt would have to say about oral history, or oral tradition: histories and legends passed from generation to generation simply by memorization and performance. It is a history seemingly without origin. I think it kind of exposes how we privilege the written word, sometimes, at least in respect to objectivity or truth. And it raises some interesting possible comparisons -- how are the concepts of self and group different within an oral tradition, compared to that of the humanist historical tradition? What significance could that possible difference have?
ReplyDelete