Speaking History to Power

 

In their book From Reliable Sources, authors Howell and Prevenier argue that “historians do not discover a past as much as they create it;” that history is not a record of the past, but rather the lens through which past perspectives are interpreted, artifacts analyzed, and judgment calls made about what to preserve (Howell and Prevenier 2001, 1). An additional layer of complexity comes through the fact that no matter how close we come to understanding what the author of a document intended to convey, we can never fully understand the context in which they wrote, nor the biases that influenced their writing. Just as historians decide which narratives to consider, every historical document paints only the narrative of its authors, and might be a fragment of a larger whole that would provide it with context and meaning.

This question of context and selectivity is important to consider when viewing National Geographic’s documentary Jerusalem, which explores the history of what makes Jerusalem important to each of the three Abrahamic religions. The documentary focuses primarily on the culture and religion of each of the groups, leaving out details of the conflicts between them, and ends on a positive note with the words “I hope one day we can have the courage to meet the people who are living right next to us” (National Geographic 2013, 40:54). While the narrative of the documentary inspires hope that a future understanding between groups might be reached, it begs the following questions: If the pieces of history considered are only those that fit the narrative of cohesiveness and peace, can true cohesiveness or peace ever truly be achieved? Is it okay to be selective about the pieces of history that one considers if the objective is peace, even if it requires losing sight of the whole?

Howell, Prevenier, and the documentary seem to argue for a better understanding – one between cultural/religious groups, and the other of what history can provide – through consideration of multiple perspectives, and through the encouragement of open mindedness. As Howell and Prevenier point out, a complete understanding of the past can never be fully reached, and the best we can do is to try to understand as many pieces of it as possible – to consider narratives that might previously have been ignored, and to recognize the limitations of what CAN be understood. Their words also serve as a reminder that we should consider history not to be a recording of the past, but rather a story of past perspectives, and a record of current belief about what these artifacts and documents might mean. Taking this into account, it seems that there is no black and white answer to the questions above. The best path toward understanding is compromise: acknowledgment of all perspectives and aspects of the past, including their limitations – both in what we can understand about them, and in the hold they should have over the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLW6vO-7rFk

https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/c9ccb47/2147483647/strip/true/crop/315x165+0+36/resize/1200x630!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Flegacy%2Fsites%2Fwgvu%2Ffiles%2F201710%2FMuslim-and-Jew.jpg