Use multiple sources to understand history
Over the last seventy years, I have read, studied and taught history. So a passage in a letter by one of the paper’s frequent contributors caught my attention: “You can try to change your thoughts of history, but you can’t change history.”
Take the second clause in the sentence first. I suppose he is using “the past” as a synonym for “history”. The problem is, history and the past are not necessarily the same.
Here is an example from a book I am reading (rereading, actually, since books often reveal something new the second or even the nth time around), Thomas Ricks’ “The Generals”. Ricks tells us that Gen. Douglas MacArthur was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. That is a verifiable fact, it’s history as the past, and you can’t change it.
But is this fact all there is to the matter? Does it tell us why he got the award? Does it tell us whether he deserved it? Does this fact, as we often hear it said of facts, speak for itself? The answer to this last is no. The mere fact of the award does not answer those questions. Someone has to breathe life and meaning into the mute fact.
Well then, did he deserve it? That he escaped to Australia in March 1942, abandoning his troops to defeat and cruel captivity, suggests the answer is no. That he was obeying a presidential order to escape suggests maybe yes. That he had a history of disobeying presidential orders when it suited him swings the pendulum back to maybe no.
Do you see the point? A more nuanced definition of history would be that it is a thoughtful analysis and synthesis of the numerous facts surrounding any given situation.
Achieving this synthesis requires someone with the training, time and objectivity to examine an often voluminous historical record, weigh its credibility, and select the most reliable, pertinent facts to weave into the narrative. In other words, a professional. Putting it this way, and it may sound cynical but it’s not, history can be said to be what the historian says it is. And the past is not history any more that a gold nugget in a gravel bed is a wedding ring. Each is the raw material for its respective product.
History is an interpretation of the past. Whatever your topic of interest, new sources of information are constantly becoming available and old sources are being reviewed. Different historians look at the past differently and reach different conclusions. It is a process, always under revision.
When coming to your own conclusions, read at least three different books on your subject of interest: different authors, publishers, publication dates. Your thoughts may change and you just might come out better informed.
William Hairston
Sulligent, Alabama
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 41 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.