this leads to the intentional erasure of certain histories, but it always has...Hermit Philosopher wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:54 am Or perhaps I misread you... let’s explore, shall we?
What I find problematic is the claim that things make it into recorded history because they are important, when really, things become historically important because they are (chosen to be) included in recorded history. Do you see the difference...?
The former suggests that what did not make it into recorded history was never important, whiles the latter acknowledges that those in control of the production of information at a particular time - that which becomes recorded history - choose what is of relevance to them at that time.
In reminding one’s readers that things become historically relevant because they were included in recorded history and not vice versa, one is highlighting that our record of history is not a question of truth, but of perspective: it is shows us a version of many different - equally true - pasts.
Doing this, is not only a matter of good ethical writing; as values in society change, it allows us to reevaluate the historical relevance of a narrative.
Does that make sense?
Humbly
Hermit
kwai
-Imp