The past is
messy. Although we like to think the world is black and white, that everything
that happens is the result of a direct cause-and-effect relationship, and that
only bad people do bad things, history is not that simple.
Further
complicating our already complicated attempts to understand what happened way back
when (or even recently) is the interpretation of events through biased
accounts. Records are limited at best, often unreliable, and seldom objective.
Then our individual
biases enter the picture: the notion that, somehow, the people we choose to
cheer for, be they pioneers or cowboys or soldiers or Indians or whoever, were
altogether noble and brave and heroic. Our heroes could not possibly do
anything nefarious or underhanded, and any unpleasant incidents they found
themselves involved in were not their fault.
Unfortunately,
the real world, then and now, is altogether different. All people—all
people—carry with them the capacity to be both good and bad, and most do their
share of both. Ignoring this reality results in simplistic, one-sided representations
of history in both fact and fiction, from novels with a Roy Rogers view of the
Old West to accounts that are purportedly nonfiction but painted with
prejudice.
Writers and
readers are capable of, and deserve, better. As writers, we must set aside our
biases and dig deep to understand people and events in the past and give our
readers more authentic, realistic stories. In other words, we should tell, and
listen to, the truth.
To paraphrase
a bit of wisdom I heard somewhere, we must be humble in the face of facts. We
must accept history as it is, rather than—as we are prone to do—believe what we
think happened, or what we hope happened, or, even, what we wish had happened.
All this is
on my mind just now as I am in the middle of writing a book of history, each
chapter of which covers an important, but somewhat obscure, incident in the
history of the West. Lost Frontier–Momentous
Moments in the Old West You May Not Have Heard Of will be published
sometime in 2015 by Two Dot/Globe Pequot. I hope it sheds light on some
relatively unknown aspects of history—and does so honestly.
Rod,
ReplyDeleteGreat observation. They say history is written by the winners. I think it's written by the person with the pen. My favorite example is the historical record of the Grant presidency: Scandal ridden and corrupt right? Turns out that record is largely taken from the writings of those who supported Horace Greeley in Grant's 1872 second term election. Greeley's supporters included his 'colleague' newspaper editors across the country. Their portrayal of Grant's performance- today we'd call them talking points- became the historical record of the Grant presidency. Most of the stuff they blamed on him, he had nothing to do with. Go figure. It's hard to argue with ink by the barrel and print by the bale; but in this case history was written by the losers. Grant won reelection with nearly sixty percent of the vote. To your point, in writing history it is important to understand the record and just as important to know who authored it.
Thanks for another thought provoking post.
Paul
Thanks, Paul. History is a fascinating subject and the more you dig around in it, the deeper it gets.
DeleteRod,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this info. I love western history, especially factual history. I can't wait for your new book to come out, please let me know when it does, I'll be the first in line.
Friend
Jeff
Thanks, Jeff.
DeleteLooking forward to seeing that book.
ReplyDeleteSo am I, Eric. It seems to be coming along nicely.
DeleteGood observations, and a great book coming soon! Classy!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Marsha.
Delete