Read for school. It was really thought provoking and interesting. As a future archivist, I really resonated with a lot of what he was saying about how historians have a responsibility not to silence the past and that goes hand in hand with archiving.

I would suggest anyone interested in history to read this beautiful book. A meditation on the history of Haiti, colonialism in the Americas, and the many differing roles and impacts of history, there is so much to be learned and gained from this little book. I look forward to many more re-reads.

4.5/5

In general, the theory and the approach are ground-breaking. After reading this, I don't think I will ever view history the same way again. Instead, I will continuously ask about the silences, narratives and power at play at creating the two. By looking for silences, we can actually find the history, and this has been overlooked for too long, resulting in incomplete, one-angled version of events. A must-read for any social sciences student, but really anyone in general. I would say though that the narrow focus on the Haitian revolution in what is otherwise a general-purpose concept was a bit strange at times; if the author had provided more varied examples (like did in the third chapter), I believe the concepts he was getting at would have appealed and been understood by more people.

If you have watched Raoul Peck’s historical documentary series “Exterminate All the Brutes” (if you have not, you should place it at the top of your list) you have been introduced to the ideas of Haitian historian Michel-Rolph Trouillot. He was a brilliant writer and thinker who focused not so much on the events of history (which are rarely ever agreed upon) but on the dynamics at play in the way history becomes narrative/s - and in how narrative/s cannot be understood absent of power.

From the erasure and “banalization” of the Haitian Revolution to the whitening and glorification of Christopher Columbus, Trouillot asserted, “History is the fruit of power, but power itself is never so transparent that its analysis becomes superfluous. The ultimate mark of power may be its invisibility; the ultimate challenge, the exposition of its roots.”

His words could not be more urgent and elucidating in this moment of attempted erasure in our country. Books being burned because they threaten a narrative of exceptionalism. Curriculum being banned because it challenges a history that equates patriotism with white supremacy, while asserting the need to glorify this history. Effort towards justice being condemned because they make whiteness uncomfortable.

“The past does not exist independently from the present,” Trouillot declares “the past has no content. The past - or, more accurately, pastness - is a position.” This battle over the past being waged right now is really a battle over the present. It is a battle not just about the accuracy of the narrative that is shared about the fraught history of the US but, more critically, about whose humanity is valued in the communities, cities, neighborhoods, and schools everywhere in our nation.

Reading Silencing the Past is a powerful reminder that this is what’s at stake right now. When narratives are silenced and distorted, lives are silenced and damaged.

The roots are exposed. Rotten. Hateful. Racist.

We must not allow them to proliferate. History is an argument about the past - and it is one we need to win.

It’s about time I got to this

Una postura muy interesante sobre la producción histórica. Considero que es esencial para cualquier materia de metodología de la historia y también para los profesionales de los archivos.

This is another staple in the field of public history. In the book, Trouillot argues a number of things but his main argument is that there are two historicities: what happened and what is said to have happened. In other words, there is the event itself, and there is how it’s is remembered and has been remembered over time. Furthermore, Trouillot claims that the production of a historical narrative is in itself historical, and that silences are created even from the moment the historical event occurs. There are various and uneven levels of power at play in each step of the “moments” in historical production that automatically enforce the silencing of alternative narratives. When we choose to remember something a certain way, we automatically insert silences to other narratives that could’ve been told. This is natural, unavoidable, and happens throughout the various versions of the same narrative as time progresses. Additionally, the remembrance of an event is not an accurate portrayal of the event, even if the one recalling the event experienced it first hand. The recalling of an event automatically creates silences. The primary sources created at the time of the event also automatically create silences, intentionally or unintentionally. Hence, throughout the production of a historical narrative, from its conception to its collection to its interpretation, there will always be powers at play and silences in the narrative.

To be completely honest, I’m not sure that I completely understood Trouillot’s arguments and think I will have to reread it to fully grasp his claims. This was my overall understanding of the book.