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.