What a week it was

Maria A. Montalvo

“People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them.” - James Baldwin

I am tired.

I am tired of the anger, tired of the mistrust, tired of the cynicism.

The week has certainly been one of turmoil in the country, and the week to come promises more of the same. We are told to be careful. We are told to try to come together. We are told we can write our own history.

But can we determine our history?

Baldwin wisely told us that it is a bit of a Catch-22 – we are trapped by our history but it is also trapped by us. While we do create it, our actions are dictated by what came before and the amount of influence we can muster.

As we muddle through the present, we can attempt to understand the effects of each and every act, but it is difficult to do more than witness. History judges in the rear-view mirror.  

Some historians call journalism the “first draft of history,” believing our understanding of the events that unfold around us, and even those we participate in, improves over time. But is that context of the future always a path for more clarity, or do we simply see history more fully because we see people living in the aftermath of past decisions?

Journalism also finds itself inclined to over two sides of a story, even if the story is not actually two-sided (there is no scientifically viable “other side” to climate change).

Social scientists have always said that what is considered history is more accurately a reflection of the perspective of those who write it. When the generally agreed-upon versions of history are compared to those voices who disagreed, often two extremes are visible, without much of a perception of anything in between.

Artificial intelligence (yes, that dreaded AI) has reviewed a number of examples of how history was written in accordance with the views of the powers that be but still detected patterns of underlying beliefs. For example, in the years following the Protestant Reformation, history is written that Europe was fracturing along religious lines and faith was at the center of the thought of the time.

Evaluating thousands of writings from the time, as only AI can do, history is being rewritten to show that scientific knowledge was actually coming together then, coalescing around a willingness to challenge the status quo.

Could this actually mean that AI could be helpful in analyzing our historical records, and maybe even writing them to begin with? If more non-elite perspectives are in the conversation from the start, perhaps we can learn a more balanced view of what is actually going on?

Perhaps I am tired of looking so hard for the glimpses of hope, but we have no choice. Things might get quite a bit harder for America in the coming years, and the history we are making will be subject to scrutiny, no matter who is writing the narrative today.

But what is that saying about it not being over until it is over? We are not over yet.