Sydney Cramer

Dr. Lars Tatom

Theatre History I

26 August 2019

Biased History

As someone who has always been of the mindset that “history repeats itself,” this article

was harsh. It seemed to exist to point out a binary, and proceed then to only live within the limits

of that binary. Historians and non-historians made up the majority of the argument that history is

a thing to be understood by those capable and not understood by those with less intellectual

gumption. A historian analyzes parts of history in a way that perfectly categorizes certain events

and the reasons why they happened. A non historian looks at things on too broad of a level,

blindly accepting that the days of yore were just a period of a different mindsets. However, I

believe history, especially when concerning humanity, is far more personal. Slavery, one of the

worst atrocities in human history, was just as bad hundreds of years ago as it is now. Historians

looking to explain why peoples may have thought one way then does not excuse the atrocity, and

by leaving out “the attitudes of the present” it appears to be a way to justify the past as opposed

to study it in depth. History is not a living or breathing thing, no, but neither are things as simple

as minerals; yet those can teach us billions of years worth of geological lessons. History can still

be learned from and forgotten about allowing for a repeat of past atrocities or even victories

depending on lessons learned or ignored. You do not have to be a specialist to recognize and

interpret patterns in history. Yes, change is a constant in history, but alternate paths can lead to

the same conclusion: i.e. History repeating itself.