Interpreting the Past

 By: Robert L. White

What factors affect the interpretation of the past and how they affect it are open to debate.  Since humans have been able to recognize the past, there have been multiple ways of interpreting it. All of history is subjective. We are humans; therefore we all have biases and emotions which color the past for us individually. Human memory is incomplete at best and there is never any one persons’ view of past events which is 100% correct. To me, the three most important factors which affect our view of the past are, in order of ascending importance,  1) originator of the record ; 2) length of time since the event and; 3) personal bias of the reporter/observer.

            There can be no doubt that the originator of the record makes a large difference in our interpretation of the past. What is meant by the phrase “originator of the record”? I mean those people to whom the artifacts belonged, whether those artifacts are broken shards of pottery or  pictures and documents. The old saying “history is written by the winners” is most applicable here.

            One prime example comes to mind. Chippindale speaks at length about layout of Stonehenge. His entire book revolves around what different people throughout written history have thought that layout meant and who erected it. Yet there can be little mention of those peoples directly, only a collage of other’s views regarding Stonehenge. The people who built it made no mark upon it. Nor did they keep any other kind of permanent record. Imagine our interpretation of Stonehenge if it had been built not by illiterate Celtic peoples but by highly organized and meticulous record keepers like the Romans. Would it even concern us as much as a people? Part of the wonder and majesty of Stonehenge in our view stems from the fact that it’s’ origins are clouded in mystery.  The other part of our fascination with the place is the fact that it was not built by the capable Romans, but by some other people whom we imagine did not have the political organization or machine knowledge to complete such a task.  It has been shown that more primitive people could have achieved this wonder with the knowledge they had of engineering. Even though it has been theorized that it was done by digging pits and using ropes to erect the upright columns and using scaffolds to little by little raise the lintels, it cannot be said that this was not a marvelous feat for its time. It is the people who made Stonehenge and who they were that contains the real magic.

            Another example lies in the book “Dutch”. In it, very little of Reagan's own opinions are expressed. For a biography, designed to enlighten us on the “real” Reagan, we are left to our own devices and opinions on what the man was like inside. Reagan was a private man. He did not come out and tell us what he was thinking and feeling. The biographer brings us no closer to the real Reagan. He outlines example after example of what Reagan did, but there is no record of what he felt. In this case, who left the record (the author) is an important factor in what we take away from the book.  He was not a personal friend of Reagan's. Nor was he, in any sense of the word a confidant. This, coupled with the act of creating a fictitious character who did know Reagan, makes the report all that much more confusing.

Burma spoke at great length of the public memories of both the German and Japanese peoples. In each case, he refers to those memories from the evidence of those cultures. The record left of Hitler’s bunker, for instance, is a good example of how a people affect the record they leave. No monuments, indeed little in the way of identification exists at all. These are a people who do not wish focus to be lent to this part of their past. Guilt is the term Burma uses. By selecting a specific way to represent the past, they infect it with the culture which they now share. 

            In Japan, the people have chosen to move on also. But they do have monuments. Markers and shrines to the dead draw attention to the Japanese view of the war. Who they are as a culture is already defining the way they represent the past. Shame is the dominant theme. They were not to blame for the war…it was war. They feel shame for loosing, but do not feel that the west is blameless in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The view left of the war to future generations of Japanese will be very different than the view left to future Americans, primarily due to the respective cultures in which the records are kept.

The second most important factor in interpreting the past is the length of time that has passed since the event took place. This can be both a boon and a liability, as we shall see. The length of time that has elapsed since the event plays a part in whether or not there is a written record versus an artifactual one. It also plays a part in whether any written record can be understood. It can effect the transition of oral tradition into myth in one direction and into written history in the other. Time can also play a positive role in getting to the truth. I begin with an example of this type of influence.

            In “Stories of Scotsboro”, Goodman shows us a picture of injustice run through with prejudice. He carefully lays out the events chronologically. Not, however chronologically in the sense of a single story. He gives us the chronological events through others interpretations, outlining those in periods of time which follow the event. This shows very well the effect of time upon societies’ view of the past and actions in the present. In Alabama in 1931, the color issue was too hot to provide anything even remotely resembling a fair trial for those men. As time passed, the attitudes of the (then) present changed. The influence of others’ attitudes had a chance to influence those whose job it was to examine the case. We look back now in horror at the deeds of the establishment and society upon those men while in 1931, society and the establishment looked in horror at what they perceived these men to have done.

            As well as the importance of who left the record, time also plays a major role in the interpretation of Stonehenge. Here, length of time affects the lack of oral tradition. Since so much time has passed the culture which inhabited the British Isles has changed numerous times.  Even public memory does not answer questions regarding Stonehenge. They are as fanciful as the imagination of the many writers who have written about druids and magic. The lack of oral tradition, the lack of public memory and the lack of surviving culture all are the effects of the vast amount of time which has passed since Stonehenge was built.

            In the case of the memory of World War II, time has played an enlightening role in many cases. We see now the horror of what we did to the Japanese, rather than feel the furor of anger and deserved retribution. While we do not as a whole apologize for the destruction of so much, we at least can say “never again” to that kind of warfare. Even veterans have begun to see the impossibility of winning a nuclear war. While many in the west do not think we made the wrong decision, we at least acknowledge the terrific abomination of thermonuclear weapons. Length of time has removed from us the blinders of hatred and anger, replacing them with a more honest and objective perception of the actions we took.

            Last of all we come to what I consider to be the most important factor in interpreting the past. Personal biases of the reporter or observer inflict a severe handicap upon the actuality of the events being considered. One could also consider this to be the point of view of the observer. Every example we looked at contains some measure of personal bias in the reporter.  By selecting which stories to tell and in what order to tell them, Goodman subtly influences the reader in how to view the story of those men and the way they were treated by the establishment then and in the following decades. He attempts, by use of the methods and chronology he has, by his own admission, shown us as many viewpoints as possible. He makes the assumption that this is a worthwhile approach to interpreting the past. I do not make the argument against that, quite the contrary. I simply wish to outline the effectiveness of the point of view, or personal biases, of the author.

            “Dutch” is another good example of the personal biases of the reporter. He created a fictitious character to report on Reagan’s mind. Once this is discovered by the reader and the book finished, we are left with a sense of unknowability about this very private man. This is even more poignant when one considers the fact the Reagan himself now can know so little of his past. In the end, he was a shell of a man, the very embodiment of all our worst fears. The concept of loosing one’s memories is terrifying to most people. Seen this way the book takes on a whole new aspect. While I found the style annoying, it is effective in getting the idea of a reclusive personality inside a very outward public figure.

            As I said when I began, there are many, many factors affect the way we interpret the past. Fact and fiction are hopelessly intertwined.  What I consider to be the three most important factors, specifically 1) Who left the record or evidence, 2) The length of time since the event(s) occurred and most importantly, 3) The personal biases of the observer seem to me to be inescapable, at least to some degree. Yet, the actual events did occur and the truth is out there. Each shard of pottery, every picture and every statement adds to the knowledge of the past. Being aware of the possible influences we have upon the interpretation of the past and taking what measures we can to avoid them remains our best hope for understanding our experiences.