Michel-Rolph Troillot’s Silencing the Past examines the various perspectives that existed contemporaneously during the Haitian revolution in order to bring the past into the view, and convince us that the history that is presented to us in textbooks by historians and politicians as absolute, is actually a collection of particular narratives that present themselves as objective and linear while silencing other competing narratives. Troiullot brings the Haitian revolution into focus and uncovers the plethora of competing contemporaneous narratives which allow us to see why, and how certain narratives become cannon whilst others suffer disregard, for “only a focus on that process [of historical narrative formation] can uncover the ways in which
…show more content…
Hegemony, as discussed in William Raymond’s Marxism and Literature, “ goes beyond ‘culture’, as previously defined, in its insistence on relating the ‘whole social process’ to specific distributions of power and influence” (Raymond, 108). Hegemony is a continuing process of economy, history, culture and politics, that nevertheless automatically creates counter-hegemonies— no hegemony can exist without inadvertently forming a counter-hegemony as well. Thus, through an understanding of both Trouillot and Raymond, we can provide an answer to the question, ‘how does one know when an un-silenced history becomes an accepted history?’. This writer aims to answer this question by claiming that a history can be considered un-silenced once the counter-hegemony it supports defeats the ruling …show more content…
Trouillot captures the peculiar nature of this lack of foresight perfectly when he analyzes French colonist La Barre’s correspondence with his wife.
There is no movement among our Negroes. ...They don't even think about it. They are very tranquil and obedient. A revolt among them is impossible.” And again: “We have nothing to fear on the part of the Negroes; they are tranquil and obedient.” And again: “The Negroes are very obedient and always will be. We sleep with doors and windows wide open. Freedom for Negroes is a chimera.”
Historian Roger Dorsinville, who cites these words, notes that a few months later the most important slave insurrection in recorded history had reduced to insignificance such abstract arguments about Negro obedience. I am not so sure. When reality does not coincide with deeply held beliefs, human beings tend to phrase interpretations that force reality within the scope of tse beliefs. They devise formulas to repress the unthinkable and to bring it back within the realm of accepted discourse (Raymond,
Hegemony, as discussed in William Raymond’s Marxism and Literature, “ goes beyond ‘culture’, as previously defined, in its insistence on relating the ‘whole social process’ to specific distributions of power and influence” (Raymond, 108). Hegemony is a continuing process of economy, history, culture and politics, that nevertheless automatically creates counter-hegemonies— no hegemony can exist without inadvertently forming a counter-hegemony as well. Thus, through an understanding of both Trouillot and Raymond, we can provide an answer to the question, ‘how does one know when an un-silenced history becomes an accepted history?’. This writer aims to answer this question by claiming that a history can be considered un-silenced once the counter-hegemony it supports defeats the ruling …show more content…
Trouillot captures the peculiar nature of this lack of foresight perfectly when he analyzes French colonist La Barre’s correspondence with his wife.
There is no movement among our Negroes. ...They don't even think about it. They are very tranquil and obedient. A revolt among them is impossible.” And again: “We have nothing to fear on the part of the Negroes; they are tranquil and obedient.” And again: “The Negroes are very obedient and always will be. We sleep with doors and windows wide open. Freedom for Negroes is a chimera.”
Historian Roger Dorsinville, who cites these words, notes that a few months later the most important slave insurrection in recorded history had reduced to insignificance such abstract arguments about Negro obedience. I am not so sure. When reality does not coincide with deeply held beliefs, human beings tend to phrase interpretations that force reality within the scope of tse beliefs. They devise formulas to repress the unthinkable and to bring it back within the realm of accepted discourse (Raymond,