History fascinates me. I have enjoyed reading US history for years. The Revolutionary War through the Civil War, particularly the period between about 1810 and 1860, is the period I study most. There are innumerable volumes written about US history with many covering the same periods and events. Why is this? How many books are needed to describe the winter at Valley Forge or the siege at Vicksburg?
Sometimes there is new scholarship that changes the narrative, but often the purpose of a new volume is to tell the story in a new way. History is more than a simple chronology and atlas of
happenings. Who and why are the reasons I revisit these events.
Of particular interest to me are biographies of historical political figures in US history. Through these, I can see the perspectives of many different sides of major points in our nation’s story. Stories can unite or divide us, teach us, entertain us, evoke powerful feelings, and bring us to tears (though hopefully not of boredom.) Not every storyteller has an agenda or
ulterior motive, but they do all have perspectives. It is important to remember that.
Understanding the interplay between our perspective and that of the storyteller can lead
to a deeper connection between speaker and listener. Be generous in your interpretation of other people’s stories. Seek to empathize rather than criticize. Try to share your story, too. These steps will help forge stronger bonds rather than push us apart.
~Ian Van Sice
Excellent thread and what a great perspective on the teller and the listener. Thanks for sharing!
Wonderful advice, Ian. I tend to be critical of stories that do not match my pre-c0nceived notions about things. I recently took a class at the Gwinnett Public Library on writing your memoirs. I loved this class, and wrote several memoirs about my childhood that were cathartic for me. I feel pretty certain that my 13 siblings would not tell these same family stories in the same way.
I love these thoughts, Ian! And that last bit–about noticing the interplay of my perspective with the story the historian/storyteller is telling, and trying to listen with empathy for a different point of view–feels particularly important now. I love having my perspective broadened and deepened by the stories I hear and read. At the same time, how do we wrestle with what’s “really true”? I’m plenty postmodern, recognizing that “truth” can be relative, or at least so multifaceted that it’s hard to pin down. Still, when people with an agenda distort the human truths of a situation–like saying that enslaved plantation workers were happy with their circumstances–I’m not sure I can meet that person in their perspective, or that I should. Can I come to understand why they are telling the story that way? Maybe that’s my path to connection, knowing that we all have hungers and needs we’re trying to fill with the stories we tell, even the ones that harm others. This is the dance UUism calls me to–to love the human being, even while I set boundaries to reduce harm. These are real wrestlings for me this morning–not meant to sound self-righteous! So here’s to the ongoing exploring.
I forgot these posts get comments!
I think there are things that can be firmly identified as true and there are others that may never get out of the realm of perspective. It’s easy when we’re talking about measurable phenomena. 1 liter of pure water weighs 1 kilogram. This is measurable and verifiable. Is that heavy? That’s a matter of perspective. Arguing with or trying to see perspective when it stands on falsehood, fallacy, or bad faith is probably not going to be fruitful.
When we get into morality, the facts can be muddy but we can look to our consciences and our values to illuminate our choices. Two big examples jump out from history: Slavery and the gold standard. Slavery was, is, and will forever be an inhumane and repugnant wrong. Understanding perspectives on this may be useful academically but arguing that it was anything but a wrong leads nowhere good. The gold standard was a monetary system in which the US dollar was fixed against a certain amount of gold. Through the latter half of the 19th century, paper money not tied to gold, additional coinage of silver at rates not tied to gold, failure to redeem certificates/notes for gold, etc. tested the nation’s commitment to this monetary policy. I am very interested in arguments pro- and con-.
For me, the big litmus test is: does this perspective I’m entertaining or being asked to consider require me to acknowledge something that is antithetical to my values? Am I being asked to consider reducing rights or freedoms for others? Am I being asked to accept something that does real harm to others? I want to be open to a real conversation with others no matter our differences but I am not willing to engage with views that are counter to loving and embracing all of humanity.