Trouillot raises the interesting problem of how history is produced, and he argues that any historical narrative is a particular “bundle of silences”. The four silences involved in history are: the sources (the moment of fact creation), the archives (the moment of fact assembly), the narratives (the moment of fact retrieval), and the history (the moment of retrospective significance). All of these aspects of historical narratives demonstrate the relationship between power and history, and that power does not enter a story once and for all, but instead it comes in at different times and different angles to each historical narrative. Each ‘silence’ shows the multitude of ways where elements of history are forgotten or dismissed in favour of promoting a certain image of a time or place.
I found this reading very applicable to the education system I have received growing up. In history classes, we were always taught by focusing on literature and documentation that was produced by predominantly white males with some form of authority. This makes me question my own understanding of history and what truly happened in the past. Is there ever a way to fully understand what event have occurred? Each narrative of a certain historical issues has a different perspective. All that historians can do is try to find as many perspectives on the one event and attempt to piece together both sides of the argument in hope that they can present enough facts to describe the actions that occurred. What is taught in the classrooms is never the fully story, but is there even a real way in which we can understand history? Every narrative is subject to bias in some shape or form. Trouillot’s words have pushed me to further question my perceptions around historical readings, and to ponder what arguments truly reflect the events that took place.