I agree with the statement that “what history and memory share in common is that both merit our mistrust, yet both must nevertheless be nourished.”  Both are clearly fallible, but also often have some truth at their core.  I think that is is best to nourish both, since through comparing and cross-referencing the two we can gain a more solid knowledge of a person or event.  The death of Sacagawea illustrates this: we are given the historical assertion that she died in 1812 by Clark’s diary, yet the memory (created through oral traditions) of Native Americans  asserts that her death occurred at a much later date.  I believe that it is best to approach both of these with skepticism, but also with the view that both might be true.  If we do this, there is a greater chance that we will view the past with accuracy.  Additionally, I think history and memory should be mistrusted because I believe that doubting what is taught and held up as fact is the best way to approach history and learning in general, and if we begin with the knowledge that multiple types of sources are vying for recognition then we will more probably view the world with a skeptic’s eyes.

If Bradford’s books can be called ‘histories’ (as suggested by her gathering of documents and “taking reasonable measures” to make the book “as true to the facts as possible”), they should certainly be mistrusted.  Her writing is clearly influenced by a positive bias towards Tubman, and is haphazard in its coverage by Bradford’s own admission.  The need to mistrust such works is evident in the fact that the figure of Tubman’s 19 trips to the south, which was often cited as historical fact due to the book’s apparent authority, was probably not true.  It dtill, however, became part of the cultural memory, and her image was promoted along these lines.

While I believe that her real-life contributions were moral and important, I don’t think Tubman was so important a figure as to justify the extremely prominent place in the Civil War eras that cultural memory has given her.  Still, I do not think that the cultural memory should be necessarily downgraded.  I think the facts of the past should be generally adhered to, but her grandiose image within cultural memory should also be nourished, since I think the values that can be taught through it are a positive influence on society.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 5th, 2011 at 1:40 pm and is filed under Laura. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.