What is history, and how do you do it?
This question was posed to the class periodically over the course of the semester. My first response is featured here, nestled on my bookshelf. I wrote : History is a collection of facts, figures, happenings, and attitudes about the past. How a person ‘does’ history is to interpret these aspects and develop a context that seeks to provide an explanation.
Of course, this answer is incomplete. This early reflection was my first hint that History 1120 was more about context and understanding, as opposed to memorizing dates and names of historical figures. I had assumed that this course would require me to read and understand an historical account of the development of early Canada, as presented from a textbook, and then be tested on what I had learned. The result would be a solid foundation of learning about Pre-Confederate Canada. Ironically, today I have more questions than answers about this period, which I think is the point of the initial question: what is history, and how do you do it?
The Post Truth Era
The post-truth era refers to the contemporary culture of the media, politics, and society, in which debate is framed by emotion, the relative absence of evidence, and statements to which factual rebuttals are ignored. President-elect Trump is famous for “gaslighting”, which refers to “an increasing frequency of systematically withholding factual information from, and/or providing false information… having the gradual effect of making them anxious, confused, and less able to trust their own memory or perception of events” (UrbanDictionary, n.d.).
This modern day example of political manipulation connects directly to our classroom debate, in which we formed groups and prepared to discuss the issues surrounding Canadian Confederation, and the arguments for and against Confederation made by people in each region. The group I was assigned to took on the task of advocating for Confederation with respect to the Maritime Colonies. Issues of language preservation, the role of the Church, economic equity, provincial governmental control, and especially the preservation of cultural identity were ‘hotly’ debated, and even accompanied by a musical score! However, what stood out to me were the tactics we enthusiastically employed to instill uncertainty in the anti-confederation argument. This was done through intimidation in terms of speculating about the unknown perils of rejecting confederation, overstating the benefits, and bullying those who opposed our stance. It was great fun! That being said, it drives home the point that what is considered a contemporary issue (post-truth), the reality is that this practice has been around possibly forever. The apparent uptick in the occurrence of political manipulation is likely due to the progression of the media to include the internet and the ease with which issues and debates can be researched in real time.
Connections to my other classes
History is not just a collection of stories and dates. Using an historical lens or methods of inquiry means critically thinking about what you are consuming, be it an article in a journal or text, a primary document, a secondary document, or even a personal account of events. This approach encourages a person’s inner skeptic, seeking answers to questions of who, what, when, where, and how? For example, whose voice is being heard, and whose is missing? What motivated the author of a particular document? What do other versions of the same event reveal?
The answers to these questions underpinned a recent project in my Educating for Social Change course. The purpose of this paper was to present an understanding of social movements, and how mainstream media, alternative media, and insider sources shape how the public is ‘educated’ about a given movement or social issue; the aim was to deconstruct the supposed neutrality of media. An analysis of two mainstream media sources, CNN and Fox News construct the issues and the progress of Black Lives Matter (http://blacklivesmatter.com/who-we-are/) revealed competing views :
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/09/opinion-our-men-and-women-blue-now-stand-deadly-political-hailstorm
In my paper, I wrote:
Ron Hosko reveals the right-wing bias of Fox News in the article “Our men and women in blue now stand in a deadly political hailstorm”; this choice of words in this headline is supported in the body of the article by Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson who suggests violence in the community is primarily a result of “impoverished neighborhoods and cannot be conveniently laid at the feet of the police, as the Black Lives Matter movement and other vocal activists propose” (October 09, 2016). The headline itself is a hint at bias, as it expresses what we come to understand through the article as condemnation of BLM (Johnson, 2012). The choice of words and the tone of the article indicate that the Police Superintendent (who also happens to be white) is the voice of reason, and degrade input that counters his view; this connotation serves to influence the reader to align with the views of the author (Johnson, 2012). For example, the author describes Reverend Al Sharpton as a “political opportunist and inveterate race baiter… a staunch supporter of the BLM movement with a long history of fabricating charges against police” (October 09, 2016). This type of propaganda constructs opposing views as an external enemy or threat (Boyd, 2012).
The inferences made about the nature of this article speaks to the application of critical thinking in order to deconstruct the message, motivation , and bias within the context of what the author suggests is the crux of Black Lives Matter. As a supporter of this social movement, my own bias is also revealed through my interpretation; understanding that I bring my whole self to the task of interpreting documents has been a key piece of learning that has contributed to my skill as an ‘investigator’. The generalizability of this method of inquiry has proven to enhance learning in other settings. As the semester winds down and I return to my love of reading, I wonder if this outlook will enhance that experience, as well.
For balance:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/opinions/black-lives-matter-movement-report-joseph/
In my paper, I wrote:
In the article “Black Lives Matter’s big step”, Peniel Joseph of CNN frames the progress of BLM as a valued but underutilized vehicle for social change, and aligns itself with the movement through its positive tone and use of directive language. For example, this quote reveals an appreciation of BLM and a desire to see it succeed: “responding to perceived shortcoming with the release of a new report, one that marks an important new phase in the growth, development, and sustainability of the Black Lives Matter movement” (Joseph, 2016, n.p.). Use of the “should” is borderline paternalistic and shaming: “much of this should have widespread appeal… it also suggests a question that all Americans should be asking themselves: Not why black people and their allies are demonstrating in the streets, but why more people have not yet joined them” (Joseph, 2016, n.p.). The propaganda model suggests that bias in this article is indicative of the values of the network and its advertisers (Boyd, 2012).
I assume that one day, students in university will research the development, actions, and impact of Black Lives Matter, much in the same way that our class researched various aspects of early Upper Canada; searching for meaning and what is closest to the truth without having had the benefit of ‘being there’. Indeed, sometimes even being present at an event does not guarantee accuracy in the retelling. Back then, like now, there is a particular investment of social and political control in the telling of a story.