1. From page 88:
“In 1791, there is no public debate on the record, in France, in England, or in the United States on the right of black slaves to achieve self-determination, and the right to do so by way of armed resistance.”
What does Trouillot mean by “self-determination” here? I ask because I always thought of it as more of a 20th century term.
2. On page 95, Trouillot discusses scientific racism. I don’t really know how to phrase this as a question. I just think it might be interesting to discuss the history of using science to legitimize bigotry.
3. From page 10:
“Historians had long questioned the veracity of some of the events in Alamo narratives, most notably the story of the line on the ground….Texas historians, and especially Texas-based authors of textbooks and popular history, long concurred that this particular narrative was only “a good story”, and that “it doesn’t really matter whether it is true or not.”
(The footnote to that segment is on page 158.)
There seems to be some shift in the meaning of “historian” in this paragraph. What is it exactly, and what does it say about Trouillot’s stance on the matter?
4. To what extent does Trouillot use narrative techniques to discuss the use of narrative techniques in recording history?
5. From page 142:
“History did not need to be mine in order to engage me. It just needed to relate to someone, anyone. It could not just be The Past. It had to be someone’s past.”
Can history exist without being related to the present?
The ending story reminded me on the first read of this. I couldn’t have been the only one.
Oh, and – the copyright information at the front of the book misspells his name as “Michel-Ralph Trouillot”. Thanks for reading, everyone.