Guha 

This article had a very interesting take on how history is viewed in the eyes of the reader. I think one of the main aspects of the article is the manipulative description of the people who revolt and of their actions. As the author explains by giving examples of some of the metaphors used to describe these people as: “they break out like thunder storms, heave like earthquakes, spread like wildfires, infect like epidemics” which clearly gives the sense of a rebellion that is done without thinking, in a very wild and “natural” way (in a negative sense of the word), as uncivilized, more reflexive rather than intentional and conscious. The reading starts off by stating that there is a misconception that peasant revolts arise with a lack of consciousness on the part of that group of people. Or as Guha puts it “insurgency is regarded as external to the peasant’s consciousness and Cause is made to stand in as a phantom surrogate for Reason”. In fact, Guha wants to show that this is not so and that there is in fact a precursor to the revolt, that there is often an originating mobilization that does not include violence.

The author explains the reason why this kind of representation of the revolts is possible by talking about the three discourses that are used when talking about these events: primary, secondary and tertiary:

Primary: – almost always official (originated with bureaucrats, soldiers, sleuths, people who were directly employed by the government, or people not officially working for the government but with personal interest in supporting the government.
Secondary: -uses primary source as material but this material is transformed due to the time gap between the discourse and the event. Although supposed to be less biased and has more perspective, this is not usually the case.
Tertiary: – considered as “further removed in time” as it looks at events from the third person perspective. As discussed in the article: “This literature is distinguished by its effort to break away from the code of counterinsurgency. It adopts the insurgent’s point of view and regards, with him, as ‘fine’ what the other side calls ‘terrible’, and vice versa. It leaves the reader in no doubt that it wants the rebels and not their enemies to win”

This hierarchy is inherently flawed when adopted to analyze history. Primary sources are coming from the elite of society and thus, do not shed any light on the perspective of the “peasant revolts”. In addition, all negative discourse and misconceptions regarding peasant revolt is passed off as the most accurate information. It is not until we get to a tertiary level, before we start to get a sense of the standpoint of the so called other side. By that time, this information is passed off as nonsense and deemed fictitious and borderline propagandist. In today’s time, it is all about media control and what is allowed to be exposed to the public eye and what is not.

Spivak 

The concept of the subaltern is very intriguing. Specifically, I had never thought to analyze history in such a critical way. Attempting to look at history through the lens of those who were oppressed and deemed inferior provides a different perspective of past events. Too often we are provided with reports detailing the happenings of the elite in society – information that seems to lack a connection with the masses. Instead, we should be hearing from those who are oppressed and deemed inferior. Colonialism has been discussed through history from a specific lens, one that stands to reinforce the Western society’s so called positive influence on the world. However, as a people we must ask ourselves how accurate is the history that is presented to us? Who gives a voice to the “other” side? Delving into this field of literature and historiography lends itself to the idea that accounting for all parties involved in the historical events of the world is essential to grasping a full understanding of the events that have shaped the past. Giving a voice to, as Spivak suggests, “the masses”, allows one to see history from the perspective of the majority as opposed to the perspective of a significant, elite minority. The idea here is that the focus be on non-elites. That is, subalterns are the agents of political and social change, not politically elite figures. The impact of this literature on the world of today and of the future is invaluable. With all the change occurring in the world (take for example the Arab Spring), we must be cognizant of how we view reform and more importantly, how we interpret for future generations. But can the subaltern give a voice to the masses without entering the realm of the dominant discourse? If not, would this then mean that the subaltern, once given access to the dominant discourse, can never speak for all subalterns?