Thomas King's Techniques Used To Construct The Past

A contrived narrative that reconstructs the past in the light of the present and the subjectivities of the author, that is the essence of history. History as learned by the modern student is the author’s manipulated, subjective reconstruction of the past. Thomas King demonstrates in his book how historical authors are able to manipulate the past using various techniques to construct a certain atmosphere in the reader’s mind. He says, “I tried to recreate an oral storytelling voice… In the Christian story, I tried to maintain a sense of rhetorical distance and decorum… These strategies colour the stories and suggest values that may be neither inherent nor warranted.” By drawing out certain points, glossing over others, and using different language,

authors are able to glorify certain events and make others seem unimportant and insignificant. These techniques are applicable to historical works as well.

History is in basic terms, the narrative of the past. Therefore, it can be heavily influenced by the one narrating. While King explores the deliberate methods of shaping historical narratives, Howard Zinn discusses how authors can unintentionally shape the past to align with their personal biases. Zinn states, “A historian’s strong belief in certain values and goals can lead to dishonesty or to dishonesty or to distortions of history. But that is avoidable if the historian understands the difference between solidity in ultimate values and openness in regard to historical fact.” Zinn is a realist, he acknowledges that each person carries with them a cross of biases and subjectivities. These are constructed by the events that that person has witnessed, the places they have known, and the people they have interacted with. He accepts these perspectives and says that there is no way to rid society of them. He does, however, critique the historical community for not acknowledging these biases. In his own piece, he states his bias and urges other historians to follow

suit.

The American narrative of the past is one plagued by manipulations and biases. The stories we tell ourselves as Americans glorify the important, wealthy, and powerful people. They construct a society in which only very specific traits are admired and praised. We tell stories that make depict us in the most flattering light, and always avoid the ones that paint an ugly portrait of who we are. We had the right to take over the land. From the birth of our nation, the white and powerful men have assumed a right to take whatever they please. “The colonizers interpreted these Indian deaths as divinely sanctioned opportunities to take the land.” The early colonizers assumed it was their God-given duty to take the land that Native Americans had occupied for thousands of years, simply because their European diseases killed off the majority of the tribes. The emphasis of powerful, wealthy men is perfectly embodied in the “Landing of Columbus” painting. Columbus’ face is the only one upon which the light shines, the natives are painted in the shadows, as small, insignificant savages. Columbus and his men yield flags, crosses, and swords. These tools signify the new era, that of conquest, religion, and imperialism. In addition to glorifying the powerful white men, the American narrative glosses over the times of dissent and strain. Zinn’s piece says, “It would be considered bold, radical, perhaps even ‘communist’ to emphasize class struggle in the United States.” (Zinn 53). In Zinn’s essay, he criticises the historical community for leaving giant historical gaps where revolutions, massacres, and other social struggles occurred. Zinn draws attention to the fact that American history paints a picture of a noble and kind government that protects its citizens at all costs, failing to mention events like the Ludlow massacre in which innocent citizens were killed by their own national guard. The historical community has constructed a paradigm in which the government and its leaders must be praised, even when they owned slaves or caused the death of thousands of innocent people. The foundation of this nation is christian, capitalistic, freedom-oriented, and intellectual. These key cultural factors are the cornerstones of America, and those who do not conform to these norms find it hard to make it into American history books.

These stories that we have been told shape our reality significantly, promoting American exceptionalism, self-centered society, and forcing minorities to conform to American norms.

This can be seen as early as the age of the founding fathers. Takaki says, “In order to survive, Jefferson declared, Indians must adopt the culture of the white man.” As early as the years of our founding fathers, white men in positions of power forced minority groups to conform to the expectations of the society they wished to create. Men revered as revolutionary, moral, and exemplary founders of this nation perpetuated the long-standing belief in Rudyard Kipling’s “White man’s burden.” They believed they had a duty to “civilize” the savage beasts both on the American shores and the ones they viciously stole from the African coast. This mentality continued on through the the first centuries of America’s life, and is seen very clearly in the civil rights era. Revered civil rights activists like W.E.B. DuBois preached the value of higher education, law, high society, and cultural aspects formerly “owned” by wealthy White men. He urged the African-American population to stop complaining and saying, “we are diseased and dying, cried the dark hosts; we cannot write, our voting is vain,” but to take action and become what American society praised. Examples of social construction can still be seen today. King’s story vividly shows this. “I told her she was crazy to allow people to treat her like that.

But she knew the nature of the world in which she lived, and I did not.” King’s mother attempted to be an equal in a man’s world. She wanted and needed pay equivalent to that of her colleagues who had the same position as her. However, the society that had been constructed was one in which men received large salaries and women worked as secretaries. King’s mother accepted that fact as reality, but by not challenging this, she only further perpetuates the social norms.