Question 2
We can accept as true, that history only has meaning here and now if we adapt what happened in the past to some relevancy in the present. So does that mean, that if a historical event has no prevalence here today, that it has no meaning? No, because the prevalence of a historical event is different from person to person. So now we can accept that all history, whether relevant to me or to you has relevance probably to someone, and there for is prevalent. So the present determines prevalence of history. That is kind of a sad thing, and hard concept, for me to fully wrap my head around. If I do not find relevance in the bible, it does not mean that the events within its pages have not found their way into my life. My mother's up bringing and life has been shaped by her mother's views about the church and religion. therefore, even though my mother and I do not identify necessarily with the teachings and beliefs of my grandmother, it effects our lives, especially on Easter Sunday. So then the prevalence of history in someone's life doesn't completely mean that that history is meaningless for them.
Also, i think historical significance comes from a persons ability to identify with a history, and as was stated in TT, history is a broad overview, no matter how specific it gets, because it is not all encompassing, because it can't be. So if someone can not identify with a historical generalization, then i think it is his or her responsibility to form a new generalization around their personal history, if they can, and in that situation, history becomes present.
1 comment:
But, do you recognize that perhaps some histories are more or less significant for certain groups? What does the founding of America mean to a white man? A white woman? A black woman? How might the accepted details of our historical record marginalize some people?
Post a Comment