Sometimes I wonder whether or not history matters. Being a graduate student in anthropology, I sometimes wonder whether I'm wasting my time by pondering distant, abstract realities which have no real use in the contemporary world. Sometimes it seems that maybe the past isn't all that important, and that understanding it holds little relevance today.
And then I read another headline, watch another news report, or read another book about another international problem with long-held roots. These problems, these wars, these political disasters...they didn't just appear from a black hole, you know (I know you know). As Utah Philips said, "The past didn't go anywhere." It's here, everyday, and it's critically important that we understand how it relates to our present realities.
Of course the past matters, and of course it has relevance. The ways that we tell our histories are indicative of the social and political times in which we live. Interestingly, the ways we understand and present the past change as our social and political milieu changes. Think about that. We certainly didn't teach American History the same in 1910 as we do in 2007. The events which we discussed may have been the same, but the ways we perceive of them, and choose to understand them, is what changes.
The history colonialism in the Americas is a good case in point. This is a story which has been continually reshaped over time. When I grew up, I was taught all about the benevolent Missionaries who "saved" the the California Indians. Fortunately, such simplistic and erroneous histories have been thoroughly challenged and re-envisioned. But we still have a long way to go, as some of our newer histories have taken things too far in the opposite direction...
These days, the clash between the early Spanish colonists and many native American people, for example, is often portrayed in a very one-sided manner. In many ways, this is an over-reaction to earlier histories which glorified the conquest of the Americas, and characterized the event as some pre-ordained victory for the forces of "civilization." Fortunately, that particular historical myth has been challenged.
Many contemporary histories of colonialism in the Americas do, however, all too often characterize the past as if it were simply a clash between the angelic natives and the evil colonists. And this is a mistake, in my opinion. Granted, there were certainly brutal and horrible actions on the part of colonial nations; we all know that. However, oftentimes the indigenous societies had less than innocent motives as well.
And these complexities, these details, should not be glossed over.
A good example occurred when Pizarro conquered the Inca of Peru. He basically tricked Atahualpa, the leader of the Incas, and ambushed him. Ironically, Atahualpa had the very same plan in mind for Pizarro and the Spanish army. In fact, he later admitted that he had "intended to capture the governor [Pizarro] ...and to sacrifice some of the Spaniards to the sun and castrate others for service in his household and in guarding his women" (from John Hemming's article "Atahualpa and Pizarro").
Atahualpa made a major mistake in underestimating his Spanish opponents. He also made a severe tactical blunder when he showed up to meet Pizarro with unarmed troops. Once the Spanish attacked with their superior firepower, weaponry, and horses, it was an outright slaughter.
The question is this: How would things be today if the Inca had won? How would they have treated the Spanish? According to some of Atahualpa’s musings, it might not have been much prettier than what the Spanish colonists wrought upon people all across the Americas. What's interesting, to me, is considering the reasons why we might all of a sudden want to think, here in the 21st century, that ALL Native Americans were innocent, naive, and noble beings who were slaughtered by European invaders. What is it about these times that makes us open to that presentation of the past? Why would we ignore the fact that slaver, warfare, violence, and greed were certainly not the sole passions of Europeans?
Think Iraq. Think about this war in which many of us do not believe. Could it be that, in some cases, we come to different understandings of the past based upon political problems and contradictions we face in the present? I think so. And overall I think that this is a good and useful process, as it forces us to keep questioning history, and the present, based upon new experiences. Certainly our neo-colonial clashes in the Middle East might cause many people to reconsider the oft-told stories of colonialism in the not so distant American past. If our wars and political tornadoes are this infuriating, maddening, clumbsy, and depressing, imagine how those 16th century Spanish invasions of the Americas must have been!
I do have a point, and here it is: the past matters, purely and simply because it is the building blocks of today. We can't ignore it, and we can't ignore the ways that we, and others, employ it.
In these days of broad stereotypes and vast generalizations, it's good to keep in mind the fact that the past was anything but simplistic, straight-forward, and easily reducible to catchy sound bites. Just as colonialism cannot be explained as some epic battle of good vs. evil, so the current conflicts in which we are engaged cannot be summed up as some kind of John Wayne-esque "Clash of Civilizations."