Bracelet, Shackle, or Key: The Uses of History
Over the last six months, if you have been paying attention to the discourse around what is happening in Palestine, I’m sure you have seen someone, maybe even a historian, turn to history to support their argument. “History won't look kindly” "This makes sense if you look at the history” “The region has a complex history” “ Read some history” so on and so forth.
I don't want to talk directly about the history of Palestine (if you are interested I would point you to this piece by Esmat Shalaby https://thebaffler.com/latest/toward-an-intellectual-history-of-genocide-in-gaza-elhalaby) what I do want to talk about is my thoughts on the the uses of history.
The instrumentalization of history falls into three broad categories and, if you will grant me the indulgence, I believe an extended metaphor may help.
Bracelet
The first use of history is as a bracelet. History as an ornament, mnemonic, or as something pretty to look at.
For example, a business or organization presenting a sanitized history of their founding, mission etc. as a way to legitimize or humanize the organization is an example of history as bracelet.
Another example is history used as a tool of remembrance, like a family genealogy or saving old recipes, old letters, journals. This quest for memory can also enter into the realms of professionals, where scholars create an index of materials from a certain period, a book of Abbasid coins.
Or history meant to entertain. I am thinking of historical fiction or paperback histories, like David Grann or Erik Larson, and historical dramas on film and tv, Manhunt, Shogun etc.
All of these forms of history, like a bracelet, do not change the reality of the wearer and their authenticity doesn't ultimately matter. Yes, an authentic 24k bracelet carries a different status, but it is almost indistinguishable from a gold plated bracelet, and may actually have less use value, gold is so brittle. It is the same for this history. If there are problems with it, falsehoods, overclaims, or omissions, it really doesn’t matter.
I am thinking right now of the claim that Patton Oswalt’s character using “creep” in the Civil War era drama Manhunt is an anachronism. Does that matter? Perhaps to historians who derive their value from portraying themselves as above the commoner, the way a jeweler derives his value from arbitrating the preciousness of a bracelet. But it is pointless to look at a history that is meant to entertain and get wrapped up in the impossible task of recreating the past. Yes, they didn’t use the word creep, but they didn’t have lights to make Patton Oswalt look that way either. Is his desk made of the historically accurate material? His clothes? The glass in the windows? And even if all of those things were 100% faithful, the show still would be providing a best guess of something irretrievable. But again, it doesn’t matter. It has no direct impact on people, except the schoolmarm who is physically pained by anachronism.
Shackle
Now history becomes a much more serious business when it is used as a shackle. This is the case when someone uses history to bind someone: to use “history” to deny someone their rightful ownership, their rights, or even their lives.
A very good example is the American Supreme’s court turn to Originalism, which uses history to deny women healthcare, etc. It essentially takes the document of the Constitution and uses other contextual clues from the time period to try to imagine how it should be read. And thus it must rely on history to find that context. And here the accuracy of history is paramount, and in the case of Originalism it is garbage.
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/strengthen-our-courts/history-constitution
This use of history should be used rarely, if ever, because of two defining characteristics of history1
It is not a fixed set of “things that happened,” it is an ongoing conversation that morphs depending on the time it is written and the sources available to us.
History cannot withstand the pressure of tying someone’s rights to it. There are a great deal of things we may never know and we only open ourselves up to doing horribly unjust things in the name of history by subjecting history to this stress-test.
Another layer of bad history, is the history that presents itself as a bracelet but is really a bespoke shackle. In this I am speaking of videos, documentaries, mass market paperbacks, and even museums that use their tools, sometimes unconsciously, to push dangerous historical understandings on supposedly non-controversial topics. All the documentaries that look to find aliens where non-white people existed are examples.
Keys
The fear of what can be done with history as a shackle is why many historians shy away from “using” history and want to wall themselves and their writings from “presentism” or “politics” and to stay “impartial.” It is also why there is intense boundary keeping. But that makes history a dull and desiccated thing.
Where history can be a vital and even necessary service is in a third use. History as a key. History that frees people from the obsessions and thinking of the present by understanding the multi-faceted nature of the past.
The 1619 Project or Howard Zinn’s work are wonderful examples. I know some of you are cracking your fingers ready to type out all the problems with these histories, but that is exactly my point. No history is free from mistakes or misinterpretations or misapprehensions especially as the days pass and new information or new ways of thinking come up. But that is exactly why this use of history is most aligned with history’s very nature.
If you use history to free someone there are three outcomes
It does not work, but the person is no less free than before
It works, and as we learn more, the history becomes more and more important.
It works, and as we learn more, we find that much of the history you wrote was not perfect and needs revision, and may even need to be left behind, but the history worked even if it wasn't “good history.”
All of these outcomes are preferable to using history to take from people.
This discussion of history is one inspired by Blackstone’s Principle that “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” This principle, which has been foundational in legalistic thought, is a also worthwhile guide for historical thought. History written in this frame, history as a key, has proved to be the most impactful and durable. Some deride it as “activist history,” but I would counter that if we are not using history to improve the world, then what’s the point of history at all. Unfortunately in the last six months, when it has come to Palestine, I’ve seen many, especially those who have built their names as historians, using history either as a bracelet, or more troubling as a shackle. This is a short and perhaps half-baked call to find more historical keys.
My view of history is a post-modern one in that I do not believe, not matter how hard we look, we will find a kernel of truth. Even if you could find the truth, that would not justify using history in this way.