In the U.S., a lot of our history is eurocentric, as mentioned in the podcast.  I think this was an interesting point that Dr. Bezio brought up because she explains how buying materials to record “history” and important events meant having money because the tools and materials were so expensive. The ink was expensive, the paper was expensive, printing was expensive, even access to knowledge could be expensive. Knowledge is and always has been power, and it goes hand in hand with this concept of “access”—once a certain group of people have access to something, in this case, the narration of history, they control it unless they relent that power and access so that other’s can contribute. But because these were white men who saw themselves as superior to any other race or gender and colonized like crazy, they didn’t see a reason to share that access. Thus, with them being the only ones to have access, they were able to narrate history as they saw fit, which means a lot of the stuff we read about today we have to take with the frame that “hey, a racist, sexist, and classist dude probably wrote this with the intention of belittling others and making himself superior.”

I mean, take the classic case of Christopher Columbus. In elementary school, I was taught that this guy was a hero. He came over, found America, gave food to the Native Americans, and we are all here today because of him. Then, later on, and mostly on my own research, I found out that the guy was actually a disaster case, he in no way “found America,” he committed mass genocide on the native peoples and he and his band of merry weirdos gave the natives all kinds of nasty European diseases. It wasn’t grand or wonderful, it was pretty downright horrible, but because the history we learn is so Eurocentric and comes from these European white men, I was originally taught that what Columbus did was a good thing. I think that narrative needs to be removed from schools, especially when it’s being taught to impressionable young children. Students need to be educated on the truth, and not just the white man’s truth, the whole truth. We have to stop sugar-coating things and trying to carve patriotism into the youth by spreading lies, because all it’s done for me, at least, is made me angry and upset that the education system was withholding what I consider real and accurate history.

This week’s podcast presented me with an idea that I have never thought about before. The idea/realization that not everything in history has been/is recorded. There are parts of history that we simply will never know because nothing exists on that topic. A lot of this is by choice. Like Bezio touched on, thousands of white men were praised and written about over the course of time. On the other hand, women were nowhere near written about as much as white men. There were no laws of equality or laws that stated that everything had to be written down no matter what. Moreover, there are parts of history that we will never know about. Another thought that popped into my head was the old saying that history is written by the winners. While it might sound cliche it’s true. There are so many pieces of history that we will never fully understand because of the lack of evidence of all parts/sides of an event. My main takeaway from this podcast was that it’s okay to question what we hear and see. It’s encouraged, but most importantly necessary, to understand a situation from all angles to the best of your abilities. 

The podcast debunks “Great Person Theory”, and Hayter’s article is an example of grassroots action taken by an entire community in order to restore voting rights. Great Person Theory is intuitive to many people because we want to simplify the narrative. The truth is, almost every significant action taken throughout history is a result of the collective agency of a group of people. However, it is easier to tell and understand a story that centers on the a single person, action, or event, rather than trying to account for the countless small factors that made the flashier, defining actions of leaders possible. I think that Great Person Theory applies to situations outside the realm of the study of history. For example, many people idolize athletes or artists. When a person is famous for something they’ve done or produced, it can be very hard to separate the person from their product. In fact, celebrities often seem like superhuman figures. We don’t think of them as people, but rather as the embodiment of their work. This perspective allows us to perceive celebrities as larger than life, and as somehow above normal people. We forget that they possess the same flaws as anyone else.

Of the many things Dr. Bezio talked about in her podcast, this line really stood out to me: “If we believe history, poor people, women and people of color never did anything.” This just shows that history is determined by those who write it, and those who write it are the people in power. And for the majority of history (and present day I suppose), the people in power are white men. Even if the story has the same facts, it differs based on who tells it – this is human nature. It would be okay for this to be the case if everyone was given the same platform and ability to voice their side of the story and their perception of the circumstance, but when only one group of people is given the privilege to tell the story, we consider that to be the story because there is no other side.

This podcast resonated with a lot of the things I have been thinking about in our present society. Dr. Bezio talks about how history, up until recently, is focused on great people – the leaders, the voices, the change-makers, and these people are vital for movements (like MLK, George Washington, etc.), but they would not be nearly as successful without their followers and the people on their teams whispering in their ears and making decisions. History is written to make certain people look good, but that is not the real history – it is tailored and modified and exaggerated so the powerful people can live on as “the greats” in the eyes of future generations. But, did everyone at that time really think they were so great? What about the bad decisions they made? What would those whose voices were oppressed say about these leaders? Dr. Bezio gives the example of Queen Elizabeth I. She says how we will never know if she was liked by her constituents because if they were asked and said they did not like her, they would be killed. So it’s possible they were telling the truth, but it could also be the case they were lying so they would not be castrated and decapitated. The problem is we’ll never know, and this means we will never have the full story about history. Yes, we have uncovered more and more, but I don’t even think we can be sure the facts we find out later are true either.

The only thing we can do is make a conscious effort for all the voices of people living today to be heard and documented so that when today becomes history to future generations, they have the full story. It is unfortunate to say that this is not the case. I think because of social media, a lot of words will be permanent and everyone is given a voice – sort of. It seems like everyone should have a voice, let’s say. But cancel culture makes this not the case. Right now, we are hearing from pretty much just one side on a number of issues (and the side differs) and a lot of people are making assumptions about what others believe because we assume the voices we hear are the majority opinion of everyone – even those who are not speaking up. A lot of opinions are being taken off of social media outlets (or moved so far down that it becomes nearly impossible to find), facts are being skewed to push a certain agenda, and people live in fear of getting “cancelled” or thrown into a certain category based on their opinion. So, a lot of people with the “minority” opinion on a number of issues stay quiet because it is not worth the scrutiny or the attack they will receive (reminds me of Elizabethan England without the execution). In my eyes, we are not laying a good foundation to have this history be the real history, and it is sad because this is history repeating itself and I don’t think a lot of people are noticing that.

I really liked this podcast this week. I have always thought that history was really interesting, even though it is very complicated. Sometimes, it seems like a lot of history doesn’t really matter because that was then and we are in the now. However, it does because it allows us to know the why, even if the exact why or what is contested. It shapes how we think and why we do. In high school, we learned that history goes in cycles, and if we know what has happened in the past, we can predict what might happen in the future. We can be wary of danger signs and make more informed decisions to avoid tragedies (like examining a dictator’s rise to power, etc.) I have struggled with the study of history only because it seems like it is all recorded from a bias – which it is as Dr. Bezio mentioned in her podcast. I know it’s still important but it is hard when a lot of what we know is shaped by white men, yet again. I thought that the point that there were more poor people than there were white, Christian men and they still dominated the conversation is so perplexing (even though it really isn’t…). There’s so much we don’t know because history has historically been recorded very poorly. I think it is really interesting that in 100 years, there’s going to be people trying to study what we are doing now and why. They will have SO much information that it might honestly be harder to piece it all together. Everyone can have their place in history. And if we have come this far, so quickly, it is weird to see where the study of history will go because I feel like with the new age of media, everyone gets to show their experience, not just the white men as it was for so long.

I can only assume that Dr. Bezio wants us to be thinking about voter suppression today, as the podcast spoke on the importance of understanding history and Dr. Hayter’s reading was about Richmond’s history of voting rights and voter suppression. In the podcast Dr. Bezio warns us to keep track of who is writing our history, she reminds us that in large part we have Eurocentric/western history which is a whitewashed form. She reminds us that when we read our history books, we are most likely reading the words of White Christian men with lots of money, as they could afford the time and resources it took to record anything. They also, as she points out in her podcast, felt as though what they were recording was important while the lower-class people most likely were just living their normal lives and doing things like making bread which doesn’t feel important enough to record. She continues on to say if we believed history word for word, rather than read between the lines and behind the stories told to us we would think that women, people of color, and people without lots of money didn’t do anything. I think it is interesting that in Dr. Hayter’s reading we know what was going on in Richmond regarding voter suppression in the late 1960s because the mayor at the time Phil Bagley said in a private setting, “I did what I did about the compromise because the n*** are not qualified to run the city of Richmond.” I think it kind of ironic that while we often only hear the “rich white men’s” sides sometimes their words are so blatantly horrific that one does not have to look further into something to see what they are doing wrong. Meaning yes, oftentimes we do not get to see all sides of events but if what is recorded is saying something that we can see is wrong it makes our understanding a little better.

From the podcast, my biggest takeaway was how one-dimensional a huge part of history is. Because of the difficulties of obtaining the materials to write, or the ability to be able to write in the past, much of history is focused on the nobles or “great men” of the time. This makes figures in history appear much grander than in reality. It not only distorts our perceptions of what life was like during those periods but for many people it establishes an unattainable falsehood of the capabilities of man. By assuming that an individual person is capable of running an entire kingdom or conquering a land by themselves, it establishes so many unattainable falsehoods.

I think this connects with Hollywood movies in particular. There are a ton of movies out there that intended to depict great men from history. I can only speak for men, but for us, they create these extremely masculine hero-like characters that do not exist in reality. They create so many falsehoods in men that are unattainable, yet so many people believe that that they are. It creates a toxic representation of masculinity that is neither correct nor attainable. For some people, it creates a toxic level of ambition, and for others, it emasculates them. Either way, it is an unhealthy practice. I can not deny that I enjoy these types of movies. However, it is essential to understand that they are just movies and not an accurate portrayal of reality or history. This tends to be twisted especially in today’s culture where we epitomize looks or standards that are unattainable.

This podcast has been my favorite. The fact that there are so many things that are taught in school but the focus of their impact is what “really matter” without looking at their faults. In order to understand history and gain a clear perspective, we need to know the overall image meaning the positives and negatives and what falls in between or else we have a false understanding.  Dr. Bezio started discussing the Civil Rights Movement with Rosa Parks taking a stand for the injustice, yet she was not the first individual to do that. I knew that this was not a spur of the moment decision, or the first time but I will say I myself did not know who had done it previously. I could not tell you it was Claudette Colvin, but the name did ring a bell for me. Then I had never thought of Rosa Parks being a better choice for the Moment to begin with. I had never viewed it as a strategy, I just viewed it as Rosa Parks was the one to take it on  without thinking of her past or how she was light skinned and could be a better representative ans relate to the white individuals.

After hearing about the Movement, I had thought about the UR Black Student Coalition as how they had to strategize or where they started to (as in events) to gain momentum. In order for them to be so focused and ready to go, they had definitely planned for the many uncertainties of “what if” they could think of and see what approaches could be necessary. Also, after attending the teach ins, you could tell they saw the impact other schools had when this happened on their campus and are dedicated and passionate to see that change occur here.

In episode 9, Dr. Bezio discussed the study of history and its role in the humanities. During the discussion, one of the most interesting points raised, to me, was the Great Man Theory of leadership. This theory argued that individuals, or in this case white men, are born with the traits that make them good leaders. With this theory, and with the almost exclusive writings about male accomplishments due to rich white men funding many of the writing expeditions, history has come to focus predominantly on the male experience and tends to ignore the accomplishments and history of women, poor people, and POC. While listening to this discussion of the rich white male-centric account of history, I was reminded of the books and history that I – and I bet many other students – were taught growing up. Throughout k-12 public school, the majority of the books we read were written by white men, along with many of our classes focusing only on the history and accounts of white men and their accomplishments, lives, and thoughts. For example, until I was a senior in high school, I never read any book in school written by an African author about African history, and only a handful of the 400 students in my grade read that book. The focus of history and historical writings is apparent in our education system that focuses almost exclusive attention on the history and accounts of, and the writings of, rich white men.

Hayter’s article was extremely interesting to me, it was honestly surprising, because so much of black history has been left out of the common narrative in history classes and textbooks that barely skim the surface of issues such as voting rights. The story of voting rights did not end with the VRA, and it was shocking to learn of the lengths that black people in Richmond had to go to in order to get their votes heard, and even more horrifying the lengths that the white people in power went to in order to stifle their votes. Annexing a county full of white people in order to make sure that black votes had a reduced influence, so that they would not be able to elect their candidates of choice. In this case, justice prevailed after seven years, but in many cases in history, minorities have not been so lucky.

Dr. Bezio’s podcast emphasizes the way that large groups of people have been excluded throughout history, both in historical events and in the narrative of history itself. History has been defined and shared mostly by rich white men, who have had the ability to tell history from their perspective, not from the perspective of the majority, or the common people. Yet even recent history is told by the perspective of those in power, neglecting to tell the entirety of the “story’ excluding gaping parts in order to gloss over those deemed less important. It is imperative that we “rewrite” history, to include the stories and efforts of those that took place “behind the scenes,” struggles and movements that were not executed by so-called Great Men, but by the common people whose unity and perseverance made the difference these Great Men needed in order to succeed. After all, leaders do not exist without the support of their followers. Further, we need to tell the stories that do not include Great Men, movements that are not faceless but comprised of many faces, such as the voting rights movement here in Richmond.