|
i don't think you understand what history is, ace--not in the sense of history=stuff that happened in the past, but more history as what historians make, what they do.
to stick with your analogy---a social historian, say, might look at the official document trail your marriage generated as elements within larger patterns that would be interesting or shaped by a bigger project or problem--this stuff is usually material for making inferences about type of activity done by folk who left no documentary traces behind. another type of project might be involve interviewing you about the reasons for your marriage. yet another--depending of course on who you are--might be set up so that the transcripts of your discussions leading up to the marriage are crucial.
it all depends on the type of history being done, what the project is.
there are many types of history, many types of projects.
what distinguishes one from the other is really type of data used and type of inferences made.
but the basic problem is that you are not george w bush and the analogy is basically flawed that would equate your decision to get married and what bush may have discussed or done while in office.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|