The Use of First Person Pronouns in the Discussion of History

During the last graded discussion, we were reminded that it is not appropriate to use the pronoun “we” in relation to slavery, as we ourselves were not slaves and did not own slaves. However, while I agree with this in the sense that it is inappropriate to claim to have been or sold slaves, there are certain topics where first person is appropriate, and actually necessary for full discussion. One such topic, and a major part of the aforementioned graded discussion is the subject of making up for the horror of slavery. Removing one’s self from an event can allow for a broader and less biased view. However, when ideas of current action which is applicable to everyone, such as the removal of racism and discrimination, it is imperative that we take notice of our involvement so as to understand that it is our responsibility as well. First person pronouns must also be used when discussing the government so as to solidify our involvement in it. Even when speaking of the government during the eighteen and nineteen hundreds first person pronouns are applicable, as we must take responsibility for the actions of our government, and cannot shirk our duty to repay simply because it wasn’t us. If we remove ourselves from our government and our history’s application to today, then we significantly limit the amount we can heal the wounds of our past.

In connection to the idea of learning from the past, the use of first person pronouns is necessary because it forces us to apply the history to today.  Thus helping us to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating the terrible parts of our past while improving upon the good parts. Overall, first person pronouns, while not appropriate in some cases, are most definitely  acceptable and even necessary in others, as they allow us to become an active part in our history and the repairs of the not-so-glamorous parts of our past, take responsibility for our government, and learn effectively from the past.

The Importance of Syntax and Grammar Especially in Regards to Historical Documents

In literature class, we created grammar notebooks, places for us to practice and improve our storytelling by using correct grammar. We also looked at the syntax of a description of Ichabod Crane to determine more about his character. There was an abundance of meaning in just those few sentences, demonstrating the astounding effect of organization. Any effective writer must know how to play with structure to convey more information than could be contained in words alone. However, to ensure that the reader can understand the base message, the author must stay away from overly complex or scrambled organization, like we are learning with our notebooks. Hence, to be an effective storyteller, one must walk the fine line of inserting meaning with syntax and hiding it with incorrect grammar. If this is done correctly than the reader sees more of the picture in the writer’s head and the gap between the two minds is closed. This is especially important in historical texts because the author is, in essence, documenting an event with their words. If the historian or reader cannot glean an accurate representation of what happened, then that moment of history is skewed in its representation and many people are misinformed, possibly leading to future consequences. Overall, syntactical structure and its manipulation within the realm of proper grammar is imperative to the success of any storyteller, particularly when that story is of historical value.

Why the Study of History and Literature Must Be Paired Together

51,000 human beings dead, 51,000 people who will never see their families again, each one a tragic story displayed only as a section of a colored block moving across a screen. It pains me to think that each soldier and civilian who lost their life in the Battle of Gettysburg, or any battle for that matter, could be simplified down to a speck and a number, or even rounded away to make it easier for me to remember. People are not numbers, and they must never be viewed only as such. This is why history and literature must be intertwined. History gives us general statistics and literature tells individual stories, together they provide the big picture of what really happened. Without literature, history would carry far less emotional value, and without history, literature would have no context to make sense with. Together, they support each other for increased credibility. Essentially, when combined there is a much stronger sense of ethos, pathos, and logos, all compiling for a stronger representation of the event and the text. Pure statistics can account for origin, but to truly understand value it is important to surpass the limitation of a constricted view and venture into the emotional side of historical events. The things learned in one class are most definitely applicable in the other as they intertwine with each other like the subjects themselves. In this blog alone, I have combined the ideas of areas of argument strength and historical analysis to prove my point. To go back to the first example, we are given the historical stats to understand the numbers, but only if paired with a text, such as a soldier’s journal, can we  better understand both the lit and the history. Overall, combining or intertwining history and literature creates a better knowledge and comprehension of both.