perception

 I was told recently that I can't write about the past because; I'm not there in the future. An interesting thought, one I have been trying to reconcile with common sense. I'm thinking we certainly need to discard an awful of history if that is the case. How many books have been written about the past by people in the future? The answer is, every one of them. I would also suggest the best histories, the most accurate, are written by those that don't have an emotional attachment. It's called objectivity. But there is something to be said about having an attachment, an emotional connection as well. It's true that bias may be interjected into that history, but a lot of subtleties as well. And it is the subtle things that get lost to history. There often small nuances that influence the course of history that are lost. The glaring changes, the big decisions are recorded and remembered. That is the reason years later there is always so much discussion as to the way of things. That is when scholars begin their analysis of history.
 The fact of the matter is a great deal of history boils down to perception. How did you see it? Today the news was reporting about a tragic event that took place 53 years ago today. This happening was a march about voting rights. There were deaths and violence associated with this. A real tragedy but one that awakened the nation. Following that the voting rights act of 1965 was passed. Was that tragic occurrence the impetus for change, or just a terrible event from history? Was it a victory or a defeat? Perception certainly plays a role in that bit of history doesn't it? I wasn't there and so have nothing to say regarding that. There are those demanding some form of justice for that event today. I would say justice was served when the voting rights act was passed. As far as I know I haven't lost any of my ancestors in a war, unless you count Philips war. That's a piece of history from long. long ago. Anyway, I had an ancestor that was ambushed and killed by Indians, nowadays they are Native Americans. I don't feel like any Native American owes me a thing for that. History shows it was a mutual thing, this attacking and killing each other. Others seem to have a different perception, believing somehow that reparations made today can somehow negate the injustice of the past.
 It is true that the most widely accepted histories are the ones written by the folks that were there. Those histories, although they may be filled with bias, are the ones cited by scholars. Usually written by the victors, or survivors depending upon your perception. And isn't that at the heart of it all. Are you a victim or a survivor? I grew up saying, I'll survive. That was the common response when something bad happened to me, something beyond my control. I'd say, I'll survive. Yes, it was tinged with sarcasm and possibly a bit of bitterness, but that was my attitude. I would say it was the general attitude at that time. I also believe that attitude has shifted to, I'm a victim in todays world. You don't hear people saying they survived much, they tell how they were victimized, even when they weren't there! Really it is the difference between saying I'll be alright and help me.
 I'll continue to write about the past because I was there. It's the only thing I know for sure, no telling what tomorrow holds. I am writing from my perception. Others that were also there may disagree with my view. It happens all the time. Life is a continuing comparison between the old and the new. It's all about choices. The choices we made and the ones we are about to make. For me it's about perception. For others it is all about deception. They are either attempting to deceive others or have succeeded in deceiving themselves.