Relying on memory is a disservice to historical reporting

Historians Kyvig and Marty point out that memory is often imperfect and formed by the exigencies and prejudices of the time. To write a history or tell the story of any place by relying on memory is a mistake that does disservice to those who struggled to leave future generations something they could proudly call home.

To date, no one has written a comprehensive history of Duval County, Texas. A number of brief histories of the county and its various communities and ranches have appeared in manuscript form, but their authors wrote all of them, with the exception of a few graduate school papers, based on the personal memory and accounts as participants or descendants of participants.

Take, for example, the vital relationship between Mexican-descended and European-descended Texans. Clearly, the clash between these two groups was at the epicenter in the history of Duval County and South Texas, as a whole. To tell the story of the area based on the memory of descendants of either group would certainly result in a biased and imperfect account. The truth is that this relationship was much more complex than the simplicities that personal memory can store and tampered views can recall.

While a historian must acknowledge the fallibility of memory, he or she must not dismiss it as a source. Coupled with empirical evidence, personal memory can make a valuable contribution to history by providing context, even of people’s biases. It can also contribute greatly to the physical, familial and community attributes of the players who shaped a story and the places in which a history occurred. History done under the rigors of scholarly research can serve as a remedial tool to overcome the imperfections of memory. Using sound research methodology, a historian can examine the available evidence from a distance and can form objective conclusions about the past.

It would be a mistake to assume that even scholarly research is immune from subjectivity. The historian working under the rules of research and writing can, in fact must, apply interpretation to the available evidence. The difference is that personal and societal concerns shape the subjectivity of memory, while the subjective interpretation of a historian has its basis on research, of not only the locality under study, but also of the broader geographic, economic, political, and social events that influenced an area’s development. Subjective interpretation is vital, if a historian is to understand and convey the full story.

It is not enough to provide names of people and descriptions of places; these places and societies were shaped not by people with names but by people with ideas, yearnings, and motivations. A storyteller can only make these clear by bringing them together under a historic microscope and determining how the different organisms worked together and shaped each other. By applying empirical research methods, a historian can understand the why and how of what happened in the past.

Graciela TG | April 5, 2013 at 4:58 pm | Reply (Edit) Story-telling, although subject to particular perspectives, is a great way to relate historical information to an otherwise uninterested audience. If the story is engaging enough and can spark an interest and enthusiasm to learn more, then it has accomplished its purpose. Alfredo, you are a great writer, engaging your readers and installing that spark to find out more about history. I wish you success in this valuable service you are offering to all those passionate about learning more about their past. Anonymous | March 31, 2013 at 10:03 pm | Reply (Edit) Thanks Mr. Cardenas, As someone who was raised in Duval County, I probably would have never realized just what “Mexican” really means without having lived in Southern California for 30 years. Out here it is fairly common to encounter what I consider authentic Mexicans. Those that not only speak the native tongues (e.g. Nahuatl) but live the native culture to the extent that it can survive being forcibly diluted by the Spanish culture. This situation renders what I often hear from Tejanos claiming to be native as nonsensical. One of my hobbies is studying precisely how language gives access to the world. As an example, in native Mexican cultures time occurs very differently than it does for the European cultures including the Spanish and in a very fundamental way but that is a topic for another time. The point I wish to make here is that although the “Mexican” you speak of may look different in most cases from the other Europeans in Texas due to the mixing of native blood with Mediterranean European blood, they are all European culturally speaking and therefore encounter the world similarly. In other worlds, although there is “clash” as you put it, it’s not exactly as you present it and the only reason I mention this at all is because you claim to care about avoiding the imperfection of memory alone. I think that the clash has historical roots going back to the British and Spanish versions of colonialism and the Mexicans not having the incentive to assimilate into using the English (now American) language and in addition to “looking different” in many cases but it is most definitely NOT a European/non-European clash and for the most part. Bob Guevara Camarillo, California Angel Zargoza | March 30, 2013 at 9:36 pm | Reply (Edit) Congrats on this blog, Alfredo. For future research and topics regarding Duval County, I will be interested in learning about exceptional and/or famous Hispanics who came from Duval County, besides yourself, of course. ML Grout | March 30, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Reply (Edit) “Storytellers are the most powerful people on earth. They might not be the best paid– but they are the most powerful. Storytellers have the power to move the human heart– and there is no greater power on earth.” ― Laurie H. Hutzler Alfredo, congratulations on your new blog adventure. Looking forward to viewing and sharing your work! paz, ML