i'd been thinking about a process in which events in history enter into accepted-as-factual canons. and have questioned, who tells the story (placing this phrase in italics involves an acceptance of socialization via the education system) and what gets left out? the modernists make me wonder about peoples' inner lives.
filmmakers and painters and musicians make me wonder about non-narrative forms of history-creation.
for this thread, i'd be interested to read examples of alternate versions of history from the perspectives of the marginalized, and who perhaps suffer from inequitable circumstances. in other words, people whose stories are effectively excluded from the story and as such are not considered historically factual, and therefore easily dismissed as marginal.
the novels, passing and quicksand, by nella larsen would be great examples of historical works that represent specific identity formulations directly in conflict to the canon's expectations (of the representation of blacks, women and how either ought to be and behave).
filmmakers and painters and musicians make me wonder about non-narrative forms of history-creation.
for this thread, i'd be interested to read examples of alternate versions of history from the perspectives of the marginalized, and who perhaps suffer from inequitable circumstances. in other words, people whose stories are effectively excluded from the story and as such are not considered historically factual, and therefore easily dismissed as marginal.
the novels, passing and quicksand, by nella larsen would be great examples of historical works that represent specific identity formulations directly in conflict to the canon's expectations (of the representation of blacks, women and how either ought to be and behave).
Last edited: