In History - Jamaica Kincaid

Progression number 1

“In History”

         As every person grows up, we all go through a process called learning, which we experiment, challenge ourselves, and take in the knowledge that our ancestors have built up. Although each individual is taught differently, we all have a common pattern of learning where we accept the information given to us without questioning it. Overtime, it becomes a habit, and we tend to resist changing it. Jamaica Kincaid, the author of “ In History” challenges us to rethink the accuracy of what is called “facts” and “history” that we learn and believe. Through her process of re-discovering history, she guides the readers to expose their faults of learning history. Rather than pointing out the problems, the author creates a character who re-tells history so that readers can reflect themselves through the mistakes of character.

        “What to call thing that happened to me all who look like me?

        Should I call it history?

        If so, what should history mean to someone like me?” (1)

        By beginning her with not one but three questions, Kincaid forces readers to engage with her from the beginning of the conversation. The readers do not necessarily talk to the author but to the character that she plays herself. Some may say that she plays with the readers through a psychological game. Throughout the essay, this character keeps asking more questions and making more judgment toward historical figures.  Thus, readers could not resist but engage in her conversation no matter if they criticize, laugh, or judge her. In this game, Kincaid portrays a character that may confuse and anger readers by her own judgments on historical events, her assumptions on historical figures, and her negligence to historical details. The more readers go more deeply into the essay, the more interpretive thoughts the character portrays. However, thanks to these interpretive problems, readers have a chance to self-criticize their process of learning history while some may find this laughable or non-sense.

        As the character progresses her analysis, she makes judgments by putting her perspectives on top of other people’s perspectives of seeing things. She explains that what Christopher Columbus saw as “marvelous” might not be very extraordinary. She continues, ”and yet the expected turned out to be the most ordinary things: people, the sky, the sun, the land, the water surrounding the land, the things growing on the land.”(3) Although this may be true that what Columbus described as “marvelous” was just ordinary, Kincaid was not at the period of time to testify his description. The land and the things he saw may be really “marvelous” at that time, the time where nature was the finest, the time where industrialization and ambition of humans had not destroyed nature. The point is we including Kincaid did not witness it except for Columbus. Thus, the judgment is invalid.  Through this, the character’s view in this case reflects our perspectives in life. We tend to put other people’s thoughts and situations into our shoes, and try to fit them all in.

...