jeansinjeans

This is a post I have been wanting to write for the past few weeks but haven’t gotten the chance to. It was inspired by my contemporary sociological theory class, where we are reading authors like Goffman, de Beauvoir, Fanon, and Du Bois. Specifically this post came along when reading an except portion from Frantz Fanon “Black Skin, White Masks” (1952).

Growing up, the phrase “history is written by the winners” was thrown around, whether it was my dad lecturing my mom and me about the news or a class he was teaching, or my sister debating just to argue. (Looking it up now, it is also commonly quoted as “history is written by the victors” but I think that sounds worst and like people named “Victor” end up on top (they don’t, I haven’t heard of any famous people named Victor- Vector from Despicable Me is the closest)). I would think about this when reading my history textbooks in late elementary/ early middle school, learning about rich Egyptian kings, English rulers with continents of land, or insanely accomplished American figures. I then decided I too wanted to write history- I knew I wanted to be a winner. For what? I didn’t know (I still don’t) but I knew that if successful, I would be able to control a narrative within history.

As I grew older I began to understand life exists outside of eighth grade and that living is expensive and a lot more work than just middle school, and that the glory that the colonialists empires that I wanted were more murderous and harmful than they let on. As these insights came in, the idea of winning became less tempting. I learned about the Euro-centric history curriculum that didn’t tell stories about non-winners and didn’t acknowledge how stories may have been skewed or written from a bias. And if when a story was presented to the class, aimed at showing diversity or varying perspectives, it was commonly interpreted and written by a white writer, interpreting a unique perspective through their own lens. I learned that “winners” had power and privilege and how they got there may not be as beautiful as the glory they are gilded in.

Fast forward, it is now February of my sophomore year and I am an almost-declared-soc-major in a theory class. In this weeks reading, Fanon talks about his experience as a black man living in Paris, the racism and discrimination he faced, and his attempts to try to integrate into a heavily white culture.

“He will tell me on the very first occasion that is not enough for the intention to be white; whiteness has to be achieved in its totality. It is only then that I become aware of the betrayal.”

Throughout the text, Fanon continuously returns to state the idea that no matter how much will or how many attempts one (he or broadly speaking black men) makes, they will never fully be accepted into whiteness.

I think this reading specifically was so interesting to me because of the pointedness in which I was able to relate. That said, I am (obviously) not a black man living in the mid 1900’s in Paris, but I am an Asian American women, living in America in the early 2000’s, who grew up in a white family in predominately white spaces (Irvine varies, but I think is built for whiteness). He continuously talks about reaching and attempting to be something (white) that he will never be able to achieve, but attempting to be the closest he can be- speaking to this coveted position of social acceptance, acceptance into the dominant culture and race. (I could/ may go into a longer explanation on feeling the need/ want to be accepted into whiteness in another post later).

With all of this blabber- back to the original portion:

History is written by the winners- to what extent is this true? On a large scale, it seems to be fairly obvious that those who end up successful and “on-top” get to control the narrative (they also historically have the education, literacy, resources, and power to record and share this narrative). The colonists, kings, rulers, dominant groups, control and record their victories, their accomplishments, their ideations. But coming into spaces, like many Oxy classes, that teach different authentic perspectives from “non-winners” one can question the validity of this statement.

One example of a possible “non-winner” who controls a dominant narrative who comes to mind and is fairly widely known is Anne Frank. Although her diary was not written with the intention of publishing (not intended to “write history” or control a narrative), her experience of the Holocaust is part of our common understanding. During the Holocaust, the Nazis and Hitler were the dominant group in Germany and most of Europe. According to this logic, they should have gotten to write the history. But Germany lost the war and Anne Frank’s vision was rescued. The Holocaust is known and written about as a horrible event that killed millions of innocent people. We have living accounts as well as written stories and physical structures and perspectives by victims and survivors that inform the dominant narrative of the Holocaust. There is so much debate to be had about this example, about defining “winners” in horrific situations like this, as well as examples that may not include the often marginal position of those not included and considered under the idea of “whiteness” at some point in history (I mention this because there have been other genocides of people who have not been included in the definition of whiteness and may not get to tell their stories.)

Added note on the previous paragraph by Dr. David S. Meyer:

_{There are constant battles over historical narratives that are directed to the present.
a. A Polish religious party controlled government for seven years up until a few months ago, and worked to take over the museums so they could control the history.
b. Martin Luther King, now celebrated as an American hero, was extremely unpopular while alive, and his support was fading after he came out against the Vietnam war—and then he died. There was a long battle to make his side the winner and rewrite the dominant histories.
c. Right now, a right wing group, Moms for Liberty, is fighting to rescue an older vision of America in which slave holders were benevolent, Native Americans weren’t subject to genocide, and the US was a Christian nation, editing out the stories of all kinds of non-white people: Native Americans, slaves, Chinese railway workers, etc.}

^{So, it’s fair to say that the winning side mostly gets to write the history, but the winners change over time. And professional historians, ensconced in academia, can rescue and write the histories of people and groups who lost a lot of the time.}

Straying off again, thinking about books bans and curriculum restrictions we are seeing across America, especially in the south, how does this impact who gets the write history and who believes what is true (and to a certain extent, who is “the winner”- ie. what group to look up to, what group you want to be apart of)? If we are not taking a critical look at these dominant history narratives, exploring these events through an intersectional lens, and reading experiences by those who may not be the “winners,” what harm and damage are we perpetuating and what limits are we creating on ourselves and on our perspectives?

To tie this all back to Fanon (and du Bois to an extent), when are marginalized groups and perspectives largely accepted, discussed, and considered in formally white or “winner” central places?

To conclude a long and winding piece, I am unsure of everything and I don’t know anything.

I think that history, broadly speaking, is written by winners. I think that sociological theory is hard. I think it is important to study the vast perspectives and truths of historical events. I think multiple narratives and truths can exist in the same event. I think it is important to continue to learn and think critically and be curious and skeptical and interested. I think I will continue my pursuit to be a winner in the capacity that I believe to be true, good, and just. To write history. But I guess that’s something I know.