(Originally published April 17, 2015)
If I remember correctly,
When I was 12 or 13, I discovered something disturbing.
I was recalling how my dad said goodbye to me and my brother and my sister as he left for the funeral of his mother, my grandmother, after she was killed suddenly in a car accident. I was in 1st grade then. Later, at 12 or 13, I was fixated on that image: my sister and my brother and me, lined up by the front door, as my dad hugged us and kissed us and walked out to his car.
Then I realized:
We hadn’t moved into that house yet.
My sister hadn’t even been born yet.
I’d made that memory up.
* * *
The more scientists study memory, the more they conclude that the human brain is not like a computer. It doesn’t stores memories in neatly-indexed databases, rather like semi-organized boxes of badly faded photographs; when you find them – if you can find them – you’re forced to interpret what little you can see, and rebuild key details on the spot, unaware that you’re doing it.
It was a major event, so my brother and sister must’ve been there. And the first image of a house that comes to mind is the house we live in now.
When I realized I'd "updated" my memory, I thought I was crazy. Actually, that's just how memories work. It's why eyewitnesses aren’t reliable, through no fault of their own; an interrogator can alter or plant new memories simply by asking the right questions...
"After you saw them pull up in the car, what happened?"
(Even if they didn’t see the car, they will now remember having seen the car.)
* * *
We all know the quote by George Santayana, "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." (Even if you didn’t know the quote, you will now remember knowing it.) Key word: "Learn." We learn by creating narratives that put facts into contexts we understand. Another quote we all know, by Winston Churchill, "History is written by the victors." Key words:
1. "Written."
and
2. "Victors."
That history is "Written" subjectively, rather than "Recorded" objectively, is undeniable. But the word "Victors" implies definite entities that hold the power to write history. There aren't. "Victors" come and go. And as the "Victors" of the present change, so do the "Victors" of the past.
* * *
If I remember correctly,
I read an article a month ago - from years ago - referencing a Newsweek cover declaring Barack Obama "The First Gay President." The article said,
No, actually, the first gay president was James Buchanan.
I’d heard before that Abraham Lincoln might have been gay, but this article argued that Abraham Lincoln’s predecessor, James Buchanan, was definitely gay. Openly. It was common knowledge in Washington, perhaps elsewhere, that this "lifelong bachelor" had at least one gay lover. Buchanan’s personal letters prove his sexual orientation beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Now, the question that occurred to me was, "Why James Buchanan?"
In the "politically correct" sense, the reason to retroactively declare Abraham Lincoln gay is obvious; he’s the greatest president in American history. James Buchanan, by contrast, is the worst president in American history. The article's author, Jim Loewen, establishes elsewhere that he’s not gay and sees no personal gain in outing historical figures; but Loewen, like the rest of us, is of an era in which LGBT rights are a major issue, and our thoughts and cares and concerns are products of our eras. So, the narrative implicit in James Buchanan’s story might be:
1. While we’ve made great leaps in tolerance and diversity in the past half-century, people of prior centuries were actually more open-minded about many social issues, so we’ve still got a long way to go.
or
2. The Conservatism of 20th Century Power was an aberration, and, after our 1st Black President, it’s likely we’ll see a 1st Female President and a 2nd, or 3rd, Gay President in short order. It happened in the past, and now that the time is right, it will happen again.
Now, the question that may occur to you is, "Why did this essay suddenly turn into a discussion of homosexuality and LGBT rights? Why does every discussion these days turn into that? Is this part of the 'gay agenda' I keep hearing about?"
While I love the concept of a shadowy cabal guiding the media to report positively on gay issues, the reality is closer to this:
"Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come." (Victor Hugo)
Right now, LGBT equality is an idea whose time has come, and people want to engage it in every way possible.
Every. Single. Way. Otherwise, "Why James Buchanan?"
With the Internet, all of recorded history is at our fingertips. But the only way to sort through it is by asking specific questions, seeking specific answers. The basis on which we ask and answer those questions, what we deem noteworthy, is rooted in present concerns, and the present is ever changing. So history, even recent history, even recent personal history - my dad’s goodbye before the funeral - is totally, completely malleable. The events we call history aren't necessarily what literally happened, and become less so with time. Their "meanings," too, aren't intrinsic, but fluid.
Therefore,
the past does not exist.
* * *
What does this mean for you?
Human beings resist change. We find comfort in consistency. This is who I am, this is who I will continue to be. Others find comfort in others' consistency. Consistency, and the resulting comfort, becomes a top concern.
Good news:
If you decide to remake yourself, to become greater than you are, you’ll find that by continuously rewriting the present you can rewrite the past as well. Over time, people will forget who you used to be. So will you. The limiting beliefs you once lived by will fade, like old photographs.
Don't panic. This is normal.
If our memories were better, we'd never make history.