Ever since I was a child, I have been told, "If you're not an eyewitness, you're a false witness." Now, as an aspiring historian, I question the true validity of that statement, and Lewis Gaddis seems to do the same in his book, Landscape of History. Human beings have long desired the ability to travel back in time and witness historical events firsthand, with many people believing time travel would open our eyes to people, places, and events that were somehow left out of the textbooks, therefore giving us a clearer understanding of what actually happened.
While time travel may allow someone to witness significant events firsthand, the answer to whether or not time travel would provide a better understanding of the events is highly conditional. As Gaddis described in Chapter One of his book, a man or woman who traveled back in time would find themselves enduring the same struggles that the people of that time were enduring, and this may serve as an obstacle for the historian. For example, someone who travels to the time of the Bubonic Plague in Europe would find themselves trying to avoid the plague, therefore that person wouldn't really be able to study, in depth, the events unfolding. The only way one could really study his/her chosen time period or event would be if they could somehow watch those events unfold without actually being in the midst of the war, plague, battle, etc., but that would defeat the whole purpose of time travel, would it not? Lastly, studying events ex post facto allows us to study an event in its entirety, examine the causes and effects, and with a relatively unbiased view.
The fact that we were unable witnessed some of these events firsthand does not imply that we are unable to understand and recount them as they happened. For all we know, if we traveled back to Nazi-occupied Europe, we may risk becoming another victim of the holocaust, whereas reading about it, talking to those who lived through it, and studying it, is much safer, and, after all, hindsight is 20/20.
I too thought about actually living through the events and I must say that I'll pass. However I kind of looked at it as being on the outside looking in. I definitely wouldn't want to relive any events from most parts of history, but I would not be opposed to having a secured front row seat. Just a protected seat!!!
ReplyDeleteJ. Hayward
I like how you look at the dangers that acomppany time travel. While it would be a fantastic opportunity to see the past there is the danger of becoming part of that past. Good job!
ReplyDeleteEmily A.
I agree! The traveler would be too involved with daily survival to really take in the whole of what is happening at the time.
ReplyDelete