Patrica Nelson Limerick

The first fundamental obstacle when trying to write about history is the fact that there is often so much information recounted by not one individual, but rather by many individuals. When you are dealing with more than one account of they way events have transpired then it becomes incredibly clear that many people see the same thing in different ways. This is especially true for me. Limerick uses the example of white man’s conquest over the Indians. That’s one is a pretty well known fact as we are all bombarded with this story from the time we are children, albeit we hear the lighter side; of how the Indians are our friends and we have never hurt them. I could talk about that, but I won’t. something more interesting happened to me over this thanksgiving weekend that I think illustrates the point just fine.
In 2006 I was working at a Wal-Mart when I was assaulted by a customer. Naturally I defended myself and struck the man back. The gentleman originally did not want to press charges, then surprisingly a month later I found that he was in fact pursuing criminal charges against me for battery. Of course I knew the truth and I couldn’t believe that I was being prosecuted. One year and 6 months later I am finally getting to trial to determine my innocence or guilt.
In the previous year his witness list was comprised of only himself and his wife of 38 years. Then the week of the trial, surprise! Two more witnesses show up that claim to have seen the whole event transpire and even tried to stop me from “beating” this helpless older gentleman. One by one the prosecution parades its case to the stand. One by one it becomes clear that not one person saw the event as it truly happened. They all placed themselves at the seen, but all of their actions did not coincide with the story of the older gentleman who was suing me.
Now of course it begs the question of truth, which I have something to say about in a later post concerning our good friend Nietzsche, however assuming that the witness were in fact telling the truth then why wouldn’t they have a story that matched the event? The two surprise witnesses could accurately describe the situation but neither one could “recall” accurately a scenario that would even be physically possible.
Of course this was plainly found out by the jury and I was found not guilty. (yes truth and justice do exist!) This event, which has been so long in coming, shows how many accounts of the same event can muddle the facts and often skewer a perspective to believe something that is not necessarily true. Remember that when you’re not sure you should believe what you see, read, hear, and most definitely with what you are told.