on history and memory

Of memory and history

The author of this article opens an interesting topic of discussion regarding ‘’modern history’’ verses historical memory. In order to discuss this we must look into what is historical and collective memory.
History places itself outside and beyond particular groups; it establishes periods in a clear-cut but artificial and constructed manner. It tends to draw a single and unified picture of the past. It is external and pays attention to differences. Collective memory on the other hand is limited to groups and is always fragmented. It is present much more in oral and folk practices .it is limited in the distinction of periods.
The author points out that modern history confines it self to understanding events in a unified linear line, and thus it undermines the importance of individual points of view. In his argument that history is removed from memory is something I disagree with. History forms the basic factual line of information. When we read history about the by gone eras we get an idea, maybe a clinical one on how or what or when the event happened. This now, like for example a grid system gives us the right or correct coordinates where in to fit in information received from individuals or of reiteration of events. Just the way we put the event into context we then need to understand how memory retains not in a linear manner. We keep events in respect to our own experiences our own understanding and associations from our past. Certain things are more amplified or underplayed depending on the circumstances of the person.
Like for example our nation went through partition in 1946 and then independence in 1947. if one was to completely depend on indusial memory we would within the nation state by state have a different understanding of the time period. The west would have a more emotional hear breaking version where as in the south one would have a vague distance memory unless some one they knew etc was directly affected as that would affect the person more strong but not as strong as if, if they were there and directly affected. Here if we have modern history specifically laying all the facts, the dates the pacts the data on no. of people affected it would be inhuman un-emotional and detached. Making it highly dry cut and undermining the fact that it actually took place and real people were affected. Thus I feel we need to take the analytical data/ information and fill it with the understanding and empathy it deserves.