history

Yesterday I spent an hour of my day sitting quietly and asking about things around the room--paintings on the wall, books and photographs on the coffee table. My company was a quiet woman whom I found to be really lovely on first meeting, and more so on subsequent visits. We talked about travels--she's been to Siberia, the only person I've met to take the Trans-Siberian railroad, and she was in her seventies when she went. Nowadays she finds most fit nestled in a chair, reading. She worked as a librarian for most of her life, and now spends most of her days with a book. She likes history.

I've never been half as interested in history as in literature. It's one of the main reasons I abandoned thoughts of journalism freshman year of college, after spending the latter half of high school toying with the idea. For me, fiction over fact. But one general life goal is to seek stories in real life, and not just real life in stories. To be less in my head and more engaged with the outside. And, while I associate literature with more nuance than other areas, sometimes it's not so good to be immersed in detail.

Have been reading Samantha Power's book on genocide, Problem from Hell. One thing that strikes me in her portrayal of America's inaction in regard to all major 20th century genocides, is how much we evaluate things based on what's around it and often falsely call this considering context and learning from history. She brings attention to how our experiences affect our responses: how we didn't want to intervene in Cambodia because we'd just failed in the Vietnam War, how we didn't want to stop Iraq because we were scared of Iran. And we hear it in the news all the time now: we can't help Libya because look at how badly all of our other Middle Eastern ventures have gone. And we link everything together: why not help Syria too then; we can't help everyone.

The irony in calling this taking lessons from the past is so suffocating, it's hard to first read about in history and secondly consider how perpetual it is. Of course there is always context we need to consider, but if you really want to give credence to context, consider the individual situation and present time. Cambodia isn't Vietnam, Libya isn't Syria, or Iraq. And if you want to look at patterns, why not focus on what actually is similar--that Cambodia's Khmer Rouge was as deadly as Hitler's Nazis, that Libya's Qaddafi is as brutal as Iraq's Hussein. The politics and convenience of choosing what to take from history's patterns and what to dismiss from them, and the inability to evaluate the nuances of a particular situation, makes for such mess and incompleteness. That's a little of what I get from the bigger picture.

This perspective, and many miles from my own doorstep, helps to bring the narrow of my life into better focus. I've taken on one of the harder endeavors I've devised for myself, with a little push from M whose point of view I trust and respect, who believes that persistence really does overcome even natural incapacities. Which is considering my own patterns that aren't so useful or pleasant. Instead of imposing these often illogical patterns on my life, I want to more rationally approach situations as they arise. To consider the context that matters, to discard misapplied context, to leave room for what's new and different, to learn from what's old and recurring. This is pretty damn hard when you are both the evaluator and the object of evaluation, but probably one of the worthier goals to pursue.

From the woman and her books, I admire that someone at the end of her life can seek more to be learned from the past. From Samantha Power, I admire the ability to learn about facts as distinct components and part of a larger whole. From M, I admire the drive to try at whatever you want, the belief that you never have to feel trapped by your own self. And so for me, and for every person really, lies the process of taking what you value and living it.