Link to my Go-To for editing guidelines: Purdue OWL
|It is a baby owl... Get it?|
Now that the end of this internship is coming to an end, I have been reflecting more on what it means to be a historian. Just from these past two weeks of composing the biographies and now having them be edited and fine tuned, writing history really is a process. I remember many professors in my past classes ask "What is history? and how is history created?". Many say that history is written by the winners and those with the education and ability to record events. Although those are very well answers, to me I think it takes more than education and a pen and paper, it is the conviction or lack there of, of the historian who is writing history. What I mean by that is the relevance of information is up to the discretion of the reader/writer/observer and what he or she may find important or not, another person may very well think the opposite. For example, I think it is important to include facts such as Ellacu being an incredible soccer player or that Obdulio planted two yellow rose bushes for his wife and daughter to be information that ought to be included in their biographies. To me, those small pieces of information give a more complete picture of the individuals. My point is this- what is written as "history" does not give the entire picture, and how could it? It would be impossible to record every account of every person, but a lot sure does get lost. I want to make the audience aware that the Jesuits and Ramos family were more than victims who were killed, they were very involved people inside and out of their communities. They faced hardships and were living in a civil war. I could go on and on, but hopefully if you choose to read the biographies you will get a more complete picture.