When I took American history in eighth grade, my teacher split us into groups to teach us about the Boston Massacre.  She gave us each an eyewitness account, which she told us to read and discuss as a group. (Oh, the censorship of 18th century writing: “g-d damn it!”)  We went on our merry way for a few minutes, then she called on each group and asked the members to describe what happened on March 5, 1770. Each group had a different explanation for who started it, who reacted, and what exactly happened.  We students wondered how this could be, but not my teacher. She explained, “I gave each group a different account: some of you got the Patriots’ perspective, and some of you got the British soldiers’ perspective.” It was especially thought-provoking for me, who learned the colonists were the poor unfortunate victims and the Redcoats were the perpetrators, to read a report from one of the wicked Redcoats himself.  He described angry colonists yelling at him and cursing the soldiers out, not exactly the innocent and helpless victims of a massacre. Clever, Miss Fleming.  

I never forgot that lesson, and I wonder how history class would be different if everything was taught that way.  It would make a more cumbersome history class, but perhaps more enlightening and engaging.  Can we ever factor in and represent every possible perspective? I think not, though my perspective as a writer in the ongoing diversity push comes into play here.  With intersectionality, there are so many groups and perspectives that I don’t think it’s possible or at least practical to include every one. Further, not every historical event involves every group, and not every group is accessible to us now.  For instance, the Chinese weren’t very involved in the Boston Massacre, and we know of the existence of Amazon tribes who are still uncontacted. We won’t be hearing their perspective on World War II or the Watergate scandal.  

Miss Fleming’s method follows the New Historical ideas of interpretation and subjectivity.  If a class were to go by this system, some may ask, “Well, if it’s all subjective, how can students ever learn facts about history?”  Really, it’s not all subjective: dates, most locations, and names, for instance, are generally undisputable. But as Miss Fleming showed us, subjectivity isn’t just limited to who was right or wrong.  Psychology class shows us the unreliability and variability of eyewitness accounts, which is how most history is learned at the root. It’s very deconstructive, looking at it that way: a fractal of interpretations and meanings.  And like deconstruction, a more varied perspective can help remake our identity as Americans and people.