When I was reading about history in the textbook, I couldn't help but come back to the ideas of relativism and universalism. Much of chapter four was about how different types of history influence our identity. It included more types of history than I would ever guess existed; there was family, national, diasporic, colonial, religious, and more histories than I could name. Our identities seem to be pulled in countless directions by different accounts of events. It is no wonder then that so much of the differences between cultures is built upon differences in history.

For example, the anniversary of September 11th just recently passed. My roommate, who is from New England, said she thought that no one really cared about 9/11 anymore. I had to disagree. Because I grew up in the D.C. area, I think the history of that day is different to me, although I can't really explain how. (But to put it in perspective, my mother still talks about escape plans and moving to the country). Just experiencing the same moment in time, but in a different place, can change a person's perspective, not to mention the differences in perspective than can come from conflicting experiences. This is not the best example of how history affects our identity, but I think it works.

What I was getting to about relativism is this. If our history can vary not just from culture to culture, but from person to person, doesn't that support the idea that nothing can be absolute, and that everything is subjective? If everything is subjective, how could we ever agree on, say, a family history, let alone a national history or grand narrative? And how important are these agreed-upon accounts? It is amazing to me that there is any human consensus at all when I see more and more how different we all view things.