Flett 1

Writer's Memo

The beginning of my drafting process consisted of a random collection of my thoughts on my

experience and then on Kincaid ’s essay. I tried to word vomit; to write down all of my thoughts

on both my situation and on Kinkaid’s writing without establishing any sort of line of reasoning

between the two. I found the 1.2 and 1.3 exercises extremely helpful because they allowed me to

grasp a solid idea of what I most wanted to emphasize throughout my essay. Once I chose the

main points for Kinkaid’s writing, I struggled to pick out which ones I most wanted to elaborate

on. The comments on my rough draft and second draft about using what related best to my own

experience to streamline the point of my essay helped me narrow down my focus on Kinkaid’s

essay. Consequently, I had more room to deepen my analysis, something I did between the

second and final draft with help from the comments on which questions required expansion. I

found it very helpful to write my own experience in a kind of creative, storytelling style. As a

whole my writing through this progression got more specific and narrow, where I could dive

deeper into the connections and analysis. Reading both Jules’ and Milena’s essays allowed me to

experience how they represented their text, and make sure I had accurately conceptualized mine.

In revising my essay I attempted to read in sections, making sure each focus was relevant to my

problem as a whole, as well as closely checking for details I may have missed when reading from

start to finish. I do wonder; am I qualified to be synthesizing Kinkaids essay, choosing which

points are most important from it? As a practice I know this writing is a combination of my

synthesis of the text and my own experience, but I wonder if any of our arguments become

distorted as I choose points which fit my narrative?

 Flett 2

Emma Flett

Mrs. Lepri

Writing the Essay

3 October 2021

Subjectivity of “Facts”: What History Has in Common With Gingerbread Houses

The holidays are the season I look forward to most. So when two of my best friends invited me

to have a gingerbread decorating contest, I was more than excited. I turned up to Brooke’s house,

sleeping bag in tow, and Kate informed me that they invited their boyfriends. I didn't mind, it

was a celebration; the more, the merrier!

When it was time to begin, the boys teamed up while the girls worked separately. As the

timer went off we were laughing at the sheer difference between houses; laughing as the boys

scribbled on their unsalvageable mess of a house. But one of the scribbles took shape: A shape

that immediately halted my laughter.

Because dead center of that stupid, ugly, house they had drawn a swastika.

A swastika that they were now posing with, photographing, as if it were a wonderful,

novel design. And my friends? They said nothing.​​Chuckling nervously, they turned away, as if

pretending not to see it would justify their inaction.

See, I would rather stand in awkward silence in an elevator than create conversation that

would end in that same silence, and I avoid confrontation at all costs to save myself the dwelling.

So, how exactly was I to address a group of boys I barely knew and confront my best

friends about their bystanding? Well, the short answer is that I didn’t. Never have I wanted more

to be someone who can yell. Instead, I walked to the bathroom and dissolved into tears of anger

and shock. I, as a Jewish woman, sat there and let them draw a swastika. I felt so enraged, sad,
 Flett 3

betrayed. I was so mad at myself; mad for caring about what they thought of me, for not wanting

them to think I couldn't “take a joke”. Why was I so concerned about people I had no respect or

love for?

I would have been happier that day if I had said something -- I wouldn’t feel so guilty,

like the weakest link in my community. Why would I sit there and allow blatant antisemitism to

sit proudly, undisturbed?

Maybe the “facts'' of history played a role in influencing the events of that day. I bring

this up not to shift the blame, but to consider all possibilities of contributing influences, with

history as background noise, rumbling in our everyday lives. Jamaica Kincaid’s essay, In History,

explores this intersection between fact and bias, delineating her feelings towards our world’s

subjective reality, and where she stands within it. The dominant side of history propagates the

narrative it wants to relay, one which often ignores the people, cultures, and establishments that

came before. Columbus’ ignorant accounts of the Americas neglect Kincaid ’s ancestors’

histories and lives, bringing forth questions like, “what should history mean to someone like

me?” and then, “why should I be obsessed with these questions?” (Kincaid 620). How is it fair

that the events of history which she had no part in make her continually question her place in the

past and present? She goes on to examine her feelings about her cultural identity in relation to

how history has treated her ancestors. She asks herself “should it be an open wound and each

breath … healing and opening the wound again and again, over and over, or is it a moment that

began in 1492 and has come to no end yet?” (Kincaid 620). The repetitions of the words “again”

and “over” place emphasis on the continual strife these questions cause her internally. Since

1492 was the “discovery” of the Americas, we can infer that the inciting event of this wound was

its invasion, and since then “each breath [she] take[s]” has been followed by these uncertainties;
 Flett 4

she does not go a day, not a second, without dealing with these questions -- it's as much of a part

of living for her as breathing. This constant struggle begs the question of how her ancestors'

distinct history is compatible with the “discovery” of the Americas. Is there a way to reconcile

the two? Or are the events of the past still present and relevant in the story which is still writing

itself today?

Kincaid continues to question the truthfulness of how we account for history, asking

herself “[Is it a collection of facts, all true and precise details, and, if so, when I come across

these, what should I do, how should I feel, where should I place myself?”(Kincaid 620). The

intersection of her focus on “fact and precise detail,” with her question of how she should feel is

interesting; usually one looks to facts for evidence or argument, but here she uses “facts” as a

point of reference. This is telling in how the “facts” are not representative of her truth; and thus

she must decide how she may feel about them. When the “truths” and “certainties” implied in the

word “fact” do not apply to all, it is no longer an objective form of reasoning. So then, how does

one reconcile their past and that of their ancestors when the information they have to go off of is

written by the very side which destroyed their culture, autonomy, and history?

She further delves into this argument of her role in both past and current events when she

asks “[w]hy should I be obsessed with all these questions?”(Kincaid 620). This is a personal

question; why is she individually tasked with resolving these questions? What exactly makes her

responsible for answering the questions which continually burn inside of her? I’m not sure if

there is a concrete answer she is looking for; and even if there could be one, I am doubtful this

conclusion would remain a constant throughout her life. So then, who should solve this continual

strife? Are the “facts” of history doomed to remain subjective?

 Flett 5

Through Kincaid's writing, I have gained a new perspective on how the “facts'' of history

relate to my experience of bias. Kinkaid’s investigation of her place in the advancement of

history led me to question how my experience fits into the larger narrative of bias that is implicit

throughout our society. This brought me to Kinkaid’s next point: why should I be the one to

address these questions? Because although I wish that I had spoken up, perhaps it is not my job

to teach others to correct the biases they do not care to address. For them, the reality of

antisemitism “vanished’’ alongside Hitler when he died. For me, the nuances of history linger,

dirtying my current reality. These different understandings of the “facts” of history could be at

the heart of this situation. One allowed the bias to be written off as a thing of the past, harmless,

even. The other classified it as a continuation of a long narrative of inequality, something unable

to be ignored, and still relevant in the establishment of equality today.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Milena and Jules for editing my essay and offering meaningful feedback

that really helped me consolidate my ideas and focus my argument. My suitemate Eloise was

also a huge help in reading over my essay. She was able to offer a perspective of someone who

has not read Kinkaid’s writing, making sure my reasoning was clear and understandable without

a background knowledge of the reading.

 Flett 6

Works Cited:

Kincaid, Jamaica. “In History”. Literature, Arts & Culture Journal, Callaloo, Spring 2001.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_aYVcKIgkbjqCk8w6eKvKN2JVmKDccwB/view
 Flett 7

Emma Flett

Mrs. Lepri

Writing the Essay

25 September 2021

Radical Revision

The holidays are usually the season I look forward to most: I love the cozy blankets, warm drinks,

friendly gatherings, and anything to do with snow (which granted I don’t get a ton of living in Texas, but

the concept is still there). So when two of my best friends invited me to have a gingerbread decorating

contest in full festive pajamas and holiday music, I was more than excited. I turn up to Brooke’s house,

sleeping bag in tow. Kate’s already there, and she informed me that they also invited their boyfriends. I

didn't mind, I mean it was a celebration; the more, the merrier! I waited impatiently for them to arrive so

that we could start the fun, making sure all of the decorations and house pieces were in place. Finally it

was time to begin, and the boys teamed up on their own house while the girls worked on two separate

ones. Ours were going great; a few mishaps but in general really holding up well. The boys, on the other

hand, were struggling to say the least. As the timer went off we were all laughing; at the sheer difference

between the houses we had made. Laughing as the boys drew squiggles on their unsalvageable mess of

a house. But one of the squiggles took shape. A shape that if I would have been standing up, would have

knocked me flat on my back. I immediately stopped laughing. But no one else noticed. No, they were

laughing even harder than before. [Because dead center of that stupid, ugly, house they had drawn a

swastika.]* A swastika that they were now posing with, photographing it, as if it was a novel design they

just recently had the genius of inventing. And my friends? They didn’t say anything.​​They chuckled

nervously, then turned away, as if pretending not to see it would absolve them from having to say

anything.

See, I’m the kind of person who would rather stand in awkward silence in an elevator than have

to create conversation and have it end in that same silence, but when I’m with a group of people I love,
 Flett 8

you will find me virtually screaming in public. Talking in class makes me sweat and I avoid confrontation at

all costs because I hate having to think about it for months after.

So how exactly was I to address a group of boys I didn’t really know and confront my best friends

about being bystanders in this situation? Well, the short answer is that I didn’t. [But never have I wanted

more to be the kind of person who is good at yelling*. Because instead I got right up and walked to the

bathroom, and immediately dissolved into angry, shocked tears.] In private I told Kate why I was mad

because she still didn’t get it, and yet I never confronted them. I, as a Jewish woman, sat there and let

them draw a swastika. I felt so enraged and sad and betrayed. And yet all I could do was cry. And I was

so mad at myself. Mad for caring about what they thought of me, for not wanting them to think I was the

sensitive, unfunny, girl who couldnt “take a joke”. [Why was I so concerned about these people who I had

no respect or love for?*

I want to figure out why I care so much about what other people think]. I really believe I would be

so much happier if I wasn't constantly fixated on the thoughts of how other people around me are

perceiving me, if they are upset, angry, or any other emotion which frankly should not be my problem. If I

could stop caring so much I think I could be so much more true to myself in allowing myself to do the

things I want to say and act on. I do think I’m getting there; I certainly am less dependent on the thoughts

of others than I was earlier in life, but the process is exceedingly slow. You can’t just flick a switch and go

from a chronic people pleaser to a free floating spirit.*

I do know that I most definitely would have been happier that day at Brookes’ if I had said

something. Then I wouldn’t feel so guilty, like the weakest link in my community, because why would I sit

there and allow that blatant antisemitism to sit proudly, undisturbed?

Maybe the “facts” of history played a subconscious role in the way others as well as myself acted

on that day. Not to shift the blame, but only to consider all of the influences which may have contributed to

the events. This intersection of facts and bias in history is explored throughout the essay “In History”, by

Jamaica Kincaid. In this text she examines her feelings towards the very subjective reality of the world we

live in today, one which often lacks much nuance, through a recounting of Columbus' “discovery” of the

Americas and her own personal experiences. The dominant side of history gets to write and propagate

the narrative which they want to tell, one which more often than not leaves out the people, things,
 Flett 9

cultures, establishments, etc which came before. These uncertainties concerning the ignorance towards

Kincaid ’s ancestors’ histories and lives bring forth questions like, “what should history mean to someone

like me?” and then, “why should I be obsessed with these questions?” (Kincaid 620). How is it fair that

the events and retelling of history which she has had no part in make her continually question her place in

the past and present? Kincaid continues to explore the complexities of how one's perspective on what is

important is fundamentally subjective, and thus how this outlook on life allowed people like Columbus to

advance without a second thought to those who had established their lives, and instead regard his

“discovery” as a blank slate to write on however he saw fit. This carelessness is so impactful because his

account of the “world” would become much of what those today have to go off of; “[m]y world then—the

only world I might have known if circumstances had not changed, intervened, would have entered the

human imagination, the human imagination that I am familiar with, the only one that dominates the world

in which I live—came into being as a footnote to someone just passing by” (Kincaid 622). [What he

deemed worth noting versus what to him was not important enough for preservation or note remains

largely lost in history, and thus Kincaid must struggle with how to reconcile this basic ignorance and

injustice which happened so long before her birth but continues to affect her ancestors and her in the

present, all this time later.]

Kincaid goes on to examine her own feelings about her cultural identity and past in relation to

history and how it has treated her ancestors. She asks herself “[s]hould it be an idea, should it be an

open wound and each breath I take in and expel healing and opening the wound again and again, over

and over, or is it a moment that began in 1492 and has come to no end yet?” (Kincaid 620). The

repetitions of the words “again” and “over” place an emphasis on the continual strife these questions

cause her internally. Since 1492 was the “discovery” of the Americas by Columbus, we can infer that the

inciting event of this wound was its invasion, and since then “each breath [she] take[s]” has been followed

by these uncertainties; she does not go a day, not a second even, without dealing with these questions,

it's as much of a part of living for her as breathing. Kincaids’ constant struggle with how she should

approach her history and the history of her ancestors begs the question of how this distinct history is

compatible with that of the discovery of the Americas and how we approach this event today. Is there a

way to reconcile the two? Or are the events of the past still present and relevant in the story which is still
 Flett 10

writing itself today?* Kincaid continues to question the truthfulness and merit of how we account for

history when she asks herself “ [Is it a collection of facts, all true and precise details, and, if so, when I

come across these true and precise details, what should I do, how should I feel, where should I place

myself? “(Kincaid 620). The intersection of her focus on “fact and precise detail” with the question of how

she should feel is interesting; usually one looks to facts for evidence or argument, but here she looks to

these facts as a point of reference in attempting to determine her emotions. This is telling in how the

“facts” in this situation are not representative of the truth of her ancestors; and thus she must decide how

she may feel about them. Does she accept them? But then what is the alternative? Is there even one?

There are no forthcoming accounts or living people to verify with, and if there were, is it worth attempting

to address this nuance of history? When the “truths” and “certainties” which are implied in the word fact

do not apply to all, it is no longer an objective form of reasoning. But now that we have acknowledged the

subjectivity of history in relation to “facts”, where does that put us?* How does one reconcile their own

past and that of their ancestors when the information they have to go off of is written by the very side

which conquered and largely destroyed their culture, autonomy, and history?

She further delves into this argument of her role in both past and current events when she asks

“[w]hy should I be obsessed with all these questions?”(Kincaid 620). This is of course a very personal

question; why does she in particular have to be the one constantly troubled by these questions? Because

she definitely did not cause any of the events which led up to the inequality and domination of her past

culture and contributed to the previous evolution to the world that exists now. So then how is it fair that

others live without a second thought about their origins or how history has continually erased them from

the past? Or maybe even more unfair, how do those who played a part in erasing the nuance of history

get to live their everyday lives without a second thought about these same questions?* Should they not

be the ones tasked with these ponderings? I think this last rhetorical question of the series is so

meaningful; what exactly makes her responsible for answering these questions which burn inside of her

continually? And after asserting how often and how skewed the answers are, it seems as if there is not a

plausible escape or conclusion to these ponderings. I’m not sure if there is a concrete answer she is

looking for in herself; and even if there could be one at a particular point in time, I am even more doubtful
 Flett 11

that this conclusion would remain throughout her life. So then, how and who should be the ones to solve

this

continual strife? Is there a plausible way to allow history to account for the voices that have been

generationally silenced?

It should not be one's problem to deal with fitting history to themselves. History should be an

unbiased force which fits itself to them instead.[It is unfair that those who have been so continually left out

of the narrative have to struggle with their feelings towards the current and past narratives, as well as

figure out how to feel when looking at these “facts” which are so much so not a fact for them and their

ancestors]

With all of these questions and contradictions presented in Kincaid's writing, I have gained a new

perspective on my situation and how I should relate to the facts of history and their role in my experience

of bias. Maybe my reaction was not only because of all the emotions in the moment, but also the history

and “facts'' which occurred before me, all compounding to contribute to the experience I retold. It is a fact

that I did not say anything to scold what the boys did that day, but maybe my feelings about that fact are

telling and just as worth examining.

 Flett 12

Emma Flett

Mrs. Lepri

Writing the Essay

20 September 2021

Exercise 1.3
 Flett 13

Kinkaid is primarily trying to get at her feelings towards the very subjectivee reality of the world

we live in today which often lacks much nuance. The dominant side of history gets to write and

propagate the narrative which they want to tell, one which more often than not leaves out the

people, things, cultures, establishments, etc which came before. These uncertainties about the

ignorance towards her ancestors’ histories and lives thus bring forth questions like, “what should

history mean to someone like me?”and then, “why should I be obsessed with these questions?”

(Kinkaid 620). Because how is it fair that the events and retelling of history which she has had no

part in make her continually question her place in the past and present. Kinkaid continues to

explore the complexities of how one's perspective on what is important is fundamentally

subjective, and thus how this outlook on life allowed people like Columbus to advance without a
 Flett 14

second thought to those who had established their lives, and instead regard his “discovery” as a

blank slate to write on however he saw fit. This carelessness is so impactful because his account of

the “world” would become much of what those today have to go off of; “[m]y world then—the only

world I might have known if circumstances had not changed, intervened, would have entered the

human imagination, the human imagination that I am familiar with, the only one that dominates

the world in which I live—came into being as a footnote to someone just passing by” (Kinkaid

622). What he noticed and deemed worth keeping versus what he deemed not important enough

for preservation or note remain largely lost in history, and thus Kinkaid must struggle with how to

reconcile this basic ignorance and injustice which happened so long before her birth but

continues t0 effect her ancestors and her in the present, all this time later.

Emma Flett

Mrs. Lepri

Writing the Essay

15 September 2021

Exercise 1.2
 Flett 15

Dialogic Journal

Text Observations/ Questions/confusions Thoughts in response

Paraphrase in response to the text to these questions
and text

Should it be an idea, Repetitions of the What exactly causes Kincaids’ constant

should it be an open words again and the author to ask struggle with how she
wound and each over; emphasize the herself these should approach her
breath I take in and continual strife questions? What is so history and the
expel healing and these questions integral to her being history of her
opening the wound cause that she cannot go a ancestors begs the
again and again, 1492: discovery of few seconds without question of how this
over and over, or is the Americas by questioning these distinct history is
it a moment that Columbus things? compatible with that
began in 1492 and of the discovery of the
has come to no end “Each breath I take”: Americas and the
yet? (Kincaid 620) how the author history which is
herself does not go a taught here. Is there a
day, not a second way to reconcile the
even, without two? Or are the
dealing with these events of the past still
questions= it is just present and relevant
a part of living atm in the story which is
for her writing itself today?

Is it a collection of Facts= in history fact Which facts/ specific This passage now
facts, all true and is extremely difficult details is she getting seems to deal with
precise details, and, to discern, the at? The ones written the intersection of
if so, when I come dominant influence by Columbus? By her subjectivity in history
across these true will spread their ancestors? The ones and how it is skewed
and precise details, “fact”, however it is simply taught in towards the dominant
what should I do, almost always history today? side. How does one
how should I feel, subjective to the reconcile their own
where should I times and whoever past and that of their
 Flett 16

place myself? is writing this ancestors when the

(Kincaid 620) history. information they have
The intersection of to go off of is written
her focus on “fact by the veryside which
and precise detail” conquered and largely
with the question of destroyed their
how she should feel culture, autonomy,
is interesting; and history.
usually one looks to
facts for evidence or
argument, here she
looks to these facts
as a point of
reference in
attempting to
determine her
emotions.

Why should I be Very personal Interesting that she I think this last
obsessed with all question; why does references no one else rhetorical question of
these questions? she in particular who is asking these the series is so
(Kincaid 620) have to be the one questions, only meaningful; what
constantly troubled herself. Does she think exactly makes her
by these questions? that others also think responsible for
How is it fair that this way or that she is answering these
other live without a so obsessed with these questions which burn
second thought struggles? inside of her
about their origins continually. And after
or how the history asserting how often
has continually and how skewed the
erased them from answers are, it seems
the past. as if there is not a
plausible escape or
conclusion to these
ponderings.
 Flett 17

Kinkaid uses the beginning three paragraphs of her essay in order to examine her

own feelings about her cultural identity and past in relation to history and how it has

treated her ancestors. She asks herself “[s]hould it be an idea, should it be an open wound

and each breath I take in and expel healing and opening the wound again and again, over

and over, or is it a moment that began in 1492 and has come to no end yet?” (Kincaid 620).

The repetitions of the words again and over place an emphasis on the continual strife

these questions cause her internally. Since 1492 was the “discovery” of the Americas by

Columbus, we can infer that the inciting event of this wound was its invasion, and since

then “each breath [she] take[s]” has been followed by these uncertainties; she does not go

a day, not a second even, without dealing with these questions, it's as much of a part of

living for her as breathing. Kincaids’ constant struggle with how she should approach her

history and the history of her ancestors begs the question of how this distinct history is

compatible with that of the discovery of the Americas and how we approach this event

today. Is there a way to reconcile the two? Or are the events of the past still present and

relevant in the story which is still writing itself today?

Kinkaid continues to question the truthfulness and merit of how we account for

history when she asks herself “ [iIs it a collection of facts, all true and precise details, and,

if so, when I come across these true and precise details, what should I do, how should I

feel, where should I place myself? “(Kincaid 620). The intersection of her focus on “fact

and precise detail” with the question of how she should feel is interesting; usually one

looks to facts for evidence or argument, here she looks to these facts as a point of
 Flett 18

reference in attempting to determine her emotions. This is telling in how the “facts” in

this situation are not representative of the truth of her ancestors; and thus she must

decide how she may feel about them. Does she accept them? But then what is the

alternative? Is there even one? There are no forthcoming accounts or living people to

verify with, and if there were, is it worth attempting to address this nuance of history?

These questions in the passage seem to deal with the subjectivity of history and how it is

skewed towards the dominant side. How does one reconcile their own past and that of

their ancestors when the information they have to go off of is written by the very side

which conquered and largely destroyed their culture, autonomy, and history.

She further delves into this argument of subjectivity and her role in all of the past

and current events when she asks “[w]hy should I be obsessed with all these

questions?”(Kincaid 620). This is of course a very personal question; why does she in

particular have to be the one constantly troubled by these questions? Because she

definitely did not cause any of the events which led up to the inequality and domination

of her past culture and contributed to the world around her. So then how is it fair that

others live without a second thought about their origins or how history has continually

erased them from the past? Or maybe even more unfair, how do those who played a part

in erasing the nuance of history get to live their everyday lives without a second thought

about these same questions? Should they not be the ones tasked with these ponderings? I

think this last rhetorical question of the series is so meaningful; what exactly makes her

responsible for answering these questions which burn inside of her continually? And after

asserting how often and how skewed the answers are, it seems as if there is not a plausible
 Flett 19

escape or conclusion to these ponderings. I’m not sure if there is a concrete answer she is

looking for in herself; and even if there could be one at a particular point in time, I am

even more doubtful that this conclusion would remain throughout her life. So then, how

and who should be the ones to solve this continual strife? Is there a plausible way to allow

history to account for the voices that have been generationally silenced?