Abstract
ABSTRACT Rhetorical scholars working with archival materials face the persistent question: “What happened?” Records are present, yet what they record is absent. This essay addresses the historical narrative of the Texas Supreme Court case, Johnson v. Darr. This event and its expansive archive have been used as evidence for political claims to significance. Drawing from Michelle Ballif, we attempt a “hospitable historiography.” Discussing the tension between the archival “cut outs” and the event’s inherent “eventfulness,” we suggest that archival ruptures may offer insights into the significance of the past. We explore the ethical considerations of historiography, particularly in relation to feminist methodologies and the need to acknowledge the multifaceted identities of historical figures. We conclude, proposing a reevaluation of the event’s significance, challenging traditional interpretive frameworks, and advocating for a more hospitable approach to historiography. The gambit is to know the past otherwise. The potential gain is both methodological and ethical.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
