The point being made here seems obvious, but I hadn’t considered it so explicitly before. It really added to my understanding of historical relevance. Historical significance is so often afforded by materiality. This includes not only the physical but also positionality. Trouillot’s writing in this chapter often draws on the idea of mirroring. In this case the idea that stood out to me was that the material conditions of a thing or place reflect the history of, narrative of, or popular attitudes towards that same thing, and vice versa. Sans Souci has been left largely in ruins, and thus large parts of the “original story” are absent from the popular narrative. Meanwhile, Sans Souci-Potsdam has been well maintained, and was the site of critical moments in Germany’s history. Of course, we can and should acknowledge the sociocultural contexts of both of these places, which then calls the idea of power into the conversation. This section also got me thinking about materiality in public history, and how it can make historical narratives more accessible to the public.

This sentence is about Trouillot’s methods for this particular exercise, but this portion of the chapter, including several prior paragraphs, had me thinking deeply about the layers of power present or absent in the historical process, and the different forms of this power. Earlier Trouillot describes the historiography of the Haitian Revolution, noting that the majority of it is in French, and thus excludes many potential scholars from accessing it. This is one way in which power is or isn’t wielded in the historical process, and has lasting impacts on the construction of historical narratives. More to the point of this quote, another layer of power is the relative power wielded by the narrator. How is the narrator’s credibility decided or imbued? There is a level of power inherent in being the one to relay the story.

This might not be the most helpful annotation, but I couldn't help but notice/appreciate Trouillot's word choice. Though obliterate is defined as meaning to utterly wipe out, I think also of the French word “oublier,” which means “to forget.” He goes on to use the terms obliteration/obliterate again later in this chapter. Given the context (Trouillot’s knowledge of French, and the discussion of silences and memory in history) this seems like a deliberate choice meant to evoke a specific meaning. Sans Souci the man was made to have been forgotten, ignored, or to use Trouillot’s terminology, silenced in the historical narrative of the Haitian Revolution.