I like this term. Trouillot’s earlier discussion of Western models of linear time and how it became the assumed default hides the messiness, uncertainty, and multi-directionality of actual history. It also hides the fact that there is more than one way to look at time, the Western view excluded non-western ideas of time.

Who is the "real Columbus," as stated in the previous sentence, Columbus wears many hats. Historical figures are often battlegrounds for memory and meaning. The “real Columbus” is not a single, fixed person but a symbol whose identity shifts depending on who is telling the story and for what purpose.

What does it mean when a single historical figure like Columbus can symbolize both pride and oppression? How should educators or institutions navigate these conflicting narratives? In some places, Columbus is celebrated as a symbol of heritage, in others, he represents colonial violence and is resisted or reimagined in turn. This reflects Trouillot’s broader argument that history is not just about what happened, but how it is told and by whom. The same event or figure can be mobilized for competing purposes, depending on the narrative power of local actors and their specific relationship to the figure as well as colonialism, resistance, and identity.

To strip the event of its complexity and create a single, neat moment. In reality, this "discovery" was part of a long, messy process involving exploration, conquest, colonization, resistance, and genocide. But through dominant historical narratives, this process has been flattened into one symbolic moment, a flattening making it easier to celebrate, commemorate, or teach.

This reflects Trouillot’s broader idea of how power simplifies history, turning ongoing, contested events into fixed "facts" to serve the elite purpose (think national pride, colonial legacy). In recent years, there has been push back against this mythologized version of Columbus. It has been argued that what has been celebrated as a moment of “discovery” was in fact the beginning of centuries of violence and oppression. This could be an example of a challenge to the “single and simple moment” framing that Trouillot criticizes. History is not just about what happened, but about who gets to narrate what happened, and how those narratives are shaped by power. Are there any other examples that stick out where a complex, messy historical process has been flattened into a single, simple moment?

How can ideology override reality? in this context the alliance between the Church and state created a fiction of incompatibility between Christians, Muslims, and Jews—despite the fact that these groups often lived together, traded, and interacted peacefully in everyday life. This is a good example of Trouillot’s point about how power produces selective narratives/stories, here, the idea of a “pure” Christendom justifies violence and exclusion. By controlling the narrative, peaceful coexistence seems like betrayal, and war seems like salvation. In this way, ideology didn’t just describe the world, it reshaped it, silencing the messy reality in favor of a simplified and convenient myth.