For the most part in this text, I was either confused because I didn’t understand Trouillot’s phrasing or I felt I really didn’t know anything about the historical events he was using as examples for his argument. In any case, something I thought about a lot when reading this text was about the effects that social media could have on the portrayal and recording of current events. Trouillot focuses a lot on the role of the teller of history (whether they be narrating or chronicling the events). I wondered whether the issue of silences or absences in a story would be helped or hindered by modern technology, namely, the internet. On a very basic level, the internet allows for a greater access to information. Additionally, current technologies allow for better recording and sharing of information (for example, pictures and videos of events can replace written or verbal accounts). Or, can the internet and social media, as they relate to the documentation of current events, be seen as an overly large and poorly organized archive? The idea that there are rules, spoken and unspoken, that govern how people talk about and document events really intrigued me. I began thinking about this in part due to the flood of information in the past few days about both the Kinder Morgan pipeline on Burnaby Mountain and about the Ferguson trial in the States. There seems to be a standard pattern of how these events are discussed and portrayed. Part of me wonders if this entire train of thought itself is completely off base in the first place, as these are current events, and can’t really count as history yet? Maybe it’s just my mind wandering as I try to follow Trouillot’s arguments.