We are all Presentists: Towards a critique of established notions of History

The concept of presentism has been at the center of current discussions in the historical discipline. Among the efforts to define presentism, we face radically different approaches. On the one hand, we have scholars that see it as ‘a cardinal sin’ or as a vice, while on the other, there are many who recognize in it something that is unavoidable and should be understood and welcomed. In this article, we explore and discuss these contrasting positions and argue for three central virtues that presentism can bring to our understanding of the past. Through the analysis of narratives surrounding World War II and the founding of the United States, we argue that presentism: 1. allows history to be critical by motivating present reviews to established–mostly western-centric– accounts; 2. allows us to create new perspectives about the past by strategically using the tools of our present and finally, 3. welcomes pluralism rather than a single historical truth. These points allow us to defend a view of the past that is not static, fixed, and forever closed, but instead, see it as a place of debate, dispute, and constant renewal.