As promised, this was a heavy reading. Not heavy in the sense of the volume of material, but rather the density of the work and the way in which it is written. In this piece, Trouillot is pondering ideas of history, its truthfulness, and the differences that abound from the narrative taught by two conflicting factions of historians. His case study of sorts centers around the Alamo, a story that is known, at least in part, to most of us in the Americas. It is through the lens of both positivist and constructivist views of history that the author examines the events that took place at the Alamo. The author questions the truthfulness of the narrative, much like a constructivist historian, but his goal is to bring about truth not polluted by social historical contexts, and to explore the differences between the two practices of history, their limitations and expand the narrative in an accurate manner. He draws attention to the biases that enter into the historical context