As you develop your argument, you can consider these guiding questions, each of which might help you
decide what angle to take in responding to the prompt:
What kinds of emotion/affect are reflected in the way in which each narrative interprets the past, present,
and/or future? What does this reflect about the perspective of the people producing the narrative, both in
terms how society has shaped that perspective and how they envision their place within history?
We often think of the past as “set in stone,” because we can’t change it; but in what ways is the past fluid,
changing from moment to moment?
What reasons might someone have for fixating on the past (“anachronism”) rather than the future?
Who has the power to rewrite history? Whose versions of history are considered the standard?
In what ways can those who history has ignored or misrepresented take charge and write their own “parallel
narrative?” Is a parallel narrative less valuable than insisting on a completely new narrative? Why or why not?
What dangers are there in creating a “parallel narrative” that goes against the grain of the accepted narrative?
Why is interpreting history and creating a “parallel narrative” so appealing to people who face oppression?
What purposes, needs, and desires does it provide for?
What are the different ways in which we can think of ourselves as “being in the future”? What are the various
relationships past and present can have with futurity?