! : The archives are inherently racialized and class-discriminatory because of the Western assumption that “orature, storytelling, visitation, improvisation, […and] embodied ritual practice […are] primitive, popular, folk [and] naive” (102) and therefore not worthy of inclusion.
? : If performance is not the presence of “remains” but rather the “missed encounter, […the] reverberations of the overlooked, the missed, the repressed, [and] the seemingly forgotten,” (104), does performance studies validate memory as a means of preservation? Or does it simply provide a skeleton for historicizing the uncapturable?
! : “The ultra-historicism of official memorials make us assume that the past is finished, when we still have the power to construct it” (22). Without a critical eye and the belief that each revisitation to a subject or event is an “iteration,” we risk falling into complacency in regards to the established constructs of the past.
? : If what we consider cemented “historical experiences” are “in fact still taking place” (22), can we ever make a claim about the past with any definite certainty? Can we truly teach a strongly structured curriculum, or would it be better to present what we know but encourage further investigation? How is this best explained to the youth?