The Final Frontier?

Will digital history facilitate sharing authority and inquiry? Will placing primary sources at people’s fingertips create a more historically literate public? As a class you read three articles that grapple with these questions. Cohen and Brown both discuss the possibilities and problems with digital history. Many of you remarked about how exciting data mining can be for historians. Many of you also raised good skepticism about the relationship between quantity and quality. If the public does not know how to read a source critically, then does it matter whether it is online? How can public historians help the public to think historically about a source? What do we gain by being able to access information online? What do we lose? What is the difference between looking at a specific newspaper article from the 188s or skimming through the entire issue? What is clear is that discussing digital history opens up more questions then it answers and that is an exciting proposition.

Can History Be Entertainment?

As a class you nicely identified the tension that exists between the Corley & Rose, Toplin, and Davis articles. It seems that historians want it all. They want to be included in rendering history on film but yet are frustrated by the process. In general, it seems that a historian’s desire for accuracy will always prove a sticking point. As many of you pointed out it isin’t the disregard for details that is disappointing but the disregard for the spirit of accuracy that is more troubling with Hollywoodized history. Can artists render history on the big screen in a satisfying fashion? The jury is still out on this question.

History Out Loud

It seems that Terkel’s memoir proved puzzling to most of the class until chapter five. I wonder is it because we (myself included) have preconceived notions about how a memoir should read? Terkel seemingly displaces himself from the center of his own autobiography. Is that what makes him a good oral historian? As a class, good job on distinguishing between the two styles of writing (Frisch and Terkel) and seeing how they could serve as complementary texts. Each raised questions about who owns history. Each asked how we, as individuals, can learn to see ourselves as part of larger stories. But we are still left with the problem of how does one become a good oral historian? How do we learn to be good listeners and conversationalists? Can practice make perfect?

Parading History Down Main Street

Unlike monuments, parades are ephemeral. However, as the group rightly identified, Bodnar argues these displays of history are pageants of power. As a collective, you nicely summarized the differences between vernacular and official constructs of memory and how the two interrelate. You also did a good job summarizing Bodnar’s analysis of how official memory appropriated aspects of vernacular throughout the early twentieth century. In doing so, ethnic memory became a part of public memory but in doing so lost some of its particularity. We know about religious dissenters not for their own story but how they fit into the larger narrative of progress so often told by our political leaders. One wonders whether in a post-1965 society that embraces multiculturalism and diversity in making our American nation whether we will see a new emphasis on vernacular memory.

Bodnar’s style is not conversational, hence making it in some ways a more difficult read. It is a good lesson on how to parse through an academic text. Read the introduction, conclusion, and the first chapter very carefully. The other chapters should follow the pattern and arguments set forth in these other places, allowing you more room to skim. At the end, reread the introduction or the conclusion if you are still having trouble. The secret art of reading is that we all reread. I was glad to see that all of you took on the challenge and attempted to cope with difficult material rather then giving up.

Stone, Marble, Bronze: Monumentalizing History

Do monuments foster discussion or does the public treat them like a temple? If government allows a private group to place a monument on public space, is government then sanctioning the beliefs of that marker? Can government discriminate which private groups can place markers in public spaces? As a group, you rightly gleaned that Levinson is concerned with the question of how public monuments legitimize particular stories of history. He examines the conflicts that occur when interpretations of history changes but the monument stays fixed. He also demonstrates how the history of monuments relates to the history of power. This is particularly clear from the Liberty Monument in New Orleans, where the victors of racism during Reconstruction are no longer viewed as the heroes of that period. As Brent stated, is this change in interpretation an expression of political correctness or political awareness? I think you might all be interested in following the recent controversy in Utah to see what the Supreme Court determines is the answer. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/supreme.court/

Archives are not Warehouses

Each of you identified the central problem articulated by this collection of essays: how do archives function in creating, shaping, and changing historical narratives. Quite clearly access to information is related to relationships of power, which is why so many of the scholars referenced Foucault. As a group, you rightly pointed out that these historians found their ability to examine events of history impacted (mostly negatively) by archivists limiting their access to primary sources. As the future archivists in the class noted, it would have been interesting to include a few archivists’ perspectives in this collection. How does preserving history impact decisions about access? This addresses a question Will raised. Is access to an archive a right or a privilege? Does it depend upon the expectations of the society within which the archives exist? For instance, was Robertson’s story more baffling since it occurred within the United States, a democratic nation that so often prides itself on providing freedom of information? In sum, as a group very nice job grappling with the fact that archives function as interpreters rather than warehouses.

A Tale of Two Democracies

How did two democratic nations end up with such different mechanisms and perspectives on historic preservation? As a class, you guys summarized Barthel’s book with great thoroughness. Issues of authenticity and commercialism are central to this work. I especially liked debates between you about how history should be rendered for display. If tourism is built on pleasure then won’t it always cause problems for historic preservation? Not all of history is pleasing and uplifting. In fact, much of it is scary and depressing. How do we reconcile these two things when we participate in preserving history? Kristen raised the issue of school groups. I think we should ponder whether our 21st conception of childhood inhibits our displays of history.

Road Tripping

I want to congratulate everyone on identifying Young's main argument: preservation is personal. I agree with everyone that Young’s humor and wit convey why we should care about the world around us, above us, and below us. I also think we should ponder a bit more about Amanda’s question she posed on Shelby’s blog. What does this format allow Young to do that he wouldn’t be able to do otherwise? Some curse brevity but are their some benefits to being forced to limit your words?

Feel the Power

As everyone remarked about Dubin's Displays of Power, the power of the press is undeniable. What is interesting is how the press not only plays a role at the time but how it then shapes the historical record. It was interesting to see how you reacted to these various controversies, sometimes siding with the curators, sometimes siding with the community stakeholders. As you are about to embark on a career path in presenting history to and with public audiences, I wondered whether in the end you found yourself in greater sympathy with one side or the other? Should curators have academic freedom? How do you know when to put the limits on sharing? What makes a topic controversial? What is the job of the curator in terms of the production of knowledge? I look forward to continuing these discussions.

Making a Museum

Thanks to everyone for making our online discussion of Linenthal’s Preserving Memory so interesting and productive. It appears that most everyone had their bubble burst on the process of creating a museum. While everyone recognized the stresses involved, I think it is also important to recognize the sense of accomplishment the makers of this institution felt at its dedication. The blogs also made some nice connections to the first set of readings that focused on theory and methods, in particular sharing authority and inquiry.

I want to give you some comments for further analysis. In what ways does Linenthal place the discussions about the U.S. Holocaust Museum within a larger context of museumology. Is he describing any universal issues for those working in museums? Are museums always political? Are they always about celebrating achievements? What is unusual about this story, or really any story about the making of a museum?

That being said I think it is important to remember when discussing the politics of inclusion or exclusion that the commission was influenced by the politics of the 1970s and 1980s. The politics of forgetting and denial impact Jewish sentiment to maintain a strict boundary even when it might not sit well with historical analysis about other groups targeted by Hitler. Some of the comments on the blogs reminded me of Dubin’s point about generational conflict. Those of us born post-baby boom see things very differently then our predecessors. In addition, I would like for us as a class to tackle the issue of “American memory.” What is Linenthal’s argument about plurality as it applies to the conceptualization and construction of this museum.

Collaboration & Connection

With great pleasure I read everyone’s analysis of the readings for this week. Everyone identified the key concepts: collaboration and connection. As a class everyone seemed in agreement that sharing inquiry and authority were vital to the successful practice of public history. Where there was less agreement was on whether the general public really is ignorant of the nation’s history. Is knowing a personal past the same thing as knowing the history of the United States? In what ways is there overlap? If there is no overlap, is it not important for members of a democratic society to be able to imagine walking in someone else’s shoes? How can public historians help foster a participatory historical culture that would help people connect the personal and the public? I would also ask what happens when you encounter historical topics about which people do not want to discuss their experience? What do we do about topics where people are historically silent? Are they going to get short shrift because they are less easy for people to relate to their individual experience? Lastly, how is Rosenzweig and Thelen’s book a response to the history wars of the 1990s? I would recommend people look at Gary Nash’s History on Trial for an overview of those debates.

Aside from content, please put in paragraph breaks when you have a lengthy entry and watch out for repetitive sentences and typos.

Lastly, can everyone please add a link to the main course blog so that it is easier to go backand forth between our entries.