Week 15: Public History & New Media

As I read the articles for today’s lecture, the broad issues of digital stability and the magnitude of the flood of available materials immediately struck me.  Every discipline is trying desperately to find ways of moving into the digital age.  The comparison of collections of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 in the Cohen article were startling.  That 30,000 websites, archived in less than 3 months following 9/11, comprise only one-thousandth (Cohen, p. 3) of the websites in existence during that time is simply mindboggling.  Further, the amount of manpower needed to determine what is of enduring value is nearly impossible to imagine. 

The issues with stability and technological obsolescence add greatly to the expense, especially in terms of manpower, of keeping the archives healthy and accessible.  Just overseeing the copying and transferring of information to new technologies is a major undertaking and one that is growing in magnitude every day.  This would seem to offer an opportunity for technologically savvy public historians:  the determining of what is and what is not of enduring value.  I just had a vision of thousands of rows of cubicles with frenzied public historians tapping on computer keyboards…nightmare!  But seriously this could also be handled as a cottage industry with historians hired to page through millions of emails, documents, files, photos, etc. to determine which must be kept, what should be kept , and what is redundant or of no enduring value.  When I took the Archives Class, one of the discussions we had was concerning the ‘enduring value’ of the boxes and boxes of ‘hanging chad’ ballots from the 2004 election that the archives are storing.  This seemingly simple decision had, at least at the time of my class, not been decided leaving the State Archives in the position of having to store and care for a large and unused collection with dubious value to research.  Brennan and Kelly discuss this same manpower issue from the standpoint of collection:  they found they seriously underestimated how much time would be required to do things such as weed out spam, duplicates, and offerings that had nothing to do with the Katrina disaster. 

The third article was particularly interesting because of our discussion yesterday concerning ‘edutainment’.  Brown seems to be advocating exactly that:  build a computer/digital game that teaches history.  Comparing his work with the ideas associated with P. T. Barnum’s American Museum, Brown shows how mixing history with entertainment can produce a hybrid of both.  His experience seems to show that the technology is available but that the real problems rest in the tendency of technology to limit or narrow the scope of the user’s choices.  By requiring historical accuracy, the developers also limited the ‘fun’ of the user because the ‘answers’ were predetermined.  I think this idea of combining gaming and history has a real plus from the standpoint of getting people to pay attention, but also has a real problem with maintaining historical accuracy.  

Week 13: History and Hollywood

This week’s readings Glassberg’s Watching: The Civil War; Toplin’s Cinematic History: Where Do We Go from Here?; Davis’ Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective; and Frisch’s Oral History, Documentary, and the Mystification of Power: A Critique of ‘Vietnam: A Television History’ provide a marvelous look at how history is packaged for public consumption and how the techniques used by the filmmakers affects the history being told. 

Each of the articles brings a unique contribution to the discussion.  The Toplin article does the best job of outlining the issues historians have with cinematic history, i.e. including blockbuster films, how current issues at the time of the filming affect the historical slant, and the extent of political/governmental issues covered by such films.   The last line of the article especially intrigued me:  “…cinematic artists … are becoming our most influential historians”  (p. 91).   As luck would have it, I read this article first and followed it with the Davis article, which continued the look at the relationship between filmmakers and historians.  Davis’ short piece captures the frustration she had while trying to maintain historical ‘truth’ in the midst of creating a viable, sellable movie.  The decision by the wardrobe head to keep the judicial robes red whether for aesthetic reasons or budget reasons was indicative of the whole process.  In the end, Davis had no more control over the misleading version of trials in Old Regime France than she did over the color of the robes:  expediency and cost made the choice, not historical accuracy. 

Glassberg’s article continues his book’s line of discussion of memory trumping fact in the minds of the public.  The letters described in the article show that the film was a success because it allowed the audience to continue to believe in the history that they were most comfortable with, e.g. family stories and the history they learned growing up.  The few complaints discussed instances where the film departed from what the viewers already believed, e.g. southerners wanted more focus on the issues of state’s rights over slavery.  Another issue Glassberg covers well is the use of real photographs and real settings and the effect these had to make the audience accept the film’s authenticity.  Again, many of the responses focused on how seeing the film reminded them of visiting the battlefields as children or of photographs from their family albums. 

In my opinion, the Frisch article is the most powerful of the four.  His step-by-step description and deconstruction of the techniques used in creating the film series on Vietnam read like a detective story.  Although he makes it clear he does not feel the producers of the series intentionally set out to create the slant that was ultimately created, he also shows how oral history was used to do just that.  By having the ‘common’ people speak about concrete experiences and the ‘leaders’ speak about broader issues, the effect is to give more credence, more historical weight, to the leaders.  I’m not sure this is something that can be ‘fixed’ simply by choosing other clips.  It’s likely that this is just a normal thing, e.g. you and I when asked our opinion of Strozier will likely focus on our personal experiences of lost books, grumpy reference help, and never arriving ILLs, but President Baron would bring a much different mindset to the question. 

The consideration of film, especially the Hollywood version, as a vehicle for exploring, developing, and disseminating history is simply fascinating.   

Week 12 - Creating Sources: Oral History

Week 12: Creating Sources: Oral History

The reading assignment for this week, Oral History and Public Memories, edited by Paula Hamilton and Linda Shopes, does a good job of showing how oral history can add to the accepted or ‘official’ history.  The use of chapters from a wide range of authors and researchers works particularly well in this volume, as does the division of the chapters into three sections covering ‘Creating Heritage’; ‘Recreating Identity and Community’; and ‘Making Change’.  Each of the chapters fits well within its section giving the volume a feeling of steady progression.  I think the format of individual topics, and/or authors, works by using many specific cases or examples to build toward a unified whole:  each vignette adds support to the others. 

The range of topics for this volume was very interesting.  I was thoroughly intrigued by nearly every one from the Canadian First Nations to the streets of Cleveland and Kosovo.  I was especially drawn to the chapters focusing on the Japanese internment, perhaps because I have just recently read ‘Snow Falling on Cedars’.  The use of the dialogues/conversations in the museum exhibit ‘A More Perfect Union’ (Thomas, pp. 90-5) seems especially effective to me.  I am fascinated by the idea of creating bits of personal interaction within a museum exhibition backdrop.  Yesterday at the Museum of Florida History it occurred to me that the new exhibit they are producing may be trying to create this same personal interaction with their ‘mannequins’ in the contact area. 

While this is very attractive to the visitor, especially visitors who have minimal knowledge about the period being recreated, I wonder how you put words in the mouths of people long dead without going too far.  The Japanese internment exhibit was able to use the actual oral histories of people who lived the experience and then put them into the ‘conversations’ or vignettes.  I guess what I’m really questioning is the power that choosing what tidbits to take from an entire oral history, or from an entire diary, is enormous.  In another of the chapters that discussed the Japanese internment, George Takei’s words are used to illustrate two very different experiences (Dubrow, p. 133).  By choosing which words to focus on, Takei’s experience was either frightening or full of childhood wonder.  That’s a big difference.  Further, it illustrates the effects that passing time and growing older have on memory. 

I really do like the idea of presenting history this way: it’s engaging, entertaining, and educational.  But I also feel it can easily go too far and become Disney-esque to the point of cheapening if not falsifying history.  

Week 11 – Preserving History: Archives

Week 11 – Preserving History: Archives

The personal first-hand experiences recounted by the authors in Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History do a first-rate job of illustrating the strengths and weaknesses of the role of archives as guardians of history.  Further the international range of the essays speaks to the fact that all archives in all places have many of the same problems and provide the same valuable resources as they try to preserve the records of society.  The stories from Uzbekistan and India in the first section might lead the reader to believe western archives are more open or less manipulative of the information.  This notion is immediately quashed by the next essays focusing on the U.S. National Archives and its exclusion of passport information, which of course beg the question of who decides what is worthy of inclusion and Tony Ballantyne’s experiences from Australia where changing cultural focus is altering the perceived value of a collection of Samuel E. Peal.   

           

One of the overall observations made by the book is the recognition of the fact that differing factions often use archives as ‘tools’ as they try to fashion history to their benefit.   The choice of what is or is not considered worthy of inclusion can have a lasting effect on how history is viewed.  Archives each have their own individual missions.  Government archives try to collect the paper that supports and explains the government’s accomplishments.  Business archives concentrate on documenting the business of that business.  Each archive therefore will choose to keep what fits their mission and pass by what does not.  So from the very outset there is a choice of what gets kept.  Beyond the ‘mission’ there are other influences at work such as pleasing (or not upsetting) the powers holding the funding for the institution.  Or in extreme cases, not upsetting the ruling despot who might take offense and throw the archivists in jail or worse.  Understanding the forces that affect archives can work both to give more value to the holdings and to point out possible biases in the holdings.  All of which goes to help historians and other researchers to make better use of the valuable information found in archives.  

Week 10: Displays of History: Pageantry

Week 10: Displays of History: Pageantry

As I began reading Glassberg’s chapter Celebrating the City, the first thought I had was the Roman practice of bread and circuses.  So I was flattered to have the author point out an editorial from a San Francisco newspaper calling the Portola Festival just such an endeavor (p. 76).   I was also pleased to have Glassberg refer to the game of football (and sports in general) as another of these events (p. 84-5).   The idea is simple:  Keep the citizenry fed and entertained and they will move from meal to meal and event to event without feeling the need to pay attention to what those in power are actually doing.  Let things get bad in the daily lives of the populace and the beast begins to stir. 

Current examples of things causing Americans to stir include the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The citizens are stirring and political reporters are forecasting a tidal wave of changes in the upcoming election.  Over the weekend as I was reading, several things caught my attention as I dutifully watched my dose of football (I’m leading in my fantasy league, btw).  The ‘powers that be’ spend an enormous amount of money, time, and effort in providing circuses for our viewing pleasure.  Even if I don’t remember which multi-national firm has it’s banner on the Cowboys’ 50-yard line, I’m entranced with the game, the plays, the spectacle…not with asking how in this distressed economy they can afford (indeed are happy even anxious to do so) to spend millions of dollars to provide the entertainment.  I think as individuals we are all aware that this manipulation is occurring.  I even think we care.  But we are so indoctrinated, so comfortable with our routines that it takes a major jolt to move us. 

Just such a jolt happened nine years ago when the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed.  There were several ads aired during the football games this weekend devoted to plans for observance of the tenth anniversary of the World Trade Center disaster.  Cities around the country are making plans to remember the day with speeches, the placing of wreaths, and other fitting memorials.  The ads could have come from either the Civil War Centennial or the Bicentennial:  loyalty, unity, and patriotic pride.  Here again my cynicism leads me to see these efforts as simply a way for the ‘powers’ to say ‘It’s alright!  We’re doing something.  Stay home and enjoy your family.  Watch the game.  You don’t need to stir…we have everything under control!’ 

The third thing I noticed, again on TV, was a Sixty Minutes piece on white-collar executives in California who have reached the end of their safety nets.  Their savings are gone, they’ve borrowed all they can against their retirements, they’ve spent their kid’s college funds, and their unemployment benefits are gone.  The commentator remarked that while nationwide the unemployment rate is 9+%, when you include those who have stopped trying to find work and those who have taken part-time positions with no benefits and at a much lower pay rate, the percentage is over 17% nationally and over 20% in the California area of the story.  Regardless of what we think about the choices these people made, they are stuck.  They are in upside down mortgages, they have no assets to sell, and few have relatives nearby they can lean on.  One woman in her late 50s, who lost her $60,000 a year office manage position, claims to have sent out over 1,500 applications and gotten 3 interviews in the last 18 months.  She’s collecting cans and plastic to sell to the recycling companies and admits that her 80+year-old mother is sending her money so she can eat.  How long can the circus distract us from the lack of bread? 

Week 9 - Public Displays of History: Monuments

Week 9:  Public Displays of History: Monuments

The issue that strikes me most about the Glassberg and Levinson readings for this week is the way in which the meaning of a monument changes over time and across groups.  The WWI monument in Orange, MA documents one monument and the changes/differences in the community’s attitudes toward it.    From the beginning the intentions of why and what the monument should mean was different between the veterans and the peace proponents.  Glassberg’s chapter documents these changes from the commissioning to the mid-90s.  I found Glassberg’s examples clear and compelling and overall feel the chapter does exactly what it sets out to do: show how monuments become important to communities by allowing disparate groups to find compatible meanings which change as time passes.  Value is truly in the eye of the beholder. 

The Levinson book, Written in Stone, presents several examples of how communities deal with changing attitudes toward monuments:  placing plaques with new/updated descriptions and explanations over old/politically incorrect messages from the past; moving the offensive pieces to museums or to less prominent locations; etc.  The New Orleans monument to the overthrow of the ‘carpetbag government’ was especially interesting as it presented an example of preserving the ‘history, warts and all’ (p. 102).  Surely, the incident being memorialized was rightfully hateful to modern African Americans living in New Orleans today, yet a compromise was reached where the piece was preserved in situ (or nearly so).  Not completely satisfying to those it offends, I’m sure, but preserved in a location attached to its original significance nonetheless. 

This all leads back to the memory versus history line of thought we’ve been following all semester.  Each group defines the meaning of the monument in a way that is significant and satisfying to its own vision of self.    So the WWI veterans approve the statue because it shows them as an integral part of the community especially with regard to educating the children and the peace group sees the same statute as an indictment of war by believing the soldier to be teaching the evils of combat.  Both examples of group memory or interpretation both partially historically accurate but neither representing total historic truth.

Week 7 – Cultural Resources Management

The chapter from Glassberg, ‘Making Places in California’ was remarkably similar to other readings we’ve been considering – just taken to the logical next step.  If it’s OK to interpret history in a way that is supportive to a particular group’s understanding of history, then it should come as no surprise that it’s OK to create that history where none exists.  I kept thinking of the ‘Lost Cause’ adherents and was struck as how similar the Native Sons and Daughters of the Golden West were to those of the Glorious South.  Protecting heritage against those who migrate in, as did Chicanos and Asian Americans, or who gained legal status, as did the African Americans. 

Once again we have group fighting group to tell ‘their’ history and, of course, that history is always the ‘right’ history.  I’m beginning to see that the ‘problem’ of getting to the truth or the ‘true’ history is a never-ending battle for historians.  It’s a seemingly inherent trait among our species to fear the other and to place our own version of history on top in order to use that history as a tool of power.  In the end, that’s what every one of the groups we’ve read about has done:  used history to secure their place, to subjugate others, and to gain respect and social position (not to mention economic gain). 

The Californians did just that:  they had no marketable history so they built one.  There was a line in the article that said ‘No matter how many men and women had been on a trail before, the first ‘white’ to pass along it deserved a plaque’ (pg. 193).

I think that says it all in a nutshell … whichever group is telling the story will key in on the accomplishments of ‘one-of-their-own’ and use THAT history as the ‘right’ history.  This is also true in the New England town of McKnight where the ‘white’ history centered on the time after the Victorian houses were being renovated by wealthy 30-somethings and the ‘black’ history centered on the ‘50s and ‘60s when black business and neighborhoods were strong and flourishing. 

The question remains: How to make all groups interested in combining all histories to come to a ‘whole’ history.