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.
I think you and I are asking the same kinds of questions; how can we create a 'whole' history that encompasses all different viewpoints and stories? I'm wondering if it's possible. I don't necessarily believe that they created history where none existed in California, but I do think they chose to highlight the history that they felt some connection to or one that would make a profit. In the process, they left out multiple other views of history. Do you think it's getting better as time goes on? I'm wondering if we are more sensitive to these issues now than we used to be. I think a lot of our readings up to this point suggest that we are trying to highlight different interpretations of history. It seems to be a constant battle.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if we're getting better or not. Seems like one problem is that history is getting 'muddled'. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it makes it harder to follow and harder to pass on -- tell the story. I was thinking the other day that it would be a big help if we could just leave the emotion out ... nice and clean and factual. But who's going to listen? It's the emotion that brings people to read, learn, and consider. Catch 22!
ReplyDeleteI liked your insights about the California article. I think an important aspect that allows for the Native Sons and Daughter of the Golden West to show their interpretation of history is that they do so in privately owned places. I think that the Antiquities Act of 1906 helps to not destroy history that doesn't fit into one groups view. It also brings up questions and disrupts the groups incomplete version of history, by having a monument or a plaque labeling where a spanish fort is or where an indian burial ground is. I think a big way to disrupt a singular version of history is to have other groups histories surrounding theirs. This will obviously bring up questions, and people will begin to explore the multiple versions and viewpoints of history. It also mensions in the article that groups are starting to gain power in the government, which allows for other groups to tell their histories as well.
ReplyDelete