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.  

Week 6: A New Departure & Preserving Postmodern, Restoring Past

The comparisons these two articles presented were extremely interesting especially as I was constantly reminded of the push/pull nature of memory versus academic history discussed in our earlier readings.  The comparison of the restoration of Monticello and the preservation of Montpelier in the Nolan and Buckman article is another illustration of the differing viewpoints presented by people who want to present and pass on history as they remember it or as their culture has presented it versus those who want to find the ‘true’ history and present it to everyone as the overarching truth which incorporates everyone’s point of view.  So too does the Lindgren article deal with a comparison of memory versus academic or ‘true’ history.  Here the comparison of ‘personalism’ equates directly to the memory-side while ‘professionalism’ equates to the academic or ‘true’ history side of the argument.

The restoration of Monticello falls squarely into the memory camp.  Here the idea behind the presentation of Monticello is to create the world Jefferson lived in during his retirement years on the property.  Every effort has been made to return the house and grounds to a specific point in time and to honor the memory of the man by using his plans, drawings, and memoirs.   So too do the women who established the Mount Vernon Ladies Association, those Lindgren labels as favoring ‘personalism’, fall into this camp.  The MVLA and others during this period wanted to honor the founding fathers, for example at Mount Vernon the memory of Washington was the prime consideration in how to approach its presentation to the public.  Another example is the story Lindgren tells about how Washington’s mother’s reputation was cleaned up and made more acceptable to those who wanted to honor Washington and his family. 

On the academic or ‘true’ history side falls Montpelier with it’s 100 plus years of change and development.  Here the emphasis is on telling the whole mixed-up continually changing history.  Here too the ‘professionalism’ camp lines up with its emphasis on technology, archaeology, and business. 

I think both articles are extremely persuasive in there arguments.  By using the comparisons they chose the authors make compelling arguments for their points of view.  The quote by Dermody in Preserving the Postmodern, Restoring the Past:  ‘Monticello is a snapshot and Montpelier is a videotape’ (p. 259) rings throughout both of the readings as well as offering insight for other issues we’ve discussed such as the Lost Cause argument, the Liberty Bell presentation, the Enola Gay controversy, and the Conquistador statue.  In each case at least part of the problem is the desire of some to maintain the value of the ‘snapshot’ of their memory and the desire of others to value the ‘videotape’ of history as a whole.   

Week 5: Enola Gay and Revisionist History

As I was reading the articles for this week, Battle Royal, The Final Mission of the Enola Gay and The Postmodern Exhibition, I was once again struck by the power of memory and the tenacity with which people of all races, genders, and cultures cling to their own memory of history.  Just as the ‘Lost Cause’ adherents cling to their vision of the Civil War, so to do the WWII veterans and those who lived through that war cling to their memory of the Enola Gay; as the Japanese cling to their version of the Japanese invasion of China. 

This desire or need to remember the history in which we were involved in a favorable way is seemingly universal.  I have been thinking back over my own personal remembrances and I find that I am guilty of the same tunnel vision.  I remember things ‘my’ way even when confronted with solid, seemingly truthful evidence to the contrary.  I consider the evidence, sometimes I’m even swayed by the evidence, but slowly and surely I return to ‘my’ memory of the event. 

We’ve seen this same battle between differing memories in many of our readings: the controversy over the Conquistador statue, Williamsburg and Greenfield, the House of the Seven Gables, and the home of the slave trader, Brown, just to mention a few.  It seems we can take it for granted that any exhibition, re-creation, or re-telling of history can be a battlefield between differing memories of the site or event.  Which leads me to realize how vitally important it is that the trained historians, especially the public historians, maintain their dedication to telling the entire story. 

In my opinion, the Smithsonian was wrong to back down.  As Michael Neufield stated in Battle Royal, “Memorials are one thing.  History is another” (pg. 217).  Admittedly from a purely practical viewpoint the curators probably should have waited until the 100^th Anniversary to launch the exhibit they envisioned, but never should they have backed down from their carefully researched attempt to tell all sides of the story.  All the Enola Gay does now with no labeling and no description is to serve as a placeholder for a future exhibit that will be able to educate. 

There is nothing wrong with a memorial, nor is there anything wrong with memory.  The truth of any thing is usually found in the middle and if the publics’ strong trust in museums is any indication of the public will, they expect museums and the historians who staff them to find that truth. 

Week 4: Thoughts on Horton

Week 4:  Horton

I’d like to point to three quotes from Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory edited by James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton to demonstrate one of the recurring arguments made by the volume of essays.  First is John Michael Vlach’s assertion from his conclusion to ‘The Last Great Taboo Subject’ that black Americans are “hungry for memory” (p. 71).  In his discussion of the Library of Congress’ aborted attempt to present the ‘Back of the Big House’ exhibit, Vlach gives many instances where black Americans voiced a desire to learn more about the ‘onerous and taboo aspects’ of slavery to allow them to ‘learn and to endure’ (p. 72). 

The second quote comes from Gary B. Nash’s essay, ‘For Whom Will the Liberty Bell Toll?’  In his conclusion, Nash quotes Kenneth Moynihan who asserts that history is “an ongoing conversation that yields not final truths but an endless succession of discoveries that change our understanding not only of the past but of ourselves and of the times we live in” (p. 101).  So the second piece of the argument is the desire of people to understand their personal pasts and to use that knowledge to understand their present.  Past experience and past example provide powerful lessons for people to draw upon when they wrestle with current issues and problems. 

The final quote comes from Edward T. Linenthal’s “Epilogue: Reflections”.  Here John Hope Franklin states that ‘explaining history from a variety of angles makes it not only more interesting, but also more true’ (p. 216).  The more people included in any discussion of history and the more viewpoints that are considered, the more likely we are to see the whole picture and to gain universal understanding of the event both in its own time and as it affects the present. 

The idea of inclusiveness stands out vividly in all of the essays included in Slavery and Public History.  It is important to look at everything and to include all viewpoints in order to gain a better understanding of history.  No one point of view, no one group can give the whole truth.  One of the hurdles to finding the ‘truth’ lies in the fact that the winners, the powerful, and the most dominate groups have always been able to ‘write’ history.  In order to truly understand history and to be able to use that knowledge to understand our present, we need to be as inclusive as possible.  

Week 3 - Defining Memory

As editor of the book Defining Memory, Amy K. Levin was tasked with drawing together essays to discuss ‘local museums and the construction of history in America’s changing communities.’  One of the arguments recurring throughout the essays is Glassberg’s idea of  ‘sense of place’.  Local museums are often created because of their particular attachment within a community.  For example, the Old Cowtown Museum and the Living Museum at Arthurdale, WV are re-creations of a specific place in a particular period of time.  Sites like these play to the memories of the local citizens as well as to those of the tourists who come to see what used to be.  Other museums discussed in Defining Memory, which elaborate on the theme of place, are Colonial Williamsburg and the House of the Seven Gables. 

The use of individual essays focused on separate museums is effective in making this argument.  The number of different museums as well as the wide range of topics, i.e. wild west, Louisiana politics, and St. Louis’ City Museum of architecture to mention only three, helps to make the point that local interest is the driving force for local museums.   The structure of the book with clear divisions and introductions to each section make the point even stronger.  Whether the museum is a living recreation of a city or way of life or a collection of oddities from local business, industry, or agriculture, it is the locale that binds the artifacts together. 

Defining Memory is strengthened by its variety and by the number of individual authors who have lent their expertise to the project.  The structure of the book also strengthens the whole by both providing individual, stand alone essays and by linking those by way of the introductions to each section and the introduction and conclusion provided by Ms. Levin.  The book works both as a cohesive whole discussing small local museums and as a resource for individual museums.  The final essay, although interesting in its own right, seems somewhat tacked on and does not further the arguments and ideas of the other essays.  Levin’s explanation of when the volume was finished makes this more forgivable, but in some ways detracted from the cohesiveness of the other essays.  But while I feel its placement at the end of this volume is somewhat awkward, the discussion of how unexpected and tragic events adjust the viewpoints of museum curators, founders, and patrons is very intriguing.  It would be worthy of a volume of essays of its own.