The History of History on the Internet

     Digital archives are useful, but ultimately unreliable, and according to Cohen should be incorporated into future archiving.  Using technology as a teaching tool has promise, but can actually be more confusing, as Brown suggests.  Brennan and Kelly’s case study demonstrates how the difficulty of a site’s technology can hinder its usefulness as a historical depository.  Between these three readings, one thing is clear: the internet is the future of historical inquiry.

     While books will always be useful, and traditional archives will always be necessary, digital forums have provided not only larger storage space for material that would not make it into the space-conscious traditional archive, but also a space for open communication and the spontaneous collection of oral histories.  The internet has provided a wonderful resource that is both full of opportunities and pitfalls.  This is why public historians have to beware.  The temptation of nearly unlimited archive space threatens the carefully constructed parameters of previous research methods, and it also makes the digital materials precariously dependent on servers and constantly updating technology.  There are few 8-track players left.  What about when the floppy drive and compact disc drives are no longer viable one hundred years from now?  There are even concerns that compact discs are breaking down and some from twenty years ago are no longer readable, either due to physical damage or different HTML formats.

     Digital archiving from the public is also valuable but overwhelming.  Archives of post-9/11 will contribute to research of this event years from now, just as the archives of the Pearl Harbor attack have serve researchers today.  Yet, the websites archived that day, and the subsequent websites set up to collect memories in photos, videos, and stories are a jumbled mass of information not easily organized.  In Brown’s article teaching devices and their organization figure prominently, and can impede research just as much as encourage it, as Brennan and Kelly found.  Overall, I support the move towards digital communication and archiving, but only so far as it is a supplement to traditional sources.  After all, aren't we all using some of that technology to communicate our thoughts about public history right now?!

Historical Accuracy?... In Hollywood?... Yeah right....

     The relationship of history and Hollywood, as Glassberg mentions, is complicated and much more based in profit than accuracy.  Toplin critiques the critics of cinematic history, wanting to place the fictionalization of characters and timelines in the context of cinema as a genre.  Davis argues that history told through film should also be told through a book in order to remain closer to the factual information, and allow readers to know the holes in the historical record, and plausible conjectures in accordance with contemporary society.  Frisch also deals with a war documentary, like Glassberg, but Vietnam was still alive in living memory, unlike the Civil War.  All of these readings have both positive and negative things to say about the adaptations of history in the media.

     I thoroughly enjoyed Glassberg’s look at the letters Burns received about his Civil War documentary.  The interesting divide between the letter writers consists of a regional difference along gender lines.  The fact that most women who wrote to him were from the North, and most of the men from the South is an interesting way to look at how America reacted to this representation of the Civil War.  The largest criticism seemed to be the glossing over of slavery, including the reasons for actually fighting the Civil War.

     The overly critical historians whom are dissatisfied with historical representations in film should consider the points that Toplin and Davis make about the limitations of film and providing history to a general audience.  Simplifying timelines, and focusing more on character development than events are necessities for translating history to the screen.  Unfortunately this means that romanticized affairs and misrepresentations of village life create collateral damage of actual relationships and social strata from that time period.  For some reason, movie directors seemed to think that the public cannot handle accurate interpretations of “foreign,” bygone eras, and will not be able to figure out the motivations of a wife claiming an imposter as a husband unless they injected feelings of love.

     While I admit that I do not give the general public much credit when it comes to understanding cultures from the past, maybe movie directors should give their audience a chance.  Although documentaries are not as lucrative as box-office movies, movies do not have to sacrifice exciting story lines in order to portray historical characters in a complicated, and realistic light.  Whether dealing with war, or with legal history, there are considerations that have to be made when critiquing historical films due to the medium of communication.

Personal vs. Public: The Challenges of Oral History and Public Memory

     Oral history and public memory are similar endeavors, but with very different trajectories.  Oral history depends on the individual, and their experiences.  Memory projects focus on the collective experience of a community, however, which minimalizes the experience of the individual, which also means glossing over differing experiences.  The book has an incredible range of international experiences, really opening up public historians to the way oral history has developed around the world. 

     The book has three sections, but I found the second section on “Recreating Identity and Community” the most interesting.  Particularly the chapter on Apartheid South Africa, and how memory has helped in healing.  Yet now post-Apartheid oral histories have to take a more individual approach in order to differentiate their experiences.  The political contention present in a country as torn as South Africa during and after Apartheid was a wonderful example of how public memory takes on a political agenda, and higher purpose than just memory collection: the coalescing of a community trying to come together after severe social dislocation.  Oral history did contribute to the public memory, but went into larger narratives of one voice.  Oral history in post-Apartheid has the opportunity to use these memories in a more analytic way.  Although reconciliation is not complete, these collections of memory no longer have to serve the one-voice purpose.

     Public historians often rely on oral histories for interpreting contemporary experiences and translating those stories into history for public consumption.  This type of public memory comes form the individual, but memory studies have gone beyond the stories to a collective experience that should be representative of certain social and cultural events or periods.  This difference between detailed and broad shows the complications of the individual oral history approach, and the generalized pursuit of public memory.

Don't Throw ANYTHING Away!

     Archive Stories is both interesting and intimidating.  Made up of three parts, this book has fifteen stories of historians and their encounters with archival research.  Dealing with both domestic and foreign archives, these stories illuminate some of the challenges faced by researchers, and how archivists control quite a bit of the access most believe to be the foundation of “objective” research.  The materials are not just there to be discovered – some documents are privileged, and some are even destroyed if an archivist does not believe they have enough importance to warrant storage space and organization.

     The chapter I found the most intriguing was Kathryn J. Oberdeck’s “Archives of the Unbuilt Environment: Documents and Discourses of Imagined Space in Twentieth-Century Kohler, Wisconsin.”  The tensions between the planned community that Kohler put together with urban planners in order to control the sprawling industrial village before it got too out of hand, and the actual community that emerged can only be seen by comparing the intent with the actual result.  That would be comparing the plans (and there were many of them) to the actual built environment.  Today, the community serves as a golf resort... quite a bit different from the original intent of housing industrial workers who built the expensive faucets for Kohler.  Oberdeck lamented how archivists put the papers related to planned environments at a low priority due to the greater emphasis on papers that proved the existence of buildings that had actually been built.  Understandably, archivists had assumed that papers on an imagined community would not be as applicable to history as documentation of what actually happened. 

     This book serves as a guide for anyone interested in visiting or using an archive.  There is even a chapter that addresses digital archives, but the main focus is on physical, domestic archives and the experiences historians have had in both positive and negative ways.  Oberdeck’s chapter was the most challenging to me, since I agreed with the archivists at first, until Oberdeck demonstrates that yes, documentation of planned communities, even if they physically manifest into something else, are important to historical research when coming from a more abstract methodology.  Historians need these documents to get at how idealistic urban planning actually played out in a realistic economic, and social environment.  So according to Oberdeck, do not throw anything out!  Even if you think it is unimportant, future historians may find intriguing ways to reevaluate history through these seemingly “useless” documents.  Now, this may cause a huge back up in document storage, but how can you make accurate and objective value judgments on history?

Professional Public Pageantry, Parades, and Perception

     Everyone likes a parade.  Cities, and even the nation, recognized the appeal of these celebrations and took advantage of these shows of solidarity and patriotism, particularly during the 20^th century.  Through examples such as the Civil War Centennial, the Bicentennial of the Revolutionary War, and local celebrations like the Portola Festival in San Francisco, public historians can learn how these ephemeral displays of public sentiment incorporate their own interpretations of historical importance.

     The centennial and bicentennial celebrations provided opportunity for renewed patriotism in a time of social turmoil.  The Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and urban conflict characterized this period, but the patriotic fervor of the anniversaries was a way to overshadow the controversies.  Attempts to bring the disparate parts of national identity together as one “people” manifested as celebrations of Grant and Lee, and George Washington.  Pageantry has a purpose in public life as a symbolic representation of the people, but the Portola Festival was missing a noticeable chunk of the population: the labor party.

     The Portola Festival was seemingly inclusive, and a celebration of the area’s founding, but Glassberg mentions the significant absence of the labor party in the representation of the community.  The city brought out multiple neighborhoods, even the Chinese, but the façade of complete participation covered up the fact that political and economic issues influenced the labor party’s decision to abstain.  The festival ended up draining the city’s coffers, so it did not survive because of its economic insolvency, but the value for public historians comes from the turn-of-the-century view of public history as a method for consolidating the community, particularly the powers of community organizations.

War Memorials and Community Memory

     Memorials, particularly war memorials, are not for the dead, but for the living.  Just as tombstones and cemeteries do not benefit the dead, memorials provide a location and something tangible for those still living to remember those who have passed.  They are also testaments to the shared memory of a war experience.  David Glassberg’s chapter on “Remembering a War” discusses not only the public interpretations of war in memory, but also the reactions of veterans when they returned home to a less-than-enthusiastic welcome.

     Glassberg focuses on the town of Orange, Massachusetts, and with how the residents in this town commemorated their war heroes.  They had an obelisk for the Civil War already when the question of erecting some type of memorial for the Great War came up in the community.  Ultimately, the town decided to build a memorial park and reserved space for a physical monument.  The veterans were upset with this decision, since it appeared that the community was using the memorial as an excuse to get a beautification project approved.  Understandably, the veterans felt like outsiders in this process since the town did not even celebrate Armistice Day the next year.  Veterans continued to make their own memorials and remembrances without impetus from the community.

     The differences in how the community remembered war, and how the veterans remembered war shows the multiple aspects that go into public memory and memorials.  Whether the monument has the names of fallen soldiers inscribed on its face, or the memorial consists of a local gym or park, these tools are how the public reconciles multiple war narratives into a cohesive and easily understood symbol of patriotism and community.  The challenge to public historians comes from the simplification of war memories, and potentially explosive confrontations when the monolithic view is questioned, as in the Enola Gay exhibit.

Preservation as Cultural Resource Management

     This week, the readings are concerned with creating and regulating “history” in public places.  Glassberg’s chapters on “Rethinking New England Town Character,” and “Making Places in California” both rely on evaluating the public’s conception of history and how to represent authenticity.  Waldbauer’s discussion of the 1906 Antiquities Act’s centennial gives a concise overview of the progression in protecting both historical and natural land/resources in America and how these laws have shaped our understanding of preservation.

     Glassberg’s comment on how modern efforts contribute more to the New England sense of historicity than the age of the homes themselves really speaks to this rise in preservation.  Echoing the trend of Williamsburg, the Deerfield example shows how community involvement determines historical value, and the extent to which a town will be rehabilitated.  Although public historians do assist in preservation projects, most of the responsibility is in the hands of private citizens and the larger community.

     The tourist value of preservation is clearly in use for Glassberg’s discussion of Californians reviving the history of the Gold Rush.  One thing I really enjoyed about Glassberg’s chapters were the pictures, posters, and maps.  These different types of media provides an interesting view of preservation and how certain pictures were taken to raise money for preservation.  These appeals to local history lovers, and tourists alike, invested communities in their nearby historic resources.

     Waldbauer is less based in narrative, but is incredibly informative about the development of laws that created the National Park Service and regulated natural and historical sites around America, such as Devil’s Tower and monuments.  Included in these legal transactions of natural resources were tangles with American Indian interests and tribal lands.  The complications of setting aside land for public consumption or protection (or both) dealt with tribal sovereignty, which also overlaps with some of the issues in Glassberg’s chapter on California where interests differed on presentation.

     Overall, these selections provide the reader with information on how Americans have understood preservation, and how to regulate historical and natural resources for the public.  Senses of historic community, or tourist-minded publicity are two expressions of public history.  Since the Antiquities Act of 1906 the government has taken steps to protect and regulate our nation’s history.  All three of these readings speak to this private preservation for public enjoyment under the control of the government, but ultimately the impetus for preservation lies with the people.