The Lowell Experiment

Stanton does a lot of work on the study of how Public History came to Lowell and does it from the standpoint of an anthropologist. At first, I thought that approach wouldn't work but it does - although there's a couple of times when I think its overkill and that often times Stanton does herself and the book a disservice by taking herself too seriously. 

She breaks the book apart into three sections. In the first she writes about how Public Historians (including those that don't call themselves Public Historians because of the social stigma that was attached to it back then...) "as social actors operate in a post industrial city undergoing considerable socioeconomic and demographic change" (p.29.) Another way of saying this would be "work in the real world."

In the second part she writes about the tours of Lowell. The canal ride show how the the city was built around industry and how the workers interact with the tourists. however I thinks its bit much to say that "the ranger used the incident to reinforce a linear narrative that ultimately served to mask the visitors own privileged positions in the globalizing economy"(p. 69.) She writes similar things about the walking tour of the acre and about how its reinforcing a separation between the tourists from those people whose lives are being displayed. All of this was brought about it seems by the redevelopment of Lowell.  

The third section is the best part of the book because its so heavily researched on the way Public History is being practiced in the Lowell. It also illustrates the reasoning behind a lot of the decision making which is really helpful. Lowell reminds me of those old company towns in Pennsylvania that revolved around either the coal mine or the steel mill. There's one company in Lowell - the NHP- that the entire economy and populace are dependent upon. Stanton concludes the book by writing about how "The public history I would hope to see in Lowell and places like it is one that could foster relationships with a wider, more encompassing set of people and thus a broader vision about what that world might become." Well, of course, but shouldn't that be the goal of every community organization or project? Take out the words public history in that sentence and replace them with city council or PTA meeting and you'll see what I mean. 

Stanton's book is well researched and very authoritative but also I think a little unfair because The Lowell Experiment - like all public history in my opinion - is a work in progress. 

Go Phils!

Slavery and Public History (Talk about timing...)

I'm taking an American Historiography class at Villanova and the topic I selected for my paper was Thomas Jefferson and Slavery so the "Slavery and Public History" assignment was timed perfectly. (By the way, read Garry Wills' book "Negro President" if you ever have the chance.) 

All of the authors do a great job of illustrating the difficulty of raising the subject of slavery - and by extension race - in Public History. However, I think part of the reason why people are uncomfortable with slavery is directly related to the fact it hasn't been adequately taught in our schools and as a result people are uncomfortable talking about. This fear of the unknown leads to people being reluctant to discuss slavery. Even worse, those that do (like Rush Limbaugh) express opinions that are either wrong or ill informed which only adds more fuel to the fire... I understand why African Americans view it as the "last great taboo subject," but I think in the long run no one is served by that attitude. 

Now for some specifics:

 

Vlach's article on the "Back of the Big House" exhibit at the Library of Congress is pretty interesting. I mean its one thing to offend the public but the employees of the Library of Congress? The people at the DC Public Library seemed to have an open mind... 

Nash's "For Whom Will The Liberty Toll" (aside from the half-baked, Hemingway reference in the title) was interesting. However, the Federal Government doesn't like surprises so I wonder how much of the resistance by Independence National Historic Park had to do with the topic of slavery versus the fact that the plans for the proposed exhibit most likely flew in the face of the INHP's budget and planning. Nash doesn't touch on this at all. Cheers to all the public historians though for their role in this episode. 

Lois Horton's "Avoiding History" is a good summation of the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemmings story and the way slavery is being presented at Monticello. Coincidentally, I happened to visit Monticello ten years ago. The tour guide acknowledged that the two "most likely" had at least one child together but that there very little known about their relationship and much of what has been written is speculation. 

McGraw's "Southern Comfort Levels" was really interesting. The Neo- Confederate movement doesn't like want a statue of Lincoln because its emblematic of the the South's defeat. But a portrait of Robert E. Lee (the General who was actually defeated!) is acceptable. The Arthur Ashe statue is great idea but but don't put it next to the statues of the Confederate Generals... 

The discussion on slavery needs to start in Richmond. 

Pitcaithley's "Cosmic Threat" talks about addressing slavery as one of the causes of the Civil War. Of course it should be addressed, as frequently and in as many places as possible. 

As for Levine's "Usable Past"Its seems to me that too many people are concerned with the past only to the extent that they can "use" it for their own purposes. History though doesn't - or shouldn't - work that way. We need to understand the past - and in the case of slavery as much as possible - in order to move forward. Isn't that the best use? We should study the African - Americans in the Civil war both Union and Confederate and try to understand the "how" and "why" behind their actions. 

 

 

Now THAT's what I call a reading assignment!

Weil's book, I think,  is the the best thing we've read yet this semester (which makes me more annoyed that I spilled a cup of coffee yesterday all over my desk - and the book...) 

I completely agree with the Purposiveness/Capability/Effectiveness/Efficiency argument in chapter one, however I do have a problem with the percentages. Instead of the 35/30/25/10 ratio, I would suggest 10/35/30/25 at least for historical museums (art museums it seems to me have to be more open and flexible in terms of purposiveness.) Lets use the Wagner as an example: they have no doubt that their "purpose" (to provide free scientific education to the public) but they do have serious questions about their "capabilities" - and its their "effectiveness" and "efficiency" that drive their capabilities. The Wagner, I think, is a great example of a museum that is "for something" but striving to be "for somebody." 

Weil expands on effectiveness and efficiency in chapter three when he talks about LeslieRedford's training for museum administrators. The training he describes is essentially an MBA.Which makes me wonder how many Museum Administrators/Public Historians have an MBA? Many graduate schools offer programs that allow students to get their JD and MBA at the same time. Could schools also offer a joint MBA/MA for Public History?   

As for the issue of what and how to display in our museums that both Weil and Tyson raise, It seems to me the answer is "everything" and with as much detail as possible. How to pay for it is another issue altogether but "everything" should be the goal (or should I say purposiveness?) Tyson's article is good because she raises the issue of emotional comfort but I think we would be more comfortable with our history if we faced the uncomfortable aspects of it head on and with as much objectivity as possible. The instructors at the Connor Prairie site who told the teenagers to be quiet - and more respectful - had the right idea and attitude.