Digital History

Digital History: 

Cohen and Rosenzweig are right- the Web is not going anywhere. However, I think the benefits (particularly those of capacity and accessibility) far outweigh the potential for abuse. Like anything involving new technology we need to develop standards for usage. Cohen and Rosenzweig do a good job of identifying the issues involved. My question is will we be able to develop the standards before the technology changes again? 

History and New Media: 

This idea of "keeping up" is the first thought in Tim Grove article New Media and the Challenges for Public History but then he goes on to ask a really important question: how do museums with ever dwindling resources keep up with the technology? Think about it. The Wagner is currently struggling to keep the heating system working but pretty soon they're going to have to hire someone to be in charge of Facebook and Flickr updates. The Seefeldt and Thomas article What is Digital History? A look at some Exemplar Projects showed examples of how Digital History is particularly useful; the Texas Slavery Project breaks down data by county and year and shows primary documents and the The Valley of the Shadow site gives a lot raw data as well. Particularly when it comes to statistical raw data, digital history is incredibly useful. However, The Sheets article on Wiki in the Classroom shows how digital history is still a two-edged sword. 

Haunted Mouses and Hyperlinking Reality: 

Haunted Mouses is just disturbing. What happens when the people posting to these sites start presenting themselves authoritatively and visitors to the sites assume that they are as trained historians? Or worse if they start using the technology detailed in Hyperlinking Reality. 

Museums and Society 2034: Trends and Potential Futures: 

If anything, the trends listed in the Museums and Society article show that the Museums will need to become more digital in order to keep up with the changing needs and demographics of their audiences. 

Prosthetic Memory

In the next to the last paragraph of his article Jay Winter wrote "We must not underestimate the extent to which many historians consider 'popularity' to be synonymous with 'superficiality' and believe that any idea that is expressed clearly must be deeply flawed." 

This is just a guess on my part but I think Winter has read Prosthetic Memory... 

I don't know where to go with Landsberg...On the one hand I think her interpretations on immigration, slavery and the Holocaust are well thought out and I can even see (up to a point) her argument about commodification in the age of mass culture. She makesthis argument particularly well with her section on the Holocaust.  However, she does herself and her argument a huge disservice by using Blade Runner and Total Recall as "license to explore in creative ways the ethical ramifications of prosthetic memory" (p.34.) I realize she's a cultural historian by training but she should stick to examples from cultures that actually existed - as she did for much of the rest of book. 

Winter's argument dealing with evolvement of memory is, I think, more realistic and on much firmer ground. Identity politics certainly played a role in the advent of the "memory boom" but I think economic growth along with higher education levels and increased leisure time have also played a large part. 

Winter doesn't address these issues but if he had, I bet he would have done it clearly and not needed to use examples from science fiction. 

I'm skeptical...

Mirabal: 

I can't make my mind up about this article. On the one hand I think Mirabal talks about the Latina/os who are being displaced from their neighborhood but then she says very little about the culture in the neighborhood that is being transformed. She mentions the destruction of the mural (which is a travesty) but she doesn't say anything about any improvements that came along.  Were their more jobs? Did all of the construction mean that Latina/os were given jobs Did any Latina/osbenefit economically? She cites the example of the family with twelve members living in a three bedroom house that is split up but I took it to mean that they were living that way out of necessity not by choice. "Gentrification" is a pretty pejorative term, especially the way Mirabal uses it. I feel like there's more to the story that were not getting. That said, I think she does a great job detailing the benefits and shortcomings of oral histories. 

O'Keefe: 

While I want to give the mayor credit for showing initiative and cutting through the bureaucracy, it seems to me you have to have some community "buy in" for such a project. Especially if its tax-payer dollars...

Carson: 

Carson deserves a lot of credit for "thinking outside the box." Television though, I think is a two edged sword. Yes its more interactive but its also means that the viewer has been conditioned to have a short attention span. Also, given the preponderance of "reality television" these days, the viewer now expects some kind of shock value as well... I'm not entirely sold on his idea of Plan B but he's right we do need a Plan B... 

At the risk of sounding like a cranky old man,  how much of the decreased attendance at museums has to do with the decline in our education system. Also, I think the changing dynamic in the American family has to be considered. Today, both parents work, usually more than forty hours a week and often times on weekends. Is it that we're too busy as a society to go to museums? 

Interpreting our Heritage... (or trying to anyway)

In the Introduction to Tilden's "Interpreting our Heritage", Craig wrote that the book is assigned to Park Service Employees for them to not only read but refer back to - and no wonder. The book is a clear, well-thought out "manual" for public historians. What's interesting though is the emphasis on "interpretation", meaning Tilden wants people to discover things on their own and not be lectured or preached at (don't instruct be provocative.) Probably the best line in the book is "never give the nail that last tap." 

Now contrast this approach to the one Handler/Gable and West articles. Both articles detail the real problems that Public Historians face trying to build sites that attract and educate. Yet the overall tone of the articles indicates that they have more faith in "Historians" than they do the "Public" whereas Tilden is the exact opposite. Handler and Gabler even write that "Participatory Pedagogy at Colonial Williamsburg makes it unlkely that a critical history will be the institution's product because it boils down to catering to the most easily satisfiable desires of its visitors as if they were middle or low-brow customers" 

To which I say "why?" Just because Handler and Gable can't effectively communicate to the visitors at Colonial Williamsburg who are trying to learn about the past (or as they might put it "cater to the middle or low-brow customers attempting to participate in their own pedagogy") doesn't mean Tilden is wrong. It just means that Handler and Gable  can't teach. They need to work harder and in the process hopefully gain some respect for the people they're trying to teach.  

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.