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.