Author: Molly

The political split in the class already seems to be causing some problems so rather than argue the individual points of each article and how they do or do not relate to the larger conservative worldview, I am going to keep my post to what I see to be the main issue…balance.

This week’s readings provided a nice counterbalance to what we’ve already read. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to assume, however, that the views and opinions expressed in a few blog posts are representative of the entirety of conservative thoughts and beliefs. In much the same manner, it would be wrong to extrapolate the liberal viewpoint by merely reading postings by Chauncey DeVega.

Several people mentioned the issue of sources in connection with this week’s readings. I think there is a general problem regarding sources with history posted on the internet…anything that appears “too academic” or complicated is going to be glossed over or ignored. The problem is not limited to this week’s readings, either. Despite his repeated claims of “empirical” evidence, Chauncey DeVega did not provide much in the way of substantiation for his arguments. I think that is a problem that public historians have to look for ways to address…how can we produce good history that is accessible to the public yet still meets the basic standards we should all ascribe to in terms of sources and an accurate, balanced presentation?

Finally, the “humor” article by Jack Hitt was a hit piece. There are more than enough stupid quotes that can be taken out of context on the liberal side to provide just as ridiculous a timeline. To try and pass misstatements and isolated quotes off as something representative of the larger conservative viewpoint does nothing to engender consensus and cooperation.

I do not think it is necessarily surprising to many that bureaucracy makes things more difficult. Just because a law is on the books does not mean that it will be enforced in the manner that everyone might want it to be. In an ideal world, historical places and events would be protected for future generations. The problem then becomes what history and what events?  Sometimes people can become too myopic when it comes to preserving one specific thing. A Civil War battlefield, for example, is culturally significant, but that battle is likely not the only important thing that has occurred there.

I do not agree with the argument that business, corporations or even the government are the antithesis of preservation or conservation. There are many, many businesses and agencies that act responsibly with regards to not only cultural but also environmental issues. While King’s book and blog were informative, I do not know that they actually contribute to a solution. A more balanced approach to the topic would have done more to elucidate the issues and provide tools for future public historians.

This week’s readings on ethical dilemmas and the use of history for political purposes raise many interesting questions that are plaguing the profession right now. History is always going to be distorted, by one side or the other. The main issue is at what point should a public historian engage and attempt to “right the wrongs”?

The exchange that Larry Cebula shared on his website provides a good example. Had the only problem on the tour been the 5 myths he brought up: fireplace screens; colonial height; closets; hands in portraits and pineapples – would it have been worth the time to try and correct it? Is that what public historians need to do… ensure that every anecdote shared is historically accurate? Obviously, the main issue that Cebula raises – slavery – needs to be corrected whenever it is so blatantly ignored but are the smaller facts worth our time?

The Sons of Confederate Veterans have the right, as much as we wish they didn’t, to commemorate the Civil War in the manner they choose. Someone teaching a class on the Constitution outside of a publicly funded institution can highlight whatever aspects of the Founders and their lives that he or she wants to. For all of the examples of bad history that are presented, it seems as though they are filling a need. If there is nothing there to present the correct version of history, then the vacuum will be filled by whatever is left. I don’t feel it is our job as public historians to follow those other groups and correct them. I think it is our responsibility to ensure that the actual history is readily accessible, understandable and relatable. If you fill the void then the noise will fall away.

If we are honest with ourselves, I doubt any of us chose to pursue the MA or MAHR program because historians are in high demand, making six-figure salaries. Our own school places the majority of efforts (after football) on the STEM programs. We are here because we have a passion for history that we hope to someday be able to translate into a purpose (job). The MA or MAHR is a tool that can be used to show a certain level of dedication to a potential employer and also serves as a means to set us apart from those who only have a BA. Is it a guarantee of future employment, either in history or outside of the field? Of course not, but it is one way I can give myself a leg up on the competition in the job market.

As with last week’s readings, I found the ones from the AHA to be the most beneficial as they moved beyond the job titles and buzz words to provide more detail on what a position in those various areas might look like. This information provides a bit of a roadmap for students to help tailor their education to their future goals. It’s easy to get caught in the academia vs. museum mindset so it is helpful to see the variety of possible careers that draw on history.

Chris Guillebeau’s book was an interesting read. I wouldn’t normally choose a book about business, but I feel that this particular book took a very friendly tone to the subject matter. The subject matter and trying to inject “business” into the humanities can be a tricky transition, however. On one hand, many people don’t readily recognize the importance of our particular skill sets and they have a tendency to devalue them. On the other hand, I think that many historians (myself included) undervalue ourselves and seem to be unwilling to “market” our knowledge. I know some people who argue that it’s wrong to charge someone to learn more about themselves and their history, personal or collective. Skills that become second nature to historians are highly sought after in a variety of fields, the issue becomes learning the appropriate buzz words to market. Previously, I was hired to format, footnote/annotate a manuscript and create the appropriate Chicago-style citations for each source. It’s not something that was geared specifically towards historians, but it utilized the skills I had gained during my historical training.

Where Guillebeau’s book provided the overview of self-promotion, the article from the AHA provided a good roadmap of how historians can better market themselves outside of the traditional path of academia. Many of the potential careers are ones we have discussed in class already, but I appreciated the way that article expanded on each of the potential roles to describe what jobs in those industries might look like. Putman’s article provided an interesting, real world example of someone “doing” history. I particularly appreciated this comment, “If history is going to survive in a world increasingly unsympathetic to thought for thought’s sake, we need practical historians who aren’t ashamed of their pastimes. Those hobbies might be more relevant than you think.” One of my “hobbies” has become a source of employment. The expertise I developed for fun has become a marketable skill set.

This week’s readings further highlighted the fact that so much of what goes on in the world of historic preservation is subjective. There are certain buildings and sites that I am sure we would all agree are significant to our larger collective history but many of the others that are preserved in the name of history, culture or impact raise questions. While Elvis Presley’s contributions to music and culture are significant, is Graceland itself really that historically significant? If Elvis had never lived there, would it still be listed as a National Historic Landmark? Are there other places in Memphis that would mean more to society?

The guidelines for historic preservation seem to remain largely subjective to the whims of historical preservation boards and even the court system. The documents from the Boise Historic Preservation Committee kept coming to mind as I read more on this section…so much back and forth over window sill depth and the matter of an inch. Additionally, historic preservation raises the thorny issues of property rights and eminent domain.

I can see the importance of adding places like the early McDonald’s to the National Register as it represents a shift in American (and global) culture as we became a more mobile society and required businesses to adapt to the changing needs of the consumer. However, as Ryan pointed out, would we make the argument to preserve the Wal-Marts, Best Buys, etc. to illustrate the architecture and culture of 2013? So many of our purchases today are made over the internet. How do we accurately preserve that for posterity?

Historic preservation is vitally important for us to not only embrace and understand our past, but also to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to interact with history. The subjective nature of the field raises concerns, however.

Historic preservation is certainly an interesting topic to explore. On the outside, it seems as though the decision process is as simple as: there’s a building…something important happened there…let’s save it. The reality is much more complex as the actual physical location is not the entire story. History must play an integral and primary role in historic preservation. Other factors must also be considered such as Niki’s question of to which era is a building restored? If you have multiple events of historic significance, which takes precedence?

I liked the analogy that Tyler used when referring to buildings as representing both nouns and verbs. I think that this is an important distinction to make when considering how and why a building should be saved from destruction. In distinguishing the different perspectives on preservation, Tyler highlights the Chinese who “do not consider the preservation of physical structures as critical.” (Chapter 1)* As others have mentioned in their blog posts and in class, almost nothing remains of the Chinese who used to live in Boise. However, considering the point of view raised in the previous quote, would the preservation of their homes and businesses (done by outsiders) merely have been the superimposition of another group’s value system?

The role of urban renewal with historic preservation is a complicated one. There must be new growth and development to sustain society, but the prevailing view that took hold during this time period – that “old was bad and new was good” (Chapter 2)* – actually caused more problems. Boise lost many beautiful downtown structures as city leaders attempted to modernize.  Although steps have been taken to ensure that history is preserved, the question of whose history and what history is preserved still remain.

*Page # not available as I am using the iBooks version of the text.