Category: Reading Reflections

             Having worked for the United States Government in one capacity or another, I can truly feel the pain and suffering that Thomas F. King went through in dealing with the different government agencies in his work.  In this week’s reading, the only thing I felt was pure frustration on his part in dealing with the government as a whole. All types of government, local, state and federal seem to work on the attitude of doing as little work possible, in as little time as possible (or some cases as much time as possible), to be able to make the most off the contract or kickbacks from entity doing the real job. 

            King made it very clear that no one entity with in the government structure either wanted to work together or wanted what was best for either the tribe, ranchers or people about what was sacred or their way of life.  It will always be those with the most money wins.  SHPO’s are too understaffed to deal with all the financial, environmental and religious entities within a proposal to adequately see that all sides of the proposal are taken into account. 

            King’s argument seems to be that Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act either needs to be revised or completely done away with.  Section 106 should be amended to the point where agencies that are brought into what preservation project need to be able to communicate and work together.  We all know that this is why there was the creation of the Homeland Security arm of the government.  A change within the certain government sectors takes very much patience and time.  As King stated changes can happen by something as simple as going and voting. 

           

Thomas F. King delivers a crushing blow to the current state of environmental and cultural protection in the United States. I was surprised at the level of defeatism in this book until I the author noted he was writing during the Bush administration. I remembered back to the frustration held by many with some of the environmental policies during that time period. The pessimism King caries through this book was prevalent among writers for those eight years. While I have virtually no experience with conservation protection in relation to King’s long tenure as a consultant, I can empathize with his sense of bitterness towards the status quo of the early 2000s. While I might argue things have changed slightly and King may be experiencing the wax and wane of U.S. politics, I do agree with two of his major themes: laws and bureaucracies cannot alone protect our heritage. These problems are not unique to environmental and cultural protection, and the ineffectiveness of laws and bureaucracies rarely completely stops groups from demanding change from the government. I may be oversimplifying, but I think many of these political fights can be reduced to majority rule. If King is unsatisfied with the current state of conservation  he shouldn’t point to (as Zach put it) conspiracy theories, and instead look to public awareness.

The problem with laws

Throughout the book, the author quotes the language of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws that are supposedly intended to protect important places from change. His many examples of groups skirting the language to do as the please proves just how big the holes are in these laws. This is true, but I think King may be reading too far into NEPA. There are many examples of NEPA working to blockade construction on protected lands. Yes many places are disputed, and big business or federal agencies have an upper hand with teams of lawyers to plead their case. King makes the fight for conservation seem like David vs. Goliath, and perhaps it is, but he forgets to mention the importance of public officiers. Perhaps because he’s writing during a particularly Red time-period, King omits the fact is there are politicians, judges, and even lawyers willing to fight to keep historic or culturally significant places in tact.

The problem with bureaucracies

King takes offense to the barriers created to keep the public out of the conservation conversation. Things like jargon, shady attempts at “consultation,” and dodging the questions put forth by the public create a government that is not listening to the public. I was particularly drawn to the example from the Arizona BLM director’s role in the Topock Maze. Without reading the director’s letter I can see how she failed to represent the public interest.

Overall King makes a pretty good sales pitch for the sad state of conservation, which leads into some decent prescriptions for change. I trust his   experience in the field reflects just how difficult it might be to try defending a place against development. I can sense his bitterness towards the laws and bureaucracies he sees as defenses against developers. He may be exaggerating the problem to justify some of the more radical ideas he has for improvement (a constitutional amendment for example). I see this book kind of like the infomercials for crazy contraptions. He’s making reality seem hopeless without his product. Despite the hopelessness, I remain naively hopeful we can strike a balance between conservation and development with the laws and departments we already have.

I wish I could say that I was shocked after reading this week’s blog post and articles, but unfortunately, I somewhat expected this level of stupidity and ignorance, especially in light of this week’s topic: Ethical Dilemmas. Out of all of the articles, I took the most issue with the situation at the Baron Von Munchausen Historic Home. Having worked as a tour guide, I could relate with Larry Cebula’s reactions. Tours, regardless of the location, historic or not, are meant to be informative and entertaining, but they have to be accurate! On many occasions when I was a tour guide I would have guests come up to me and question what they heard on my tour, saying that they had taken the Celestial Seasonings tour before and other tour guides said _______ about ________. (This happened enough times that I do not have just one example, thus my reasoning for using “Blank”). I would kindly and gently explain to them that what they heard before was an exaggeration or was untrue. While some guests felt affronted and taken off guard by this new information, the majority of them thanked me providing accurate information and seemed eager to verify other facts that they had remembered from previous visits to the facility. My reaction to these encounters, however, was a bit different. The first time this happened, I was rather shocked, especially in light of the fact that all tour guides received the same 80 page “script” and manual and that we were supposed to take all of our information from that document. I can say it was not a pleasant position to be in. That being said, I can understand that the docents who volunteer at the Baron Von Munchausen Historic Home might have been unaware of the inaccuracies in their own tour. However, once Cebula politely confronted the Historic Home’s staff about these blatant inaccuracies in interpretation, I expected the home to respond with a little more tact.

 

The written response that Cebula received made me cringe. Aside from the blatant misspellings, poor grammar, and awkward sentence structure that plagued this letter (all of which, by the way, contribute to making the writer seem less than intelligent. How is she in charge of this place if she cannot write?!) her defensive stance was uncalled for. This approach might have been appropriate had Cebula tone been nasty or abrasive or had written a letter condemning the home or the people working there. But he did not. He was simply trying to bring to light his concerns regarding the interpretation. It is very frustrating to know that many of the inaccuracies or misinterpretations at historic sites are the result of directors/managers who are simply incompetent. What is even more alarming is that these kinds of people still have jobs.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all just ignore the “negative stuff” in life?  That’s the wish of all children.  Close your eyes and no one can see you.  Unfortunately reality often intrudes.  The sad fact is that those who believe in the Lost Cause of the south are grasping at any straw that will allow them to hold onto an idea that never really existed.  This notion of a group of men fighting northern aggressors for states rights.  If the Sons of the Confederacy can hold onto the idea that the Civil War was not about slavery then it makes them less culpable for the atrocities that were committed by their ancestors.  It also means that they don’t have to change their behavior and adapt to a new world.  It galls me that what is never mentioned is that EVERY state in the confederacy put slavery as the motive behind the Civil War in their declarations of secession and in their constitutions.  The new south may be confused as to why the Civil War happened, but the old south was most definitely not.  I guess that’s one of those negative parts of history that shouldn’t be discussed.

I find it ironic that the founding fathers are considered by many to be highly principled men who could do no wrong.  For me it has always been their flaws that made them interesting.  Ben Franklin was a womanizer who liked his comforts above all else, George Washington was an elitist who believed that only rich folks should have a say in government, Thomas Jefferson believed that Jesus was a philosopher, not the son of god, and John Adams was a cranky old coot who believed (rightly so) that folks didn’t like him much.  None of them were perfect, thank goodness, and that is what should be taught.  If those guys can do what they did, then imagine what the next average person with a dream and some guts can accomplish.  What is truly scary to me is that the people who believe that the founding fathers were sent by god to anoint America as the new bastion of all that is good and holy are not wing nuts.  They are definitely misguided, but they are not crazy-eyed-dirty-hair-torn-clothes-loony-toons.  An educated man who uses that education to misguide others is far more terrifying to me than a wing nut.  The average person is much more likely to take such a man seriously.

I don’t even know where to start with the volunteers at the Baron Von Munchhausen House.  Museums need all the retired folks who give out of love of their past but something has to be done to make their interpretations a bit more realistic.  In this case they need a strong leader whose prejudices don’t warp her ideas, which they apparently they don’t have.  What they have is a bigot in curator’s clothing.  Really, you think that the black kids need to be protected from the truth?  How is that not paternalistic bull****?  It seems like what she is trying to do is protect herself and other white people from owning up to the truth of slavery and the damage that it did to EVERYONE involved.  It is uncomfortable for her to talk about slavery in the presence of black people so she uses protecting the kids as an excuse not to do it.  Until we can have the conversation about race and slavery we will never be able to overcome our shared past and move on to a better future.

One last thought; as I read through these articles I kept thinking about how racism seems to be at the root of all of this.  It makes me wonder just how much of the fear and ignorance were brought on by the election of our first black president.

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.

We have all suffered through a conversation with a whack job; listening to them, either in person or online, completely twist logic to make a square peg fit a round hole. I will often ignore or deflect their rhetoric since it’s a waste of my time trying to change their mind. History is not the only topic they choose to distort; they also like science (see: flat earth society), economics (see: any pyramid scheme), war (see: any war movie with Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis) and even biology (see Todd Akin’s “the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down” regarding rape pregnancies.)

People are entitled to their opinions. If I’m going to get upset about people spreading myths and lies on the internet, I should also start correcting people in bars and bus stops too. It is a futile exercise that will probably result in at least one black eye. I’m not going to try and stop Earl Taylor and the National Center of Constitutional Studies from selling tickets to his ridiculous lecture about the constitution at the Holiday Inn. I’m not going to try and stop the Sons of the Confederate Veterans from celebrating their ancestor’s humiliating defeat. They are entitled to their opinions and anyone that believes this silliness can go ahead and spend their afternoons hunched over a keyboard and bucket of KFC writing comments on the Idaho Statesman website.

The big difference of course comes with public funding. What happens when these myths and lies creep into publicly funded education like museums and text books? Two problems arrise. First: who’s to say my version of history is any better than the wackos? Second: What if the majority of Americans really want the lies and myths over the truth? The answer to the first question is fairly simple: historians point to the evidence while others point to (to quote XKCD) “.net pages with black backgrounds and like 20 fonts each.” Historian show history is never black and white, the gray area contains subtleties often lost in internet arguments. The second point, that the majority of Americans want to believe myth X, I believe can also be disproven.

With most generalities, American beliefs can be roughly modeled by a bell curve.  On one extreme you have a small group that pushes to continue the myth. On the other extreme you might have informed academics or professionals (scientists, historians, biologists) that have a rational explanation. In the middle is the majority of Americans that probably don’t have time to care. The best thing for the historian to do is pull the center towards their side. This is difficult however, because the other side is trying the same thing.

 

The purposeful ignorance of the Sons of Confederate Veterans did not surprise me. It was their influence on other parties that caught me unaware. That anyone would write a history book based mostly on Internet research quickly makes me wary, but to rely on cites written by so obviously bias individuals is nearly shameful! As a high school student I had an especially proactive teacher who took the time to point out the mistakes in our textbook and make us question what we were taught as “Truth.” I remember laughing with my class at the positive characterization of the book defeated General Custer who fought bravely until his death. History that was local to us earned a poorly researched paragraph in our textbook. When people complain about the lack of quality in the US education system perhaps the education department should start with raising the quality of literature being used to teach. Perhaps actual historians should write the history books? I would assume biologists would write the biology textbook, but maybe this is too high of an expectation. While it may be easier said than done, one quick fix here is to allow historians to write history textbooks or at least allow the creation of a collaborative textbook.

The “Conservative class” article actually got my blood pressure up as much as anything else. When I started reading I applauded those wanting to learn more about their constitution since most people in the US wouldn’t even be able to explain what the Bill of Rights is. The more I read, of course, the more upset I became. Hiding the continuation of ignorance under the guise of furthering people’s knowledge is horrible! I love studying the founding era and what the motivation was behind the different decisions made at the time. For someone to create a conference claiming to have the answers in his research of the Founding Fathers while glossing over or simply ignoring certain facts defeats the entire purpose. The unfortunate fact is that this man has every right to conduct the different conferences and to present his information in any light he wants. The constitution he ‘teaches’ also protects his freedom of speech and right to gather. As a historian I have equal right to call him out on his falsehoods, but the effectiveness of that action is questionable. I fear charlatan ‘teachers’ will always be the bane of a historian’s life. Like the man who wrote the letter to the museum about the mistakes, it is unlikely that our ‘helpful suggestions’ will always be taken well.

I do think, however, that historians who have enough knowledge to counter falsehoods do have a duty to at least attempt to help. Our corrections may not always be welcomed, but that doesn’t mean that we should just give up at the first angry response letter. Our actions, however, really should be done in a helpful spirit instead of one of conflict.

 

Similar to Ryan, this week’s readings caused my blood pressure to rise. It also brought up a lot of issues I have been discussing with other graduate students such as can we judge the actions of people in the past? I think people in the past should be held to standards similar to the ones that we use to judge people from the most recent past. I recognize that there is an important difference between understanding motives and judging actions. Motives of people in the past should be looked at objectively and perhaps with empathy…Now with that being said can we all please agree that slavery is bad!? Can we all recognize that slavery is still a very real problem in the world, and even in this country? If people are still celebrating the Confederate cause, how can we say that people who owned slaves were just a product of their distinct time and place? If these racist ideas continue to persist let’s not excuse them in either the past or the present. And why should the Vega article be shocking to any of us any more, when Mississippi just passed the 13th amendment this year! There is no way of knowing every individual reason for people’s participation in the Civil War, but folks should not ignore the prevalent ideology that was the framework of the Civil War, regardless of individual reasons such as “preservation” or circumstance.

Are these racist ideas being perpetuated by educators? Kevin Sieff’s piece was unbelievable. There seems to be a problem not with historians, per se, since the author of Our Virginia is not a historian, but with educators and school boards. Historians are often undervalued and under-appreciated, and there seems to be a misconception that anyone can produce sound historical research. This problem needs to be addressed if we are going to put an end to textbooks that espouse blatantly false historical information. When school boards and parents recognize what encompasses “good history” then fewer people will be compelled to listen to “bad history” (a few will still listen), and bad historians will increasingly become irrelevant.

Are the people discussed in Thompson’s article performing bad history, when they like so many others, are interpreting people in the past in a certain way to further their present cause? Probably, but people all over the political spectrum do the same thing.

The Cebula articles were both sad and humorous. In my experience interpreters are usually nice, retired people who feel they are above any sort of research, and feel overly confident in their knowledge; or they are severely underpaid for the work they are expected to do. Unfortunately, with what was presented in the response letter sent to Cebula, the reason for mis-information or blatantly withholding information seems to have more disturbing motives. The curator of the historic site definitely lets her racist flag fly, at the end of the letter, when she implies that Africans should be blamed for chattel slavery in the United States. Are you f—ing kidding me?! But she doesn’t stop there, um, I am pretty sure Greeks had slaves and oh, how very kind of your guides to leave issues of slavery out of the tour so as not to embarrass the black students. Again, are you f—-ing kidding me!? I think her true feelings are wrapped up rather succinctly in her statement that those black students, who she is so concerned for, “would start hating the messenger.” Trust me lady, black folks already know who is responsible for enslaving their ancestors.

At least this week’s readings ended on a semi-positive note, and an important question. Jeff Robinson asks, “How can historians and publics use the power of the past to catalyze social change?” However, in light of this week’s other articles, maybe we should ask- how can good historians and informed publics use the power of the past to catalyze social change to benefit humanity?

This weeks readings really touched a nerve with me. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s blatant ignorance and these articles were filled with examples of it. Staring with the articles concerning the celebration of the South’s secession, I knew the ignorance groups such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans had towards the Civil War. However, the public history and the education system in some of the southern states was appalling to me. The textbook situation in Virginia reaffirmed my viewpoint that Americans are not getting the truth, and this is not only in southern states, it’s happening nationwide. Textbooks come under fire in many states, either for their controversial passages such as the blacks fighting for the South, or because of a complete absence of important information such as slavery and the Native Americans. While Charles Pyle, the spokesperson of the Department of Education said because the book was approved didn’t mean they agreed with every sentence, shouldn’t they be more careful as to what books they allow? Although that is one part of the book, it’s an  inaccurate representation of a very important period in American history. Even if the teachers refused to teach that passage of the book, students are able to read it for themselves. There’s a reason many young people don’t see a problem with believing in conspiracy theories such as the 9/11 inside job, or the fake moon landings, and it’s because they’re being flooded with controversial and inaccurate information from textbooks, from television, and from the internet. While it’s impossible to eliminate inaccurate and controversial history, as historians we should do everything in our power to try and eliminate as much of it as we can.

 

Regarding the desire to reenact the South’s rise to power, I always find that troubling. Yes, it is their right to reenact it, but there are a lot of things I have the right to do, but that does not mean I do it, or should. As the article “They Have Blood on Their Hands” showed, they are celebrating slavery, bloodshed, rape, oppression, and racism by celebrating the rise of the Confederacy. What if the Nazis were allowed to recreate the Holocaust? Or what if, as a comment said on that article, if Muslims were allowed to reenact the events of 9/11? Is it not the same thing?

 

The article that really got me was the one on the class about the Founding Fathers. Lots of Americans love to use the Founding Fathers when it suits them in politics, however most of them who do that don’t understand the Founding Fathers at all. They have a warped view of them because of their political ideologies. Earl Taylor may mention that they wanted a separation of church and state, or that they wanted Americans to bear arms, but does he mention that Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian? Does he mention Washington’s warnings towards getting involved in foreign affairs, or his warning about the two party system? Does he mention how much Benjamin Franklin loved and admired France? Probably not because it wouldn’t fit with his political agenda, which I find happens a lot in this country when trying to debate someone who has already made up their minds about the Founding Fathers. I think it’s time we got our history right, instead of what we want it to be. As historians, it’s our job to put aside our political bias and teach history truthfully, which has been a problem for many years in this country.