Category: Uncategorized

I’m doing my best to not reiterate every post that has come before me in this week’s reading… Hopefully I’ll succeed.

I actually experienced the issues that Stephanie raised for her eventual post-collegiate endeavors. There I was, fresh with a B.A. in History… my only job offer was within the same agency I had been employed for the past two years. While my friends who dropped out of high school were earning $25/hour in Boston working in some facet of the Union world, I was pulling in a whopping $8/hour as the sole History graduate of that semester who actually worked in the field. The latter was much more gratifying than the prior.

I loved working for the Historical Society. My coworkers and the guests that walked through our doors were (for the most part) amazing. I did not enjoy the bureaucracy that came with working for a State agency. Every June/July during my time at the ISHS, I was waiting patiently for the next fiscal year’s budget to emerge in hopes that my meager wage would be included – hopefully in its entirety.

Another thing that left with with a bad taste towards being a State employee, were the endless loopholes and/or restrictions that limited our abilities as Historians. I all too frequently took liberty on certain projects that have otherwise gone ignored. The old adage, ‘it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission’ rang all too true. I couldn’t stand aside and watch a valuable site, building, or artifact decay due to ‘planning/budget issues’. The exact bureaucracy that most Americans feel is protecting our past, is actually what is preventing it in the first place.

Case in point: The next time you’re in the area of the Old Idaho State Penitentiary, go around to the East side of the property just outside of the wall. Here you’ll find a horse-drawn carriage with wheels buried in the ground and dilapidated wood decaying from the inside-out. The signage is as absent from the artifact as its protection from the elements.

I only found out what this carriage was by word of mouth from coworkers who had been in the agency longer than I’ve been in Idaho. It is one of the few, if only, of its kind in the world that belonged to the Morrison-Knudsen Company. This gravel carriage had been a part of a company that was the first of its kind in Boise that reached greater fame through work on the Alaska Pipeline, Hoover Dam, Kennedy Space Center, and other architectural projects worldwide. In a state where local history usually is scarce and not too significant on a global scale, you’d figure that this would be one of the treasures stowed away in a place of pride in any of our museums (the Old Pen has almost an entire building dedicated to horse-drawn vehicles). Instead, this artifact is left to decay. Moving it has been a long lost possibility, as it is in no condition to be moved or rehabilitated at all. The metal braces have rusted, the wood looks like a collection of splinters barely being held together. A piece of history ignored and neglected because the budget and the concerns of the State did not include it.

When King talked about the common myth that most Americans have about their heritage sites being protected, when that is in fact not the case, I have to say I was one of those Americans. I guess I just assumed that if a place was valuable(though on what scale?) it would just seem obvious it would remain protected. And I admit, I never thought about it much further than that. I guess I thought that unnamed “they” would take care of it. So the book scared me. It reminded me of a quote I heard someone say recently, and upon which there are thousands of variations, that a problem is only as important as the people who see it make it. A building, site, etc. is only as important as the community it resides in deems it. I think what is interesting is: as Americans do we pick too many or too few sites for our heritage? I heard once that to Europeans 100 miles is long, to Americans 100 years is long. I think it is interesting to see not only how the sites are protected, or not, but also how they are chosen- which might be a bit off topic.

Thomas King’s book was eye-opening, but definitely not surprising. If you had asked me about my knowledge and/or opinion of NEPA and NHPA before reading this book, I would have certainly used the word “inadequate” in my answer, but I would not have been able to give an answer that was nearly as well-thought out.

I did respect King’s opinion that NEPA and HPA do not and should not dictate that all heritage be preserved instead of satisfying present-day needs (15). If he had not have laid that down at the beginning of the book I might have pegged him for a hardcore at-all-costs preservationist. Instead he is advocating for EIA and CRM processes to be taken more seriously, given proper thought and consideration, and to become more than just “getting and giving clearance” for projects (141). This doesn’t seem like it should be a huge problem, but the obstacles standing in the way regarding big business, bureaucracy and the nature of the system itself (EIA and CRM specialists often working for the project proponents themselves) are overwhelming. It was not quite the feel-good book of the year for me, but this subject seems absolutely necessary for people in the public history field to understand.

I don’t have a story that is about historic preservation, but I have one about my one and only actual encounter with a government agency developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that happened last summer. The Snake River Alliance (SRA), Idaho’s grassroots watchdog group concerned with all things nuclear and/or related to alternative energy sources, was able to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to hold a hearing in Boise, as well as Idaho Falls, about the proposed permitting for a French company called Areva to build a uranium enrichment facility in Eastern Idaho. They want to put it out in the desert by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) (which was given that name in 2005, though it used to be the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) in 1977 and then became the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) in 1997). Anyhow, all these people got up and testified for or against granting the permit. My take was that those who were for the permit were business and civic leaders who were very concerned about the economic impact of such a huge project and what it could mean for jobs in Idaho. Those who spoke against the permit were citizens from many different walks of life, many with strong science backgrounds who gave examples of the environmental impact…impacts on the Snake River aquifer, the safety of animal and plant species in the area, the fact that there were wildfires nearby last summer and the question of the ground being seismically unstable. In the end when the report came back from the NRC this spring, (according to Liz Woodruff, the executive director of the SRA, who waded through it) they recommended granting the permit because there were NO environmental impacts that fell outside certain guidelines to be of enough concern to deny the permit. I admire anyone whose work involves dealing with government agencies. King’s book didn’t have any examples of positive outcomes and I wish he’d given some.

I guess I’m not at all surprised at the inadequate nature of our laws and the bureaucratic machine that seems to gum-up-the-works. But I have always been a cynic when it comes to our government. In fact, if I’m honest with you and myself, I do not believe that mankind is truly good at heart (sorry Anne Frank, of that I have very little faith). So we’ll just say that King has not helped my opinion on that front. He’s talking about a big-business, big-government, big-justice court systems, a pro-capital, anti-environmental monster that I feel quite incapable of confronting, on whatever front. Can I just climb into my hole now?

Okay, okay, it may seem bleak, but if we are going to go out there and get a job then this is the kind of system we may very well end up dealing with in our professional lives. So it might be in my best interest to pull my head out of the sand, and be aware of this stuff, however defeated it makes me feel.

On the more positive side of things I got quite a laugh at the pokes you people took at TFK for all the MFKING acronyms. So thanks for that guys. 🙂

I experienced similar struggles with the acronym laden text that preaches doom and gloom for any future protection of cultural, historical, or even environmental landscapes in the face of unquenchable expansion and development.  However, I will give TFK some credit for his more liberal understanding regarding what should be considered when altering a landscape.  I thought his discussion of landscape and what can be considered significant culturally was a good starting point for changing how these “light green” laws are approached.  I also thought that King made a good point when he brought up cumulative effects on the landscape.  For some reason, as humans we have a hard time conceptualizing how our actions effect the environment and how these environmental consequences will eventually come back to affect us.  I have been really interested this past year in environmental justice, and how these projects we undertake can negatively impact racial minorities and poorer classes in the U.S. in disproportionate numbers.  There seems to be little we can do to prevent these environmental disasters from happening even though prevention would save millions of dollars spent on cleanup, potential loss of property, and untold consequences on the health of those who live in those areas.  I wish TFK would have made some suggestions on how change the governmental structure more so that it protects the land and the people, rather than business and government interests.

First of all, I must agree with the frustrations at the amount of acryonyms in the writing. By the time I saw them again, I forgot what they meant. That I may be able to attribute to my early college education, however. I was also thrown off by attempting to remember legal references and section 106 and blah….I was going to go to law school once, but no more.

I am, as of yet, unsure if my feelings about this reading stem from the actual book, or stress and the need for a good massage and pedicure, but I found myself not only angered, but confused, surprised, and even disgruntled at times (to quote my neighbor). Most of the unpleasant emotions were brought up during the discussion of the BLM’s method of contact and land research, as well as pretty much all of chapter seven and its guidebook to dodging anything. Not that the author supports it, but that wow I didn’t even consider half of these things had been going on, especially environmental issues and toxic waste concerns. I suppose I just have too much faith in mankind.

I was not completely disappointed; I appreciated the surprisingly light-hearted approach to the majority of the issues. I also very much appreciate the end chapter on “What to do about it.” This would especially include “Never *&%$#@ Assume!” It left me with a glimmer of hope, and it always makes me smile when someone references profanity.

Here is a link to the article about the Texas Text Book war:

http://theweek.com/article/index/207395/the-great-textbook-wars

Just in case some of you have not seen this story…

Virginia 4th grade teacher holds slave auction

 

I have a firm belief that every History teacher should be well versed in tactful instruction. The subject is far from pleasant, as the worst of human behaviors are typically showcased in some of the most memorable events. However, showing your bias completely negates the trust that you have with your students, colleagues, and the general public. Historical revisionism, or whitewashing, has always been a part of history. The victor writes history, but the defeated typically still show their disdain for the way certain events panned out.

White supremacists deny the Holocaust happened, descendants of Confederate soldiers put their forefathers on a pedestal,  and these young girls talk about something that even their parents weren’t old enough to experience first hand. (a lengthy documentary, but really shows how influential parents are on their children)

http://www.archive.org/details/MichielSmit.comPrussionBlueMichielSmit.com

The difficult thing about sensitive topics in History, is that you’re always going to offend or embarrass a demographic. It’s going to happen. All of our ancestors did unforgivable things, but not acknowledging the past only makes us more likely to repeat similar mistakes out of ignorance. If we recognize the errors, we can learn and grow from the experience.

The article I found most infuriating was the response from the Manager of the Baron Von Munchausen Home to Larry Cebula. The quote that particularly irked me was this:
“The visitors that come to this House want to be entertained by “sayings” from the 18th century or “ghost stories”… You have to understand that the younger visitors know very little about the Revolutionary War period, due to the fact that schools have gone downhill and do not give this generation a good education…”

Isn’t this a reason for them to work harder to make their history the best it can be? For argument’s sake, let’s go with her claim that education is going downhill. If I ran a historical museum and I thought that students were not learning all that they should in their classrooms, I would try to make sure they at least learned some of it when they visited my museum. Theirs is a chance to help enhance an education. Schools are reluctant to talk about slavery? Well, the museum shouldn’t be. The manager does not see that dumbing down the history only compounds the poor education the students receive. Plus, I’m a little insulted at the insinuation that because I’m younger and use the word “like” I can’t possibly having the reasoning skills to deal with complex moral issues such as slavery.