Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Introducing: Places to Visit
One of my hopes for this blog is to create a welcoming, inquisitive environment where "arm chair tourists" can join me on my path. Some locations will be ones I've been lucky enough to visit personally; others will have been discovered in my readings and studies. Stay tuned!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Thinking Versus Feeling Good
*blink* The sheer amount of thought-provoking and curiosity-peaking information presented in this week's "Managing History" readings has me tempted to issue a self-challenge to write a blog-a-day for a month. I've been alternately making notes about historical detail I didn't know and Googling referenced initiatives, people, exhibits, museums, and books. I've set up two new Bookmarks folder - [Public] Historians and Teaching History. Most gratifyingly, I feel vindicated. While I have learned something from every set of readings for both classes this fall, no other set has engaged me as this set has. This is reassuring as the material is on the nitty gritty of public history - the controversies and ethics playing out recently in the field. That I am inhaling the material, asking questions, and excited, tells me two things. One, I'm on the right path. Two, those creating discourse about the challenges for public historians are on the the right path.
The first correct path is likely simple and obvious. Responding emotionally and critically when hearing first hand from voices in the field about what public history is right now tells me I've picked the right career. The second speaks to a recurring theme in the reading - the need for the presentation of history to generate contemplation and discourse not (only) trigger positive thinking. In short, encountering history should make you think and question, not simply feel good.
The readings are: Roger D. Launis' article,"American Memory, Culture Wars, and the Challenge of Presenting Science and Technology in a National Museum" and Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory," edited by James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton.
The main goal, which is achieved, of Slavery and Public History is to demonstrate the necessity of including education and discussion of slavery in the general American discourse. These articles dug me several layers deeper into the issues and challenges historians face when sharing history with today's public. I simultaneously gained context about hot topics in the last 20 years ago concerning the presentation of history, especially touchy subjects, and was more solidly grounded in the background of American slavery. Discussion from a modern view point about how intertwined American slavery is within the development of race definitions and relations in American and also the defining of class structure is timely as my social history of Early America class has been investigating the same topic but from the lens of an early time period.
One set of thoughts triggered by both readings circle back to the article by Amy Tyson discussed two weeks ago about comfort levels within interpretations (by both those learning and those teaching.) The concept of emotional response to the topic of slavery cannot be ignored. Memory, myth, and history of slavery are as shaped by emotion as are our personal responses when encountering the topic today. Launius references allowing history to be "fragmented and personal." I was struck by this language. Fragmentation is seldom allowed a positive connotation these days. In Launius' usage, fragmentation doesn't weaken history, it adds strength by allowing for multiple voices. American history is complex and complicated. Emotionally, it can be easier to gloss over the uncomfortable parts and tell just part of the story. At times in our history we've done just that. Even in this decade Americans still do so.
The readings also give voice to the folks in the trenches fighting to juggle public interest with educated awareness. Dedicated, passionate people are working very hard to bring the historical perspectives on slavery, race, class, and gender gained within the academy in the last few decades into the common understanding. Despite resistance, opportunities to talk and think about slavery and the definition of America are slowly increasing. We are learning to talk about painful, conflicting facts. We are learning to distinguish between fact, memory, and history. I leave these readings (for now) convinced that memory, history, and the interplay and friction between the two are the stuff from which public historian challenges are made today and will continue to be made in the foreseeable future.
The first correct path is likely simple and obvious. Responding emotionally and critically when hearing first hand from voices in the field about what public history is right now tells me I've picked the right career. The second speaks to a recurring theme in the reading - the need for the presentation of history to generate contemplation and discourse not (only) trigger positive thinking. In short, encountering history should make you think and question, not simply feel good.
The readings are: Roger D. Launis' article,"American Memory, Culture Wars, and the Challenge of Presenting Science and Technology in a National Museum" and Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory," edited by James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton.
The main goal, which is achieved, of Slavery and Public History is to demonstrate the necessity of including education and discussion of slavery in the general American discourse. These articles dug me several layers deeper into the issues and challenges historians face when sharing history with today's public. I simultaneously gained context about hot topics in the last 20 years ago concerning the presentation of history, especially touchy subjects, and was more solidly grounded in the background of American slavery. Discussion from a modern view point about how intertwined American slavery is within the development of race definitions and relations in American and also the defining of class structure is timely as my social history of Early America class has been investigating the same topic but from the lens of an early time period.
One set of thoughts triggered by both readings circle back to the article by Amy Tyson discussed two weeks ago about comfort levels within interpretations (by both those learning and those teaching.) The concept of emotional response to the topic of slavery cannot be ignored. Memory, myth, and history of slavery are as shaped by emotion as are our personal responses when encountering the topic today. Launius references allowing history to be "fragmented and personal." I was struck by this language. Fragmentation is seldom allowed a positive connotation these days. In Launius' usage, fragmentation doesn't weaken history, it adds strength by allowing for multiple voices. American history is complex and complicated. Emotionally, it can be easier to gloss over the uncomfortable parts and tell just part of the story. At times in our history we've done just that. Even in this decade Americans still do so.
The readings also give voice to the folks in the trenches fighting to juggle public interest with educated awareness. Dedicated, passionate people are working very hard to bring the historical perspectives on slavery, race, class, and gender gained within the academy in the last few decades into the common understanding. Despite resistance, opportunities to talk and think about slavery and the definition of America are slowly increasing. We are learning to talk about painful, conflicting facts. We are learning to distinguish between fact, memory, and history. I leave these readings (for now) convinced that memory, history, and the interplay and friction between the two are the stuff from which public historian challenges are made today and will continue to be made in the foreseeable future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
