Wallace II Blog

Section II of Wallace seems to be the section most closely related to the title. It discusses how history is used by WED Enterprise, more widely known as Disney. The main focus of the Section is in regards to how history is represented in the parks, though some time is spent on other aspects of the company’s many ventures. For example, Wallace points out the ahistorical use of architecture and misconception of 1890s American town life in the 1890s in Disneyland’s Mainstreet area. Disney’s “imagineers” (the quotes seem to be more sarcastic than denoting a unique job type) state that since its purpose is just for entertainment then there is no harm in creating such environment. Wallace looks at several pieces of evidence to show that there is more to Mainstreet than this, including Walt Disney’s upbringing and his personal thoughts on constructing Mainstreet. Wallace’s critique of Disney’s track record with using history, humorous as it is on occasion, is an important study of the effects of one of the most well known company’s in the world can have on the public understanding of history.

Wallace seems focused on the topic of education in the parks, for the most part noting the marketing and indoctrinating nature most of them seem to utilize. What is interesting about this process though is that Wallace notes a correlation in programming and what overall public sentiments are at the time. For example, the transition between the eternal optimism and status quo stage of the 50s that left out many groups from being represented in the parks to the new social movements in the 60s and 70s which saw history being told from a more diverse viewpoint. Is this an example of Disney supporting more progressive modes of thought? Or simply a well informed market strategy that better satisfies consumers/guests?

Articles on History and Film Media Blog

A Trademark Approach to the
Past: Ken Burns, the Historical
Profession, and Assessing
Popular Presentations of the Past
VIVIEN ELLEN ROSE AND JULIE CORLEY

This article is an examination of how film media impacts a broader understanding of history. This is mainly done through the examination of a work by Ken Burns titled Not for Ourselves Alone. The film's main focus is on the efforts of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in furthering the cause of the early American women's rights movement. The author's critique of this particular film, as well as the larger impact and methodology of Burn's other work, is used to advance the idea of increased professional/scholarly involvement in the production of historical presentations.

Many of the other articles discussed the need for historians to become more involved with the process of Also, the comment on pictures not matching up with the audio does seem to be a very serious oversight by the filmmakers. While some images might fit better in overall tone with certain aspects of the picture, or if there was a lack of appropriate photographs, if they mislead the audience it should be viewed as a serious flaw in the film.

Some other comments on presentation though seem very odd in context with the rest of the review. For example, the comments on what the leaf transition seemed to be more focused on hidden meaning behind what the leaf motif could represent. Instead of pondering what it meant, it may have been more constructive to actually find out what Burns intended with this recurring theme. Also, one of the main critiques of the film was the idea that the If the film's intent is to focus on the contributions of Cady and Anthony, then how much of a critique is this? There are many historical texts that focus on only a few characters of a much larger time in history, whether this is due for the intent that the author had for it, length of the work, etc. As such, this critique could be applied to a variety of other pieces, which makes it rather odd that this seems to be a major, if not the most prominent, complaint the reviewers have.

Cinematic History: Where Do
We Go From Here?
ROBERT BRENT TOPLIN

This article looks at the aspects of cinematic history have been studied in the past, and what the author believes should be focused on in the future. The focus of the article is on studying how fiction films have changed in the ways they interpret history in line with the times they are produced. Though overall a very positive (one might go so far as to say cheerful) evaluation of cinematic historiography, the author does feel that certain areas of cinematic history need to be examined further. He sees the need for more wide spread trend in performing more in depth study of how a film is made and what kinds of thought that persons in the production process had when it came to making it. He also feels that the emphasis is too strongly tied to political viewpoints and that labor/social/economic viewpoints should be taken into consideration when

Toplin makes a point about the fact that too many historians spend time commenting on the way a film is composed rather than discussing its historical merits. This is a valid point for many reasons. Such a focus on these factors could detract a historian from bringing his/her expertise to the collaborative effort of making a film. Also, it could serve to somewhat undermine historians general acceptance into the field if the profession is perceived at simply being another set of film critics.

On the other hand, when a historian reads a written piece, is it not distracting when one finds glaring grammatical and spelling errors? When one finds the use of passive voice, is it not aggravating at times (speaking as a person guilty of this more often than not)? Thus is it not surprising that the historian as craftsman find his/herself desiring to point out what they view as basic errors in the fabric of the film? If historians are to become more involved with the production process, that is looking at primary sources that deal with the basis of the process itself, it would help out for them to know what are some of the basics when it comes to making a film.

Movie or Monograph?
A Historian/Filmmaker’s
Perspective
NATALIE ZEMON DAVIS

This article looks at the use of film itself as a medium for the presentation and dissemination of history. The author examines her personal experience in consulting for a movie. Davis does not seem to advocate total control of the movie making process by historians, at times even sympathizing with the filmmakers struggle to create a story that will be cared about by the viewing audience. However, she does seem to advocate for historians who do work on projects such as these should have more input into the basic research, more control in what is reviewed and increased power when it comes to a final say in what is in the final product. The author does not view film as being a lesser medium than other forms, yet feels that films should be subject to the same set of standards that are expected of more traditional forms of presenting history.

What does one say to a historian who perhaps has not had as successful experiences as the author has had in collaborating with a film project? If they had participated in the production process and they discover that maybe the only reason they were brought on was so their name could be slapped on the ending credits to prove the the studio had "done their homework". While the author has shown the reader how historians might be able to influence film through reviews of particular movies, it would be interesting to see more thoughts on how the film industry could be convinced that having a historian as a part of the in production team of a film would be beneficial. Another question might be is how could reviews from a historical point find themselves engaged in a larger public discussion?

(All websites taken from besthistorysites.net)

Odden's Bookmarks: The Fascinating World of Maps.
http://oddens.geog.uu.nl/index.php

Online database connecting to other sites that deal with maps up to present day.

Links to other sites that have very good resources and links of their own, in many cases these websites offer better, more tightly focused links. At times, these sites seem better sources of informaiton than the Odden site. (example:http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/map_sites/hist_sites.html)
There is also a comprehensive list of other organizations and groups with their own interest in geographical studies, which all contain very interesting historical.

However, there are certain parts of the site that seem suspect or frivolous. This can be seen in sites links to sites that obtain their information from Wikipedia, "Legolas Fantasy Maps", etc. Also, searching by groups seems to work much better than using the search function, which can be a major hindrance considering the density of the information available.


Open Directory: Geography
http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Geography/

Part of the Open Directory Project which claims to be "the largest, most comprehensive human edited directory of the Web" according to their website. Attempts to correct what the administrators of the site believe is the inability for automated search engines to keep up with the ever increasing size of the Internet. In partnership with AOL Search.

Geography Section layout is very plain, with blue links to different categories on a white background, similar to many other database websites. Contains many different categories, from geographic regions to areas of specific interest. Not too many map sites under the historical listing, though it is possible to find historical maps in other sections.

Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm

Here seems to be more of a site with potential if not actual executed in the best manner. the concept is very promising, offering animated and at times interactive maps of major events in the twentieth century. everything from borders, to troop movements, to statistics are provided. The animation may seem a little low tech in comparison to other sites but the information it provides is not affected by this. There are also buttons representing different international trends in relation to the individual maps.

There are many items that could be improved about the site though. First, once the map animation loads up, there are no options available to stop it. In regards to accessibility, some of the fonts and colors chosen are not very legible. some of the ways chosen to represent different information is awkward, mainly due to the fact that maps are not enlarged enough or that there are too many maps placed on one page.

CHNM Essays: Lessons Learned from Building the Famous Trials Website

This essay describes Douglas Linder's experience in creating a history reference source online, which covers famous trials in history. He goes over a few major points on what he discovered made his site successful and accessible. Many of the points he goes over seem like very common sense advice. Much of his pointers run along the lines of make sure you enjoy what you are doing and go all out or do not attempt it at all. However, the sheer fact that a concept for a historical resource website became as successful as Linder's did is inspirational by itself. The main point of the article in making sure that the resource created is actually utilized by people online is one that I believe is an important concept for any history project that will be placed on the Internet.

One point I found particularly interesting was the concept of networking. While this is one of the common sense points in the article, I thought it was interesting how Linder seemed to emphasize selective linking. That is, he advocated not linking with everyone who asks to become a part of your project. In the scramble to make sure that one builds up a network these days, it may be prudent to stand back sometimes and ask oneself if associating with anyone with event he most remote connection to your topic may be ideal. Though one may share aclot of similarities, goals and practices can be completely different, even counter to what one is trying to attempt.

Interesting how the article starts out with a "Go Big" message and ends with "Enough's Enough".

Archive Blog

Location: State Archives of Florida
Collection: 000510. S 1605
Organization: Florida Dept. of Natural Resources-Recreation and Parks
Park Development and Planning Files

Description of Collection:

Documents pertaining to plans for both natural and man made resources in park, regarding improvements, development, restoration, preservation, etc. Organized by specific parks. Each park had different folders, each corresponding to a particular type of document or area of interest. For example, survey maps were located in one folder, with material aquisitions located in another. Also, contained files on overall goals for Recreation and Park Service, which emphasized expansion of park facilities. This section also contained official letterhead/memos from Mike Bullock, Director of Rec and Parks. (I bring this up because he is still the head of Rec and Parks and thus I now work under him, in the broadest sense of the term.)

Double Fold Blog

Double Fold by Nicholson Baker examines issues concerning the physical preservation of materials in libraries and archives, with emphasis placed on the preservation of paper formats. The author examines the effects that new preservation

One question I would ask the author would be what is more important, that the books themselves are worthy of saving, or the information they contain? While Baker does believe that much information, and thus history, is lost by not preserving the physical material they were printed on, does this mean that absolutely every item is worthy of preservation? For example, newspapers are created to be ephemeral modes of keeping information, their to keep a populace informed on what the paper believes is newsworthy. While the information is important to keep, should the physical items themselves be preserved? Does historical preservation inherently imply a pack rat mentality, that everything should be saved? Or should their be selective salvaging of key artifacts?

Baker's take on using modern technology is skeptical. This is understandable, considering the many times it has been used as a excuse to destroy valuable and still viable sources of information. however, this should not preclude librarians involvement in developing digital technology for their collections. Should digital technology replace physical modes of holding information? I believe that Baker does not give enough credit to then current archivists and librarians. Many of them view the digital aspect of archiving as a way to make the records more readily accessible to the general public as opposed to a replacement for the established practices. This kind of mentality is important to maintain as one moves more towards the future. While digital is in ascendancy now, one does not know how it might fare in the future. Even now for example, there are numerous problems associated with compatibility between different generations of software and programs. With new breakthroughs and theories on the use of quantum computers and other forms of data storage, who knows what kind of problems will arise by converting old digital data to new technologies.

Oral History Blog

"The Other Suburbanites" discusses the history of African American neighborhoods as they developed in the early part of the twentieth century. In particular, it looks at a neighborhood neighborhood near Cleveland known as Chagrin Falls Park. Settled for the most part by rural immigrants from the South, Cahgrin Falls is used as an example for how many other African American suburbs developed alongside their more well known predominately white counterparts. The main thrust of the article is to prove that although the overall look of these neighborhoods may have differed from stereotypical views of suburbia, that did not mean the residents did not maintain the same mindset of what suburban living meant.

The ways the oral history interviews were worked in was very well done, working with the narration as opposed to being presented as a separate artifact. However, having said that, I personally appreciate it when one is presented with a clip of the actual oral history interview, where one is able to see the interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee take place. I think this provides more of a feeling of connection with the work and reminds the reader how close the process of oral history can be. I also thought some of the interviews were spaced wide apart, with some jammed next to each other and whole sections of the article not even referencing them. While the ones close together were for the most part important in regards to their relation to one another, the article may have included more in other areas.

New Media: Wallace and Smith blog

Questions about New Media

Each of these articles raises the vital questions that are still raised in the history profession today. That is, what should be the role of new technologies in presenting/producing history?

While some of the technological speculations Wallace had may seem dated, it is interesting to see how much of the technological advances he embraced at the time.

About the dangers of losing museum crowds to the Internet or other forms of electronic medium, I would hazard that many of the people who would seek history solely online would not be typically visit a museum in the first place. While it would be easy to say that the increasing pace and easy access provided by modern living could inspire more opportunities for laziness, the people who go to museums will not give the real experience up for a virtual one. If anything, it might inspire more people to visit actual museums.

Is it just me, or did the JASON project sound kind of odd. Who is going to tour a museum at 9 o’clock at night? I can just imagine drag races down the galleries of the Louvre.

I thought it was interesting to see how Wallace did not seem to embrace the possibilities of the Internet as much as he advocated for the select use of technology in museums. While he wrote this at a relatively early point in the history of the Internet, he seemed to know enough about its capabilities to discuss it.

Carl Smith seems to look at the possibilities of the Internet in a more favorable light. He discusses his involvement in creating an online museum site for the Great Chicago Fire and discusses using the Internet to do serious history. Though he acknowledges that there are hindrances to using the Internet, he believes that the lack of constraints that the Internet provides is more of an advantage than a disadvantage. Multimedia presentations, the ability to use artifacts not available to traditional museums, and interactivity are all benefits he puts forth.

However, the important question of whether one can do serious history on the Internet is the main focus of this article to which Carl Smith says yes. According to his definition of history using primary sources to provide clear historic information to a larger audience, the Internet is a more than adequate medium for conducting serious history.

These questions about history in the digital medium to me are intriguing in the fact that it is not based on some of the more familiar grounds for academic historical debate. Rather than discuss the merits of whether it is more appropriate to look at history from a cultural, social, etc. standpoint the discussion focuses on the medium. While one could argue that there are many forms of presenting historical information (museums, paper, oral), technology is unique in the fact its increasing importance in all of these forms. For example, oral history in the modern, academically accepted sense would not be possible without the advent of vocal recording, which has gone from reel to reel, to cassette, to now having the capability to store thousands of recordings on a single server. The question of what medium history should be presented on is an important one and should continue to bring about fascinating and heated debates.

Preserving Nature Blog

Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History by Richard West Sellers looks at the evolution of what exactly was the purpose of the National Park Service. Was it designed for the enjoyment of the General Public? Or was it created to preserve the natural surroundings that made each park worthy of being preserved? Were these mutually exclusive of each other or were they in fact the same goal? In the end, Sellers believes that the National Park Service should be a better advocate for conservation in the Parks. However, he does acknowledge the success of the Service in promoting the natural environments they were placed in charge of to the larger public.

The text offers interesting insight into how natural National Parks really are. Sellers seems to take the viewpoint a park is more of a planned landscape than a natural one ,"carefully preserved and developed" (page 89). He portrays the early planners as more promoters than actual conservationists, more interested in the commercial development of the Park Service than conservation methods.

One of the big issues that was addressed in the text was the struggle between scientists and . Looking at the text from one perspective, it would seem as though Sellers was more inclined to be on the side of the scientists, who . However, there are a few places in the text where Sellers does acknowledge the influence such factors as promotion had in the formation of the park. The most apparent .

Does this highlight a larger topic of the difference in preserving something vs. keeping something pristine? By making something accessible to a larger audience, are you destroying part of the inherent nature that made it so appealing to begin with? I think Sellers would argue that careful conservation does not equal pristine environments. Rather, parks are constructs created for the enjoyment of the larger public and therefore have to be modified in some manner.

However, he would most assuredly advocate smarter preservation methods, that is employing a variety of experts (historians, scientists, etc.) and maintain a high level of conservation education among all members of the National Park Service. This way, preservation is not just something that a gathering of politicians lays down on paper, but it becomes a real example set by those who feel strongly about it. Also, he would probably advise against promoting a park to host the Winter Olympics.

Tour Blog

I think the visit to the Old Cemetery was important in both connecting the house that Riley lived in to the place where he is now buried and to look at, through a very important part of communal life, the effect race and class relations had on Tallahassee. For one, while it was segregated at one point, it still had spots available for blacks of a certain social status to be laid to rest. I wonder how many higher status African-Americans chose to be buried in the City Cemetery as opposed to a predominately black cemetery?

The Frenchtown Tour was interesting in the fact that its history was explained more through current events rather than talking extensively about its past. The topics of gentrification were very interesting, especially from a historic preservation point of view. However, I think it would have been worthwhile to hear more history on some of the businesses that operated in the neighborhood at one time.

One thing I think could have been shown on the Frenchtown Route were examples of businesses that are still operating in the community. One example of this can be seen in the mortuary service that operates a block away from my house on Copeland Street. One thing I learned when conducting oral history interviews in Charlotte were the importance of funeral homes in black communities. In many cases, they were centers of social interaction and even political power. While the business down the street does not appear to be the site of political activism, yet I think it would have been worthwhile to examine such places.

Goodwood was a very interesting stop. I enjoyed hearing about the different renovations the house undertook and was impressed with certain architectural features. However, I was disappointed by the fact that there was no discussions involving the theme of the tour, that is the history of African-Americans in Tallahassee. Though there was some questions asked about the history of slavery/tenant farming on the property, we were told that they did not possess any information on that. Even more, they seemed to indicate it would be very unlikely to determine this history any time in the future, due to loss of much of the property. This seems to be another example of why there are movements to preserve African-American heritage in Tallahassee as well as elsewhere, as so much of it has been lost.

Despite this, I believe the Goodwood does raise some interesting questions in regards to the first house we looked at, the Riley residence. For instance, if Riley was such a wealthy individual, why build a fairly modest dwelling. In comparison to Goodwood, the Riley house is a relatively cozy structure. Though Goodwood had for the most part been constructed in an even earlier, more affluent time, it would not be . And Riley did not seem to suffer from any land constraints, so why not build a larger structure as his house. Was it his personal preference, a person who did not need to be surrounded by extravagance? Were there some outside factors that influenced his decision? sound business sense, the more land he does not build on the more he could sell to the city?

Young Post

This text comprises a selection of articles from Preservation magazine written by Dwight Young. In the introduction by Richard Moe, President of the National Trust, he describes these essays work at “making us smile, reflect and look around the world with a fresh eye.”. To me this kind of sounds like an interesting choice of words, considering Young is interested in preserving the heritage of the built environment.

This collection of articles could be described in some respects as preservation lite. One function of these articles is to connect within the field itself, to reach out to other preservationists in the field by talking about similar experiences one might encounter while engaging in historic preservation. Another is to reach out to a broader audience by showing a more personal side of the preservation field. That is, to show the public at least some small manner of the types of people who are interested in preservation and, more importantly, to show why they became and remain interested in taking care of historic structures. While not quite Dave Barry, Young does come across with a kind of colloquial charm that does remind one of a congenial uncle.

There are many places where Young comes off as not only an advocate for a preserver of old buildings but for an older way of thinking, of doing things. I wonder, is this almost an integrative part of the preservationist’s job. In order to preserve our built heritage does one have to advocate holding the past to a higher standard in certain areas such as moral values or modes of thought?

From the range of articles that were chosen to go into this one text, it is easy to see some of the core beliefs of Young. At other times, one sees points that seem to diverge from the other articles. One example of this can be seen in his piece on a house whose owner chose to paint their old home a rather vivid shade of blue. He expresses admiration for this as keeping the look of an old house fresh. Do these kinds of comments detract from the goals of preserving the built environment? Is this kind of thinking necessary in order to recieve broader support from a larger audience?

Wallace Post Three

The essays in Part Three of Wallace's text focus on the how historic preservation has been perceived and conducted in the United States. His first essay begins by examining this history from its origins in elite local movements to save landmarks from being destroyed due to business/ progress in a young American state. He then focuses on the rise of American business and its contributions to the field in the form of large magnates preserving their own forms of American history. He then touches upon the various agencies and programs of the New Deal that employed various professions to work towards preservation. He links the 1960’s with the rise in preservation law and rounds it off by looking at the backward steps taken during the 80s (Why the eighties I wonder?).

The second essay focuses mainly on the political theatre of historic preservation and his concerns about how it is losing the political muscle it once possessed, most notably in the decreased amount of funding and protection it received under, you guessed it, the Reagan years.

While he acknowledges the start of the movement as starting with elitist co-ops rallying to save what they thought was an important piece of their heritage, he often is critical of their narrow focus and the limited access to the public. However, if you want to look at this from a purely technical view, is this not the best way to physically preserve something, by limiting access to it? One of the biggest concerns with some historic district is the amount of traffic that is passes through them on a regular basis. Of course even maintenance itself might become an issue. What constitutes maintenance vs. restoration or reconstruction, which some might view would lessen the overall historic value of an edifice? Are the elites not a part of the public as well? I guess Wallace would argue that it was not so much that he doesn’t believe they should not preserve, he is concerned that since their image would become the homogenized public view of what is important to save and what is not.

Wallace stresses the need for other groups to become involved in their own history and to become dedicated to preserving it. However, if historic preservation is is field in public history, is it important to define what is “the public”? Do local, specialized museums/historic structures add to a rich and varied culture? Or do they serve to alienate groups from one another, that they become so focused that they are only accessible by one sector of the public.

Wallace Post Two

The fourth section of the Wallace book deals mainly with criticism and censorship directed at the history and museum community in the then current times (criticism that does not come from him that is). The main argument, or rather statement, revolves around the fight for how history is used and who exactly should be in charge of presenting it to the general public. The two issues he concentrates on deal with President Regan and the Enola Gay exhibit. In the chapter about Regan, he makes interesting makes interesting parallels between the . Though he brings up many good points about the ways in which disregard for academic historical facts can be damaging, he does not seem to go too much into (though some might say just talking about it would be enough). However, he does bring up a few points in the last page of the chapter, mostly talking about the need for more oral history interviews. Such interviews could then be collected to form a better understanding of what a collective history is, while again placing it more under the control of the academic community. The Enola Gay chapter was an interesting examination of a highly charged controversial decision by the Smithsonian to buckle under pressure from highly politicized outside influence and drastically change the exhibit dealing with the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Wallace places this conflict in a larger political arena that included the Air Force Association and the American Legion. This article seems to address more the main argument/warning of allowing groups that have politics over academic ideals more say on how history is presented.

It is very interesting to see the use of military words and phrases by Wallace when he refers to the antagonists in the two chapters. This is most apparent in the part criticizing Gingrich and his support of censoring the Enola Gay. Words such as "troops" and "march" are used quite a bit on this page. This could be not so subtle jab at the way Wallace believed that veterans were used to promote the censorship of the exhibit or possibly a critique of the military-industrial complex as a whole.

One item in particular that struck my interest were the ways in which regionalism played into many points of Wallace's argument. In particular, the "frostbelt" were often compared/set against the sunbelt/gunbelt states. Much of the focus seems to be on the ways in which money was funneled towards the development of of the latter states by drawing capital away from the former. While this could be traced towards Wallace's dislike of corporate interests, could this also reflect a particular bent of where exactly much of where geographically much of the opposition was situated.

Wallace Section One

Written from the point of view of a critic (though admittedly not a participant) in the field of public history, in particular museums, Mickey Mouse History is an interesting evaluation of different factors that affect museums. The first examines the different ways in which environment can affect how exhibits are decided on for a particular museum. The chapter on the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, while discussing the different ways in which history can be ordered (as well, as commenting on the different ways in which the Statue of Liberty was funded), goes into a great amount of detail as to how the facilities on Ellis Island were constructed, both what he views as elements of good and bad design. Chapter Three seems to be able to be asking questions within the larger historical framework rather than simply questions relating to how museums should present them. This can be seen in the discussion of “pre” vs “post” in viewing industrialization. Chapter Four examines a relatively new concept of what constitutes a museum, such as one that places exhibits on the web.

This is one that interested me the most. Wallace seems to take the stance that much of the new technology, while helpful, may/should not replace the more conventional ways in which museums are constructed. His introduction to this chapter may belay some of his feelings in the somewhat bemused (sarcastic?) way he describes certain forms of electronic entertainment that was being developed at the time. While I understand the arguments he makes, particularly the ideas of appropriating electronic media for more innovative museum exhibits, I believe he overlooks some of the “democratic “ ways in which the internet can affect the museum world. One of his complaints is the fact that the use of technology will limit the online experience to the affluent. With the increase of computers in public spaces with online access, this might not be the obstacle it was when this book was first published.

Though Wallace points out many issues that one could have contention with in regards to Walt Disney’s historical presentations(as might be deduced from the title), he does have some interesting things to say about how techniques might be appropriated from them. For example, he does not condone many of the items that are presented, he does believe that many examples can be taken in the ways in which they are presented, especially for the use in presenting history to a larger public (page 96). Is this a deviation from some of the main points in his argument in conceding such an important point as presentation (thus perhaps causing one to question what he said previously)? Or is this an extension of his discussion on presentation, his outlook on the need for museums to upgrade the ways in which museums need to find new techniques in presentation?

One more question on this point. Is this suggestion of using Disney tactics for public history presentations a helpful tip or a slight aside as to how Wallace views public history?

Written in Stone/ Paradise Lost Discussion

Blog Posting #2 Levinson; Davis and Arsenault

Written in Stone examines the importance of physical objects as they relate to the concept of collective memory. Levinson focuses on the relationship that exists between the change in memory over time and the contrast that exists with preserving that same memory in physical symbols. An interesting point he brings up is the relationship between a mutable relationship between changing landscapes such as monuments and persevering symbolism behind icons such as the Confederate flag.

· Places an important distinction between political thought (flag) and historical (monuments).

· Is Levinson’s approach overall more relative or objective?

o Questions erasure of old Soviet memory

o Challenges placing memorials for Nazi Germany

o Same memorials, different significance

o The idea that government should not promote certain symbols

§ I believe overall he takes a more contemporary relative stance, one that attempts to balance how some aspects of history should be viewed in their own right while others should rightfully be condemned.

· Is collective memory “up for grabs” (pg. 37) or is it as the phrase implies a cooperative effort?

o I take this quote at face value and believe that Levinson believes collective memory is highly competitive.

· After reading the text, can one take the title as being ironic? Or is it a reflection of the author’s desire for monuments to carry more meaning than an endless political modification.

o While I do think there is room for irony in the title, I think in the end it is a serious attempt at summing up the author’s viewpoint on how monuments should be viewed in the larger collective memory.

· There were many comparisons between European and American monuments. Is there a bias in the text towards one or the other? If so, in what way is it focused?

Paradise Lost examines the ways in which environmentalism has been used in defining the character of Florida history. The text puts forth the idea that, although the environment itself has played a large role in constructing the history of Florida, there has not been that much actual dialogue concerning

To be honest, the selections I read from Paradise Lost were at times concentrated. What I mean by this is that much of the information given seemed to be very specific to a particular individual. In the first part of Chapter, the only thing I was able to determine with any regular consistency was the fact that the various authors who wrote the various promotional tracts, treatises, journals, etc were solely out for their own gain, attempting to construct a nebulous image of what “Florida” actually was. This is a very important topic in discussing the concept of environment in Florida history, but point seemed to be overshadowed at times by the eccentric nature of the characters in the text

Chapter Three focused on the activities of one Archie Carr, and fairly well known UF professor who contributed much to the field of sea turtle conservation for much of the twentieth century. Again, for the first part of this chapter, much effort seemed to be looking at individual idiosyncrasies that might have been better left explained by what he actually contributed to Florida environmental history. Overall, it was a very interesting examination of the life of one individual to increase awareness of how fragile seemingly exhaustless natural resources (in this case sea turtles) can be.

Presence of the Past Discussion

Title

To me it seems as though the main idea of "popular history" was used in a kind of double meaning in this text. In many cases it should striking similarities in the ways many different individuals used history as a part of their lives. However, the concept of popularity seemed to also be used as more of a polarizing factor in emphasizing the differences in which different groups of people use history. This issue is even brought up in the end of the book by one of the authors (page 200, second paragraph)

Contradictions

• On one hand, their seemed to be a good attempt at analysis by the authors concerning the fact that some of the groups did not believe the "official history of the United States to be entirely trustworthy and yet the majority of people want professional histories to include this (page 97).
• There seem to be some other contradictions, that are not directly addressed by the authors, but which could be included in this overall discussion of contradiction in responses. An example of this can be seen in the strong role family played in understanding history, for example the trust given to older relatives and the desire expressed by some to build a legacy for future generations. However, elsewhere it is mentioned that many people received a broader grasp of history while outside of their family's influence, as in a college setting. Does this relate to the desire for professional history to be broader in scale? Or does it open up questions as to whether or not as many people trust the objectivity of family members when they talk about history?