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?
