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?
4 comments:
Your division of professional and personal history is an interesting way in looking at how people view the past. Certainly, when and where personal family narratives intersect with textbook history, is where people find meaning and identity. Perhaps there is a need for both types of history in American life. For example, personal history grounds us, gives us a sense of struggle and identity, but leaves many questions to be answered. While professional, or textbook history can provide general information about large sweeps of time or about historical movements in general, it often lacks a human touch. The best professional historians, and the best professional public historians (Prof. Koslow would say that they are the same) are those who can use personal narrative to express history as a story of human emotion, human failures and achievements.
I think your second contradiction bullet was a very interesting thought on the perspective of understanding history through family accounts as well as history outside the family's influence. The more I thought about this contradiction I came to realize that perhaps this can easily be explained as that Americans typically go to a trusted source for information such as an older relative or close family friend for intial information dealing with past or events that others experienced first hand. After that information is gathered, however, Americans can use it in their own way outside the family, such as in a college setting or at a museum or historical site. For instance, when learning about a specific event in history, one can learn about the greater event and historical implications on a larger settings as well as bring in the information they gathered from their family members, inferring not only the global implications on historical events, but rather how these events specifically changed their family's history.
I think it should be taking into consideration that America is still relatively young nation, being build in a wave of newcomers. An average people came because they were looking for a new life, better opportunities where a family cell, as you put correctly, played an important role. Here comes a history to be put as a subject matter into a professional (read: traditional) frame and at the same token to explore horizons in the opposite direction: to see how broad historical process helped many people to realize their place in the society. For many it was dramatic experience, some adapted quicker than the others. Family, especially at the staring point, played sort of a “shelter”, hence the ties to the past, which, sometimes, is difficult to broaden or overcome. But is it always necessary?
Your second bullet concerning the contradiction of how Americans do not find all of the United States History entirely trustworthy yet want it to be included as part of the history that is taught in classroom left me puzzled as well. I find it extremely interesting that many respondents to this survey felt that museums, historical monuments, etc were very trustworthy in their portrayal of history, yet so many find the government's portrayal of events such as the Vietnam War and World War II not trustworthy. It appears as though the trustworthiness of a local monument or historical event is subjective to the particular event and perhaps even first hand accounts from close relatives.
Post a Comment