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.