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.
2 comments:
Environmentalism is the science where people do play no less important role as the nature does. It probably goes back to the time where specialists and various activists took to their hearts parts of the projects in which they were involved; hence "individual idiosyncrasies." I think that people felt obligated with a project being entrusted upon them. However, some authors do see the actual results rather than people. Bio of professor Carr and his work on sea turtles seems fairly enough covering them both. than bring up those results.
I must admit that your last sentence intrigued me and forced me to rethink of my reading, and try to figure out some sort of an answer. Maybe I say that because I am European, but I think it is important to be precise when talking about the examples he gives. Levinson picked up one particular part of Europe – Eastern Europe – which has a very particular history and evolution. He gives the example of Budapest, and then mainly focuses on Eastern Europe and its transition from communist countries to newer regimes. It is hard to compare Eastern Europe with the United States because, as Levinson mentions it at one point, that part of the continent had clear and strong change of regimes, whereas the United States followed another and very path. When thinking of the comparison, I actually wondered if studying other European countries (some that hadn’t been communist) would have brought out a different pattern; maybe one easier to use for a comparison with the United States. I do not have a clear answer to the point you raise, but there was one precise sentence that definitely piqued my curiosity in the course of my reading: “One quite dramatic difference, then, between many Eastern European capitals and those of the present United States is precisely the extent to which memorials to lost (and ostensibly defeated) causes continue to occupy places of public honor.” (p.44) My question still remains the same as when I reached that page the first time: can those two pasts and our attitudes towards them really be compared? Is it possible to compare Stalin’s legacy and the Confederacy’s legacy?
Post a Comment