Does the Tough Really Get Going?

This week's readings provided a lot of food for thought. The central theme for the readings was dealing with challenging subjects. Both sets of readings took a different approach in addressing the issue but each was critical of the concept.

In Slavery and Public History, James and Lois Horton compile eleven essays which address the ways in which public historians handle the topic of slavery within the scope of American history and how its presented to the public. The Hortons chose slavery as their focus because they see slavery as being "the nation's most enduring contradiction." (p. vii) Each essay tackles the issue of slavery and how it can be controversial in the production of national memory. How do we handle "historical sites of shame?"

In "The Public History of Science", Roger Launius discusses how museums, specifically The Smithsonian, contribute to the creation of national memory. Launius traces how the goal of the museum has changed as the focus of academic history has evolved. Launius writes about walking the line of a more encompassing depiction of history versus consensus history which just highlights American exceptionalism.

I think the readings brought up a number of points to explore. The broadest issue in this weeks' readings was the role of museums and historic sites. This is a topic we've been discussing a lot in class and I see it as being the over-arching theme for our entire class. In preserving history and memory, what stance do sites need to take? Does a site need to present a more full version of history; one which presents some of the dirty laundry. Or, are tough topics glossed-over to present a nationalist myth which is meant to encourage pride? I have to admit I see historical sites as needing to do a bit of both. One question this issue raises for me is how prepared are these sites for facilitating the discussion of challenging topics? This was never addressed in any of the essays. It is one thing to present tough historical realities but a site needs to posses a staff which can discuss how it has played a part in constructing a national narrative. Also, I see historical sites as tools for establishing national pride. Many of these sites commemorate major events within American history and they should leave patrons with a sense of pride. It is imperative for sites to walk this fine line.

Neither readings discuss the savviness of the historical consumer but it is definitely an underlying theme. Visitors to many of these sites have a greater understanding of history and they realize there is more to history than just myth. History which has been more critical of the traditional narratives has filtered its way to the public. Because of this reality, historical sites see a necessity in presenting difficult subjects. For example, Launius writes about the increase in "controversial exhibits" in the 1990s. While I struggled with his use of the term "controversial exhibit" because he never qualifies controversial, I think this speaks to the sophistication of the audience. Regardless of the direction in which the controversy emanates, clearly someone is questioning historical presentation. Traditional narratives aren't just being taken for granted, they are being challenged by sites and the public.

The handling of tough topics will never disappear as an issue. No history is perfect. With every good a historian will uncover something which is not so good. The responsibility for the public historian is to present the public with an accurate depiction on what transpired.