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.

Historic Site Visit

Before 1836, the options of burial for the deceased were limited in Philadelphia. Most people were either buried in churchyard burial grounds or in small family plots. Just within the center city, there were over seventy of these types of burial grounds. Overcrowding in the churchyard burial plots became a serious problem and it was common for previous burials sites to be accidently uncovered while digging new sites. Burial grounds also had to contend with the expansion of the city, numerous burial grounds were sold in order to make room for new construction. Unfortunately, this did not sit well with Philadelphians who had loved ones buried in these cemeteries. In fact, it was reported that on April 2nd, 1836 a riot broke-out at Arch and Fifth Streets over a church burial ground which had recently been sold for development purposes.

It was at this point when John Jay Smith, a librarian at the Philadelphia Library Company, and amateur horticulturalist, offered Philadelphians another option for the deceased. His rural cemetery would be located well outside the city, allowing it to be safe from development. The site would be expansive, which would keep congestion to a minimum. The setting would also be picturesque; it would include verdant plantings, large monuments and breathtaking vistas of the Schuylkill River. Originally developed on twenty-acres of land, Laurel Hill has grown over time and currently spreads across almost eighty acres.

Laurel Hill is currently open to the public on a daily basis for multiple uses and this has actually been the case since the cemetery’s founding. Entrance to the cemetery is free of charge and the public is encouraged to use the site for running, dog walking and even picnics. The cemetery does still serve as a burial site with approximately thirty burials per year which provides a consistent flow of revenue for the cemetery. The cemetery also has an affiliated non-profit organization, The Friends of Laurel Hill Cemetery, which organizes various fundraising events such as: Halloween nighttime flashlight tours, family fun-days, spirit-channeling, dinners, a 5-K run and their annual Gravediggers’ Ball. These events serve a dual purpose. First, they provide the cemetery with extra revenue to maintain the site. Second, it allows the public to interact with the space because a cemetery is not the first place people think of as a historic and cultural institution. This provides Laurel Hill with a level of exposure that hopefully encourages more people to interact with the space.

Museums....What are they good for?

This week's readings have taken a bit of a shift in regards to their focus. All three of our readings focused on museums. The American Association of Museums annual report presented the current state of museums and its initiatives for moving the field forward. In Making Museums Matter, Stephen Weil takes a critical look at assessing the value of museums in America. In essence, he is trying to argue if an objective value can be placed on museums. He also seeks to explore how is it that some museums become valued more than others. Amy Tyson, pushes the conversation from the abstract into the actual. Her journal article, "Crafting Emotional Comfort" explores how two different living history museums address the issue of slavery in their past. Both sites choose to handle slavery in different ways. One addresses it head-on. They host a ninety-minute reenactment where patrons pay $16 to role-play the experience of being a fugitive slave in the early nineteenth-century. On the other hand, the second site chooses not to actively engage in the discussion of slavery. She brings the discussion back to of each site wanting to provide a comfortable experience for their patrons. She argues that since they are first concerned with comfort, they never truly achieve the experience they set-out to present.

The annual report had an immediate importance which i didn't find in the other readings. Though the piece was brief in its length, the section which discussed "communicating the value of museums" resonated most strongly. I believe this was most relevant because of the unique economic shape our country is in at the present. We find ourselves in a moment where cities are contemplating leveeing greater taxes on cultural institutions and in some places closure is a distinct possibility; a concerted effort by the greater governing association is a necessity.

There are sections of Weil and Tyson I believe weave together very well and they present us with a most important question. In Weil's first chapter, he explicitly states that a museum must clearly state their purpose for them to be truly effective. This ties into her discussion of Conner Praire (CP). CP chooses to wrestle with the issue of slavery but according to Tyson, they don't address it in a manner that facilitates a more true understanding of slavery. This is what leads back to the central issue of explicit definition of purpose. But, a second question to address is how to manage a true experience, wanting to keep interest high, without alienating patrons?

I think this raising an important issue. How can public institutions such as museums handle sensitive issues and give a true experience? I believe this puts museums into a tough situation but museums need to challenge themselves to give a true experience to their patrons. Regardless of how uncomfortable patrons might become, public perception of museums is a place of true information. If museums can stay true to this belief, they can make themselves matter.

What is history to you?

This week’s readings took a bit of a departure from what we discussed the previous week. The three selections each had their own feel and disparate focal points. The main reading for the week was Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of history in American Life, which was co-authored by David Thelen and Roy Rosenzweig. Thelen and Rosenzweig presented us with a work which was to give us insight to the ways in which everyday people use and/or create history within their daily lives. Thelen and Rosenzweig used data compiled from a survey they created with the assistance of other historians.

After a while, I felt this book to be repetitive in the manner they chose to present their information. I mean there are a number of charts which provide us with the quantitative data that reinforces the qualitative analysis they discuss during the body of the book. I became frustrated in what I saw as the overuse of respondent quotes. I believe they overused the quotes to hammer home the point but I think it just trivialized their potential impact.

I truly think this book has great value and it forces us to think about some very important questions and ideas as public historians. Historians would be arrogant to believe they have sole ownership in the creating of what history is. Thelen and Rosenzweig present a picture in which history is an important part of peoples’ everyday lives. The ways in which people interpret, create and process history fluctuates and history can have a variety of different meanings.

I think this book left me with more questions than answers but that’s where I see its strength. We need to see history as something more than just within the academy, and if we are to see history in such a way, we must meet the public where they are. Thelen and Rosenzweig provide tools to begin this type of understanding.

Public History?

I have to admit I was a bit nervous coming into this week’s readings. This was the first set of readings that could decidedly be called Public History. Do I read them differently than books from my other classes? Instead of worrying about that I just jumped right in.

I think Tyrrell’s piece made the biggest impression on me this week. Granted, it was the longest piece we had to read but I believe there was a lot to chew-on between the covers. In essence, Tyrrell gave a history of historians and their interactions with the “public”. Throughout the book, he made reference to Peter Novick’s, That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession and Historians in Public had a very similar feel. Both books presented a comprehensive account of the central figures and movements within the field. To a certain extent, Historians in Public can be seen as complimentary work to Novick while at the same time being an extension. Public Historians have grown out of the professionalization of history.

Though I found myself struggling to get through sections of Historians I believe Tyrrell’s book to be the perfect introduction to this semester of work. Before we begin a semester of analyzing and parsing what it means to be a “public historian”, we are presented with a framework to understand the evolution of the field. Using his historical account, a pattern of conflict between “public” and “academic” history becomes apparent.

I’m not sure if this book will go down as the most exciting read for the semester, I know it will prove invaluable as we progress through the course. I mean Professor Bruggeman chose it to be our first book.

Time to Press the Clutch and Shift Gears

Ok, so the title of this post was cheesy but most of my titles have been cheesy. The summer has ended, I've concluded my internship and I'm back to school. Life, and my blog, will be shifting gears. While I still plan to use my blog as a vehicle for my musings about urban space, it will mainly be devoted to my Introduction to Public History course. In essence, this will be my first post for class and it's an introduction to my classmates. I have to admit this will be a bit strange, an introduction eight posts into the life of my blog? Oh well. We do what we've got to do. So here it goes.

My name is Javier Garcia and I am a second-year MA student in the Public History program here at Temple University. My research interests are in twentieth-century American urban history. Specifically, I am interested in how cities and neighborhoods have developed. My MA thesis will be about the proposed Crosstown Expressway which was to be built along South Street here in Philadelphia.

I graduated with my BA from Haverford College in the Growth & Structure of Cities program. The interdisciplinary nature of the department has greatly influenced my graduate work. My undergraduate work in Architecture and Urban Planning are still present in my non-traditional path through Public History. While most students traditionally take archives and manuscript courses, my supplemental coursework has been in the Community and Regional Planning department at Temple. While I haven't set my sights on a specific career, I hope to do work which can fuse my interest in Public History and Urban Planning.

Articles, More Articles and the Future

So, the past few two-weeks of work have consisted on putting together a short literature review for Professor Bruggeman. The goal of this assignment was to compile a number of articles from the scholarly journals of the History, Public History and Planning fields. I was to focus my attention on articles which bridged the gap between theory and practice. Specifically, how GIS technology and Public History intersect?

On the surface, the assignment should have been straight-forward but unfortunately I struggled. I was able to find a few articles which explicitly fused GIS and historical research. These articles proved to be amazingly dynamic in combining what seemed to be two divergent research techniques. I learned a lot about this new direction of historical discourse. By no means do I see GIS becoming de rigueur in History, but it was refreshing to see the use of newer technologies.

As I moved away from these initial articles, I had to broaden my article search. Instead of finding articles which precisely suited my needs, I looked for articles which had themes in either the field of Public History or Planning and could be applicable to the other. The two major themes I highlighted were access and the use, and future, of technology. I won't go into details but scholars and practitioners made a variety of arguments. Some surprised me while others challenged my perceptions of each field. Now that I have had time to process this experience, it got me thinking about my future path.

I've let my interests guide the direction I've taken my studies and I also hope it will take me to a career which excites me. Unfortunately, my interest don't easily align. There is some crossover but they don't fit nicely into each other like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. As with this assignment, it can be a challenge to find a field that meets all my requirements. I know what I like but at times even I struggle to define it. This makes me fearful of where I go after school is finished. Where do I work? What kind of work do I hope to do? I know I have time to figure this out but it'll be here before I know it. Have my varied interests provided me with wide-ranging options or just painted me into a corner? I guess time will tell.