City of Memory - Web Review

City of Memory

http://www.cityofmemory.org/map/index.php

Created and is maintained maintained by City Lore. Reviewed June to November 2009.

"In life, it's always seemed to me that the true gift that each of us is given is consciousness. Our quest is to use that consciousness to create meaning."¹

^{Created and maintained by City Lore, the City of Memory website encourages a spatial understanding of New York City and empowers the public to take ownership over the historical significance of their own community. When City Lore began the project in 2001, City of Memory was simply a twenty-foot long map of New York City on which New Yorkers could write their memories and stories. With the help of funding by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the Rockefeller Foundation, City Lore took their project to the web and launched the official City of Memory website in 2009.}

^{Content: Content of the site is both user-generated and supplied by City Lore curators. Assessing the scholarship of the website is a challenge because of the user-generated content of the site. The vetting process for such content is negligible and can lead to an imbalance of stories in various boroughs (Manhattan receiving the most user-generated content). The strength of this type of content, however, is the fact that the public is the ultimate creator and owner of New York’s history. The City Lore curated content rests on a stronger academic foundation. A number of the curated stories are actually excerpts from local PBS programs, while most of the curated stories were produced by City Lore.}

^{Form: Overall, the site was very easy to navigate. When the site initially loads, a pop-up box provides a site introduction. Memories can be accessed in two ways. The user can search the map for memories in specific locations or users can also browse the "story directory" which provide a small text excerpt about the story.}

^{Audience/Use: City Lore states that the general public is the beneficiary of the site. The website is free to access and any user can contribute content as long as the memories are confined to New York City. Yet, City Lore excludes an important population from their project: those without internet access. This excludes a wide section of the public most notably those with limited resources.}

^{New Media: The strength of this website is its presence on the web. The digital version of this project allows for greater multimedia mediums including text, video and sound. Also, the map framework highlights how interconnected people in a city can be while allowing freedom of exploration. City of Memory does not present memories in any sequential order and users can “travel” throughout the city jumping between neighborhoods at whim or participating in a themed tour focusing on culture, ethnicity, and even recreational activities.}

^{Even with its usability and accessibility shortcomings, City of Memory is successful at present a personalized account of New York City culture and history. The site attempts to give importance to the everyday happenings allowing for a re-imagining and democratizing of New York City history.}

^Notes:

^{1 Steve Zeitlin, "City of Memory", Voices, vol. 34 (2008). Steve Zeitlin is the founding director of City Lore, a New York City based non-profit organization which attempts to preserve the cultural heritage of New York City.}

Digital History

Where to go with this week's reading? To reference one of my classmates, "my head was swimming" after reading this week. The web and history; where do we find the intersection? I have to say that this was the over-arching question I kept asking myself as I was reading. In their own ways, each of the readings was asking us to consider how the web can move forward.

The introduction from Digital History laid-out a framework for which we can think about the role of the web in the study of history. I liked the seven qualities of digital media he listed because he was able to clearly label, and elaborate on, what makes the web such a useful resource. While I think his qualities were a strong-suit within his introduction, I appreciated how he tempered his excitement. He recognized the possibilities of digital media but new technology brings new challenges. Cohen and Rosenzweig (C & R) are not disillusioned in how they conceive of the web but they seemed excited about the potential.

"Haunted Mouse" challenged me to think about how we understand the space of the internet to exist. In the term space, I am referring to the capacity of the medium. The article begins with a roll-call of websites and social-networking sites which have gone the way of the dodo bird. But, with the internet, nothing ever becomes extinct. The web seems to be this infinite repository for just about anything we want to use it for. We can load junk, significant scholarship and everything in between. The questions this raises in my mind is, do we need to keep adding to the excess? Regardless of what we make live on the web, it will eventually lose its luster and become a ghost. Personally, I think the endless capacity is a hindrance of the web. It has the ability to reduce the quality of the material which can be uploaded.

(Deep breath) What was Nate Hall discussing? Maybe I am lacking a certain tech-savvy that would allow me to understand the concept of QR. In the beginning of his article, Hall wrote about wanting to greater connect his online community to his physical community. It already seems we have this connection and constant plug into all that is digital. Each site he reference brings you one step closer to a complete breakdown of barriers. The space between Hall's online life and physical life is minuscule. With the click of a button or the flipping open of a phone, Hall's physical life becomes part of a new community. Do newer technologies need to be created to make that gap even more narrow?

Earlier in the post, I referenced C & R's hesitance with technology. I think this is the biggest takeaway from this week. It always seems as if we are one step behind the technology. We are always attempting to find ways to conform what we do to fit. I don't know if there is any way to reverse that reality. The problem is that there are no set guidelines for how to interact with the web. It feels like we are doing it on the fly. Though spontaneity can yield great results, we don't necessarily have the ability to police what is being produce. C & R gave great examples of how the web can create a false sense of truth. It's a medium which theoretically is open to all. A democratic medium for all to share ideas. Unfortunately, the ideas might not always be the correct ideas, especially when it comes to history. As professionals, we should strive to create cohesive guidelines which allow for proper scholarship.

Memory

I have to take a deep breath and really think about our readings from this week. I have to admit that I found this week to be a bit challenging. Our selections were very heavy on the theory and at times I feel like I got caught-up in the weeds of their discussions. I guess that can be the problem you stumble upon when dealing with heavy theory. Well, here goes nothing.

Coming into Alison Landsberg book, Prosthetic Memory, I thought this would be something right up my alley. She's going to be discussing memory within the context of movies. Wow! It doesn't get much better than that for me. At the heart of her book, Landsberg was examining how memory can be created within modes of mass consumption. She also investigated the ramifications to these constructs.

I found places where I agreed with what she wrote but in other cases I felt she was grasping for connections. I believe memory possesses an amazing power to transcend time and social barriers. Memory can be positive and empower people. Memory can be negative and serve as a stark reminder of the past. Regardless of the shape it takes, memory is a dynamic force and I side with Landsberg on this idea. On the other hand, I disagree with the empathetic emotions memory can evoke in people. I see memory being too easily used for finding what one is personally looking for, especially when it comes to mass consumption. For example, the Battle of Little Big Horn was a military failure for General Custer. But, the battle, and Custer, are discussed with reverence in circles outside of academia. In many cases, the memory has contributed to the "American narrative" and the memory has diverged from the event. I don't see empathy stemming from this type of scenario.

The second work we read was Jay Winter's "The Generation of Memory: Reflections on the "Memory Boom" in Contemporary Historical Studies." Winter investigated the proliferation of memory within the field. Winter laid-out a number of factors which contributed to the growth of memory. For example, the growth of identity politics and new social history contributed to the growth of memory as a field of historical inquiry.

While I was reading Winter, I kept trying to establish my own definition of memory. I wrestled with this idea but I think I've come up with my own working definition. Part of my definition is contrasted to what I see historiography being. Essentially, I see historiography and memory as being opposed to one another. Historiography would be the lens in which historians use to establish an understanding of the past. I believe memory is something which is very different. Memory has a more organic feel and it emanates from the public. Memory is the public understanding of people or events which happened in the past. The historian intervenes with memory by placing it within a larger framework but memory is truly "bottom-up."

The Community

After all of these weeks of talking about Public History, this was one of the first sets of readings where we looked at the public. As public historians, we have decided that the work we are hoping to do will filter its way to the community. Also, I took from the readings the meanings history can have on the public.

Of the three readings we had for this week, I think Nancy Raquel Mirabal's community history article, "Geographies of Displacement" resonated most with me. I was taken back to a blog posting I wrote this past summer. Though my post did not go into the same depth as Mirabal's article, we both touched upon the meaning of space and community within transitional neighborhoods. Mirabal does not go into depth about the ethnography she and her students produced about the changing demographics of the Mission District but she showed us a non-conventional way to do public history. For many of us, we see public history as being attached to some sort of institution. We have talked, and read, at length about museums, archives and historical societies. Mirabal wrote about taking history to the people. Her work epitomized "history from the bottom up." During a time of intense displacement of the Latino community, she and her students were able to put their stories at the forefront. The power of gentrification/revitalization is real and it has the ability to whitewash the history of neighborhood. Mirabal worked to preserve a history which would easily be forgotten.

As public historians, I see this type of work becoming more common. Cities across the country are working to bring people back to their city centers from the suburbs. Mirabal alluded to the notion of their being a metric to determining which neighborhoods will be revitalized. More communities will find themselves displaced from the neighborhoods where they laid roots. Revitalization inherently says to the community, you no longer belong in this space. In many cases, the forces of development will not be dissuaded by the criticism of a displaced community. But, as historians, we can use some of our training to express the importance of the marginalized group.

Cary Carson's article about History Museums' Plan B did not have the same resonance for me as Mirabal but I had a great takeaway. The future of history museums lay in the interactivity with the visitor. Carson devoted a section of his article to the instant gratification phenomena within our society. Technology has caused educators to re-envision how they deliver their message. Carson wrote, "Educators everywhere are challenged to repackage their instruction as a form of performance art in which the instructees can participate using these new personal technologies." (Carson, p. 21) What Carson attempted to show was how history needs to be dynamic in its presentation. The public needs to believe they can interact with history in new and exciting ways. They cannot just be passive observers as history is presented to them. Similar to Mirabal, Carson believed history needed to empower the public.

Finally, there was Eric O'Keefe's article from the New York Times. O'Keefe's article focused on the liquidation of a $7.8 million collection of "Old West" collectibles. The items had been purchased by Stephen Reed, Mayor of Harrisburg. Reed used public money to establish the collection and his ultimate goal was to establish a museum to honor the contribution Harrisburg made in the western migration during the 1800s. Eventually the idea was scrapped because the cities budget was in the red. Again we are pulled back to the public significance of history. Reed believed this was necessary for his community and this new museum would serve the role of highlighting Harrisburg's contribution.

All three articles addressed the idea of community impact and history. As I mentioned earlier in the post, public history isn't only historians making history accessible for the public but it can be taking it to the public. History can have a variety of meaning to the community and it is a topic which needs to be explored.

Interpretation

This week's readings focused on the idea of interpretation and how that related to interactions at historic sites. The readings as a whole traced an evolution in historical interaction which seeks to be more critical of its subject. Like with the each set of readings we've had this semester, the content is divergent but they all work together and this week was no exception.

The book we read for this week was Freeman Tilden's, Interpreting Our Heritage. I think this book provided a strong base for a lot of what we have been discussing in our recent class meetings. On a side-note, this book was entertaining to read mainly because of its publication date (1967 for the revised edition). The focus within most history courses is to read some of the latest literature so it was illuminating to read a book with a first publication date of 1957. I know I originally posed this as a side-note but in thinking about it more, this had great significance to understanding this book. What Tilden provided was a way in which we used to and, in some ways, still interact with historic sites. Tilden wrote at length about the role the interpreter can contribute to the experience a visitor has with the site. Tilden saw the interpreter as the medium between site and visitor but he also believed there was a place for the visitor to make their own understanding of history.

The shortcoming I found with Tilden was how sites should cater to the comfort of the visitor (going back to the readings we had about reenacting slave runaways). Tilden doesn't seesites as being a space in which to challenge the visitor and truly question history. I believe part of his stance has to do with the context in which he's writing. He was writing in the 1950s and historical analysis has become more critical in presenting a more robust account of history. But, I also think Tilden has resonance. There should be a space in which visitors can make history for themselves. To a certain extent, don't trained historians do something similar? I still find myself thinking historical sites do need a certain element of 'feel good'. A visitor should leave educated but they should leave with a sense of pride.

Handler and Gable's (H&G) chapter about their ethnography of Colonial Williamsburg was the most charged of all three readings. H&G began their research with a belief they would find revisionist history abound at Colonial Williamsburg. They believed the shifts in social history during the 1970s had finally made a lasting impact on how history would be presented. They believed they would find greater examples of marginalized people taking a bigger role as historical actors. Because the new social historians, who were on the ground floor during the 1970s, were now in administrative positions, they believed Colonial Williamsburg would present a richer historical narrative. This was not the place they found. According to H&G what they found was, "a place that downplayed class conflict, denigrated those who complained about their lot, and celebrated upscale consumerism." (p. 221) H&G presented a disconnect between the historians and the interpreters who are on the "front lines."

I hate to keep feeling like a broken-record but H&G left me with an important question of definition. This is the same question I keep coming back to, 'what should a historical site be?' H&G saw a binary between a site being a place for escapism or a place where visitors really wrestle with historical questions. I am reluctant to think most people want a place which is going to challenge them. In the example of a place like Colonial Williamsburg, H&G believe it to be a place where people want to experience an antiquated way of life. A place where electricity doesn't exist and where you churn your own butter as opposed to going to your local mega-mart. People want to see where we've come from and how we have advanced. While I don't see people jumping for the chance to be challenged, I do see the need for challenging topics. Without such topics, we only perpetuate the standard narratives which limit the range of historical actors.

Finally, we read Patricia West's chapter from Domesticating History. The chapter we read focused on the establishment of the Orchard House house museum which was the childhood home of Louisa May Alcott, and the setting for Alcott's novel Little Women. While I saw H&G's reading to be the most charged, West's reading was the most dynamic. West contrast Orchard House to other house museums and this was how her selection was so dynamic. According to West, most house museums were established to honor an individual of historic significance. Orchard House differs because it was not venerating a political icon but an author and her novel. This was important because the social roles of women in society were shifting at the time of the museums establishment. The museum became a reflection of a historical moment and dealt with changing social structures. The establishment of the museum felt like a proto-new social history. The central players in the historical narrative were a marginalized group whose story now has historical resonance. It was almost surprising to see a site be established under those conditions in the early twentieth century.

As I said at the beginning, this week's reading focused on interpretation and how visitors are to interact with a site. This is an issue we need to consider as public historians. How do we want the public to interact with the work we do? But, what I think is more important is making sure we find a way to do 'good' history and pass that along to the public.

Preservation

The readings for this week focused on themes of preservation and revitalization. While the scope of the readings differed vastly, I think they work together in a strange way. Thinking back on my reading of the texts, I would have read them in a different order. I would have read Diane Lea's "America's Preservation Ethos" first. Lea quickly traced the history and evolution of preservation in American culture. Her writing would have placed Lowell into a larger historical context of preservation.

As with most fields, preservation has gone through a maturation process in which core values changed to reflect those of society. According to Lea, preservation in America started with the goal of preserving and "memorializing the heroes of the Revolutionary War." In the early days, preserved sites were places such as Independence Hall and George Washington's Mount Vernon. Lea discussed how preservation transformed into a field which eventually saw value in preserving entire sections of cities, as well as sites of marginalized people. I saw this shift as being reflective of shifts in history. History has shifted its focus over the decades; histories about mythic figures have given way to an exploration of history from the other end of the social spectrum. What we find now are factories and neighborhoods being preserved because we deem them to have significance and necessary to preserve.

In The Lowell Experiment, Cathy Stanton examined this phenomenon in practice. Her book is an ethnographic look at the transformation of Lowell, Mass. Lowell used its industrial past as a catalyst for revitalization. Stanton wrestled with how successful Lowell National Historic park was as a vehicle for revitalization as well as how they framed the industrial history of the area.

There was one section of the book which actually took me back to last week's topic, slavery and public history. A discussion arose about the role of historic sites and should they address tough issues. On the "Run of the Mill" tour, one of the guides talked about globalization and the world economy and how labor played into the situation. Stanton wrote how the unexpected tough issue shocked the patrons. Again, I'm confronted with the question but I don't have a good answer. Should sites which are meant to instill pride tackle these thorny issues? I have no idea if I will ever reconcile this to myself.

I think preservation will continue to grow as we expand as a nation. Preservation allows us to keep the past present. As a country, we could easily cannibalize our past and build new but this would strip the significance of the past away. Preservation places importance on our past and how the public should interact with it.

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.