Past, Present, Public

Kim's and Jamal's articles itself was interesting. Though I'm still digesting their argument, they make strong points that describe participation in public historical events. "Modern society... [drives] people to travel in search of the authentic", mainly because reality fails to give people a complete sense of self. Whether it be through a Ren. fair or a museum, people seek an escape and an explanation for the reality they live in. Which leads nicely into "The Presence of the Past" where the survey data shows a public discontentment with school taught history but values the need to learn about the past in order to make sense of one's identity and future. Even though ethnic/racial groups varied on their responses, especially on how they relate as a person or group to the past and what events in history, the overarching response was about making history matter personally. I think that is the most striking feature of the book: that the public as a while actively seeks a past and knowledge of history that he/she can relate to as an individual or as a family unit. Frisch sums it up in his book that historians need to "protect a more democratized and widely shared historical consciousness" and that to remember that "memory is living, the remembered past that exists in the present", though which the Mr. Everyman invokes its relevance. Relating back to last week, there is a public call for respect and understanding to academia that the people have an authority by how they see and relate to the past (discussion, books, events, exhibitions, etc.).

Becker, Stanton, Tyrrell: Public History in History

I think all three readings were a great introduction into the debate of what public history is and what historians need to be aware as they deal with the public and influence how history is recorded and used.

Carl Becker:

Even though I really enjoyed his speech I'm keeping this short since my post is already long. The most important idea I took away from the speech was that in 1931, historians were faced with changing how they themselves viewed history and how to relate the importance of history to the public. Even Mr. Everyman engaged in selective history daily, historians failed to relate to him living history as important as well as as a profession maintaining a living historical record.

Cathy Stanton's The Lowell Experiment:

I'm not surprised that for most small communities "the goal was to become a desirable address again, to keep the best and the brightest from leaving the area (ii)" but seeing it in print makes it real and the battle not "to praise and to bury" is the central issue at hand. Also striking is: "Often this sense of 'pastness' is created at the expense of people still living in the present" that through creating museums and exhibits they actually create a past and present, maintaining an otherness to the topic. While I can't say if I agree with her point yet I'm really intrigued by that statement.


Ian Tyrrell's Historians in Public:

It's not surprising that that issues over public and academic history, and between profession and amateur historian have been around since the turn of the 20th century. What Tyrrell discusses at great length, is that people have been trying to bridge that gap over the decades with few results. What I enjoyed most about the book is how Tyrrell plots the progression of public history both in general and in specific categories. That structurally the book's chapters can be read without needing a previous one. Although it did get confusing to follow when he jumped back and forth in time, it was beneficial to see within one aspect (ie radio, film, issues of specialization, etc.) the success and failures of historians over time.

Specialization has always been present (even though it has shift in definition). But it has been constantly attacked yet still influential on how the public and state views history. Also important in maintaining a demand for specialization is the grants made available by the federal government, which are often for a specific topic or they favor a certain undertone. The benefits of involving oneself in state ideology (over simplified I know) comes a cost. Even though private and other public institutes who give grants are open to all ideas, the more specific, interesting, and under researched a topic is the more easily funding can be made available. As much as the public and academia dislikes specialization, it is a necessity and a fact of life even after a 100 years of debate.

Also novel was the radio programs created that were geared to educate a general public. Even more original was the attempt of universities to hold lectures via the radio. I think it really struck me since in all my classes, readings, and History Channel viewing has it never been discussed or mentioned.


Another interesting notion to me is that the disparities between popular, academic, amateurs, and their relation to the public remains for the most part the same as it did in the 1900s. That the general public can't name an academic book yet could name an amateur's work. That academics and nonprofessionals still cannot reach agreement on how to teach all history in schools though I credit them with trying to. [My personal observation of the failings of school education in history is that my brother who is currently in 7th grade is in his 3rd year of American history but has yet to study or make it near the Civil War even though they should have made it to WWII by now. In eighth grade they cover it again (pre-Civil War) and they will be lucky to make it into the 1900s].



I tend to agree with Tyrrell that historians are not oblivious to the realities around them. That historians have engaged the public through radio programs, civic events, state sponsored programing and institutes (ie NPS). Though they have not always been successful it isn't for the lack of trying. That is what I took most away from the book. Historians, even though overdramatic about their profession coming to an end, have always been focused on preserving relations with the public despite and in light of social and cultural developments.

Introductions

Hi!
I'm a first year history MA student at Temple University. I'm not sure if I'm going to concentrate on colonial history with a second area in public history or if I'll reverse it. I received my undergraduate degree from the University of Pittsburgh in history. I became interested in public history while interning at the Senator John Heinz History Center (which is really amazing for its location). Ideally my career goals are doing museum work either in community programming or school education (tours, events, workshops, etc.). I am open to other ways of performing the same ideas but in difference venues. One reason I took "Managing History" is to gain a better understanding of what the field is and how the field is changing and developing. Since I really don't have a solid idea what public historians actually do (in theory yes, in practice not so much) I'm really looking forward to discusses it.

I guess that's it for now... Until next time