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.).