DoHistory's Discovery Diary

DoHistory (created in 2000) is more than an archive; it is a place to discover and to embrace the tools needed to do history. The site centers itself around the diary of an American midwife Martha Ballard, an ordinary woman of the mid-eighteenth century. The website’s mission is to inspire people to do original research on ordinary people by highlighting a single case study. The diary along with other related materials (published works of the time, other diaries, letters, court documents, maps, secondary sources) are available to read online. The website, through the documents and the lessons on the basic skills for researching, provides the fundamental knowledge of how to perform history. The inspiration for the site was the research by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich for her book (and the subsequent movie by the same title), A Midwife’s Tale, which is based on Martha’s own writings.

The design, structure, and flow of the website are incredibly user friendly as it is designed for the general public. Although scholars can certainly use the primary source material available, the lessons for learning basic skills (reading the handwriting, looking at context it was written in, the style and the structure of the writing, as well as how to do original research) and the flow of the site is aimed at engaging a less educated public. That is not to say it is dumb down for general users, but the layout and the word choices are relaxed compared to scholarly sites.

The overall content is split between Martha’s diary, the archives related to her life, and information for doing historical research. Within each overall grouping, it is organized thematically by content or resource type. The thematic organization allows a casual user to go from page to page in an orderly manner. While it also allows users to go directly to pages at ease, the format suggests the user should follow the theme. Each page of Martha’s diary is accessible along with a typed transcription of the page. For one page of the diary, however, there is more interaction for the user, whom can either transcribe the page him/herself or he/she can use the magnify lens which when scrolled across the handwritten words creates a bubble with what is written in typed font.

DoHistory presents the primary source material in an unbiased, objective manner. However, where there are external links for more information they emphasize women’s history much more than general history. This creates a hindsight doubt of objectivity over what primary sources are presented. The external links seems to suggest that users should look at the sources from a woman’s perception rather than a more neutral one.

In addition, while the site does provide some discussion of life in general at the time, most of what is reference relates back to Martha’s life. There is a timeline predating and postdating her life that mentions events that either affected her life directly (colonial events, the Revolutionary War) or indirectly (published debates over proper birthing attendants). However, it would be more useful if there were more information about colonial America and other related topics in order to understand and appreciate the context in which Martha writes. Overall, the website is a gem: it is engaging, interactive, fun, and informative.

The Digital Age Get Down

As Gertrude Himmelfarb is quoted in "Digital History", “the Internet does not distinguish between the true and the false, the important and the trivial, the enduring and the ephemeral. . . . Every source appearing on the screen has the same weight and credibility as every other; no authority is ‘privileged’ over any other.” That is the general thread of the reading for this week: the Internet, its benefits, its problems, and is there a solution.

Digital History by Cohen and Rosenzweig

The same debates over the benefits and harms of the Internet have been circulating amongst scholars and ordinary people. The optimism of the radical changes that the digital community can bring to society, although decades later still not realized, is still discussed. While research and access to knowledge has grown and changed disciplines like history, if anything the Internet is just another skill that needs to be learned. Yet it is still a privileged access. Class and money still affect who can get that access (whenever I work, I constantly still get lower to middle class young adults who do not have access to the Internet and rants about technology). I think we, as people and academics, forget that until we are confronted by it.


Hyperlinking Reality by Nate Hill

I think it is a cool idea to be able to access information by scanning a bar code. I will admit some of this excitement stems because CSI: NY had an episode that involved postcards with a bar code to promote a local bar which linked to murder suspect and I have been fascinated by that accessibility ever since. I'm incredibly energized and optimistic by QR code simply because if it can reach just one person and get one person seriously interested in something they never would have encountered before is worth it. Yes, most people would scan the QR code just to see what it was and probably dismiss it after seeing it was "history" or "library" related. However, someone's interest could be peeked by whatever the subject is or that another person took the time to create and pass on a bar code. It is not a perfect way to get people involved but it is a creative one. I give the Greenpoint branch of the Brooklyn Public Library credit for trying something new, different, and technological based to reach out to the public.



Haunted Mouses by Virginia Heffernan

Static. Nothing is clear on the Internet. It does multiple things and be many different things to different people with no answer to what is real. If you cannot tell, what is real from what is not then doing history online could do more harm than good it seems. For every valid point there is a least one invalid point. There is no solution for the problems the Internet can cause but discussing the benefits of the Internet over not having it at all is worth wild.

More than the content itself, the imagery she uses is amazing. Comparing the Internet to the rural roads of the highway with ghostly hitchhikers gets her argument across far greater than other words or phrases she uses.


American Historical Association articles
"Should We All Become Public Historians?" by Joyce Appleby
"Public Education and the National Park Service: Interpreting the Civil War" by Dwight T. Pitcaithley
"American Exceptionalism and the Teaching of European History" by Arthur Haberman and Adrian Shubert

I really liked how these authors struggle with what public historians are, the public longing for a progressive story, and a public interest in expressively American stories. Perhaps liked is not the right word, but it drives home that as a class, we struggled with these issues and even professionals still have not found a solution. It seems to be a circular debate: recognize a problem, discuss the problem, call others to act on a solution, give suggestions, and repeat. Yes, there is no quick solution or maybe not even a solution at all. Yes, calling historians to remember that they do have some responsible to the public is important. It just seems there is a whole lot of talk and not much action when action will only solve it.

Memories: To Trust or Not

Prosthetic Memory by Alison Landsberg had an interesting concept of being able to transplant historic memories or experiences into people, in a way that cuts across class, race, or gender. While I'm intrigued by this idea, I'm not convinced of her argument or at least not in terms of its use in history or even public history. I did enjoy her discussion of memory and her use of sources after I stepped away from looking at it in a historical context. But from a historical perspective, its too theoretical and her evidence, while using an interesting interpretation of literature and cinema, is too subjective, less based on 'solid' evidence. I'm skeptical that memories that cut across social lines as cleanly as she suggests, that there can be a unique, solitary public memory that anyone can access. Even though she admits on the last couple of pages that this is her Utopian view of the future, I wish she had addressed the negative and potential problems her argument. A whole idealize theory is great until someone tries it in reality without considering the consequences.

Jay Winter's "The Generation of Memory" made more of a connection for me than Landsberg's piece. Blurred lines between truth and fiction in storytelling are not inherently bad rather the voice (spirit, maybe) of the memory is sometimes more important. His skepticism and distrust of publicly funded memorials which usually shows a sacrifice and redemption theme) is well argued. He does a very nice job of showing how the political context of why something is memorialized makes it a product of its contemporary time rather than of the time it commemorates.

Both pieces challenge the notion of memory and how memory can be influence- for better or worse. While Landsberg focuses on the optimistic notions of memory, Winter has a more realistic (at time cynical) position. While I'm not I agree fully with either of them, their arguments do force me to look closure at the value and use of memories, much like Rosenzweig and Thelen did.

Outside of the Box

Understanding the politics involved in an aspect of public history (the founding of a society, creation of a museum house, a movement, etc.) and how they relate to contemporary society is important and valuable. To go off of Patrica West and Mary Pat Brady (from Nancy Raquel Mirabal's article), spaces are not neutral, they are infused with meanings. However, one of my concerns with politics and public history is misrepresenting or skewing historical events/movements to advance a political agenda. While I recognize some of this stems for personal encounters, this wariness I think has merit. In Mirabal's article, I struggled with understanding the Mission District in a public historical context. The closest I could connect the gentrification of Latina/o and public history is the local meetings, discussions, and activism that happened between Mirabal's study. But I cannot help think of this as a sociological or political study more than a historical matter. That being said, her image of an historian as an activist is a potential growth area for public historians.

In that idea (of potential growth) Cary Carson, and to some extent Eric O'Keefe, further discuss what we have mean hinting/talking about throughout our course: an interaction of history and people and creating a 'shared authority'. Though I am by no means ready to support Plan B Part I (somehow I do not think Latino styled telanovas on history is the future of public history and museums), I do believe there is merit in what Carson goes on to say. The delicate balance between incorporating technology and maintaining a usable historical past is a contemporary problem, one that people have been struggling to solve for the past decade. Yet it is reflective of the larger issue of involving the public in 'teaching' them a particular history. Perhaps allowing cell phones to take photos and video is not the best choice (copy right, imaging policies, damage to objects or even to people), but I give him credit for a creative solution.

Harrisburg, PA's idea of auctioning off the (misused) use of public funds had an unintentional (in my opinion) affect of gaining the attention of a larger public. Maybe for the Western objects, maybe for seeing what their money was spent on, maybe simply because it was an unusual auction, but either way the government captured the attention of a public. Though I do not think O'Keefe would suggest an auctioning off of most museum objects (Carson might though), the larger idea for us is thinking outside of the box in an effort to do something with (for?) people.

Even though I do not completely agree with all the positions of these authors, the larger theme of creating or looking at nontraditional methods of civic engagement. Perhaps Carson's ideas are not feasible but where his thoughts are coming from and responding to are important questions/ideas public historians need to address.

Tilden: The Godfather of Interpertation

I am still somewhat in awe of Tilden mainly because of his writing. It was wonderful to read something so engaging, descriptive, and simple. He successfully balances preaching with inspiring. He makes suggestions and gives ideas about interpreting rather than dictating principles and standards. Tilden's six key concepts are something in between goals and guidelines. Perhaps it can be described a standard to strive for but one that you recognize you will not always everyday live up to them. Handler and Gable hint at this in their book excerpt (and I thought about it while reading Tilden) that Tilden's work can easily be idealized and be misrepresented. With the almost godly status given to Tilden's work it is far too easy to accept it as fact and untouchable rather than discussion and points of growth that he intended them to be.

Handler and Gable's work on Colonial Williamsburg gives a case study (or if case study is too social science like, a close look at) about miscommunication of interpretations. Without proper guidance of how to interact with visitors, they state, the museum or historical site ends up failing their mission statement and ultimately their public. Pressure for money and maintaining powerful connections, according to the article, has hindered how much "freedom" office historians and the ground staff have in what they can present and what they want to present. While I agree that there needs to be a change in what history is presented, Handler and Gable's solution is too idealistic for me. Money has strings that Williamsburg cannot be ignored. But Handler and Gable are right that they can do more solve these issues. Most people visit places to make connections yet without a whole picture they can't successfully do so. By becoming complacent, museums who admire Tilden as godly fail to live up to his ideas of challenging and changing both people and museums.

This goes back to what we have discussed throughout the course about how far or to what degree should public historians or museum personnel be comfort councilors? What "facts" should or can be presented? As West argues, there is no one meaning for a building and the method and who chooses what a building means is significant. Can a whole interpretation be given if there are already limitations to what is visually depicted? Even Tilden while advocating the need to provoke visitors and give them a whole picture, recognizes that words and methods must not alienate visitors. Tilden stresses the need to engage visitors so not to bore them but it can also be argued that one also needs to know how far a guide can push his/her group.

A balance is needed but who really chooses how to do that?

Lowell: What to do?

I will admit that I had a hard time reading Stanton's work (The Lowell Experiment: Public History in a Postindustrial City) on Lowell, MA mainly on how she broke up her novel. That being said she did bring several valuable insights into how to create a historical site in an urban area that is still actively used and evolving. This hearkens to what we have been discussing in class, is how to create a balance between professional (publicly focused or not) historians and a public. Although Lowell is a so-called success story both as an urban park and community involved preservation, Stanton does an excellent job at showing the flaws and faults being too 'publicly' focused (i.e. pleasing the surrounding population and basically being accountable to the community). By making Lowell almost a warning against using a public opinion, there is a call for historians to man-up and take responsibility for what history is present, how it is presented and recognizing what is ignored. Lowell is an admirable experiment but there are cautions to be heard.
I am not sure if there is a solution for Lowell and similar sites. There needs to be books and essays on consequences of 'doing' history as the "Slavery and Public Historians" did. Hypothetical situations are great starting points but reality serves a better guide for ways to do and not do history. Lowell's conception and practice is perfect in an ideal world where there are no agendas and limited risks. But the reality of Lowell is one where a city is stuck in a perception that is neither true nor false, and one that is difficult to copy in another city. I'm still not sure if Stanton's book serves as a caution to public historians, a case-study almost isolated from other cases, or an optimistic approach on how to or how not to engage a public. (Hopefully I can figure that out through class tomorrow.)

I loved Stanton's explorations into how the community labels people who work and/or live in Lowell. Gaining that insight into the attitudes and opinions of 'true locals' verses visitors or professionals, gives a more tangible evidence for the problems in Lowell, what is at stake, and why/how Lowell has become what it has become.

One area where I think Stanton could have been clearer was in her discussion of Turner's liminal states. Perhaps my issues with how she uses it is simply because I learned of Turner's theory in an anthropology setting, and I don't think clearly stated how she was modifying and using his theory. There are times when she stresses one part of his ideas (like a crisis which cause a redress) to make her point but ignores or does not fully incorporate other aspects (a group reintegration into society who has retained the status quo). Stanton only flushes out the parts that work for her and leave the rest behind (even though the rest could still useful). Which can be fine but knowing a little more of Turner's (and others) works on states, she leaves something to be desired.

So Is There A Slavery Answer?

Horton and Horton raises some important questions but provides few answers for them. Most of the case studies show the problem, question the policy and public reactions, but provides no judgement about the attempt to discuss slavery or possible solution to that problem (issues of discussing slavery in public venues). It seems the book simply wants to bring up the question of how to handle slavery in the public for future discussions rather than actually attempting to create solutions or guides for both public historians and/or a general audience to use. By simply showing the failures of numerous exhibitions it unintentionally suggests that there is no feasible or possible answer. That no matter the intentions of an institution factions of the public will always be unhappy and a minority can change an entire exhibit's context or purpose (for better or for worse). I guess my concern is to what public do public historians play to? Do we focus on presenting the accepted facts of a topic or do we challenge/portray them in a manner that is contrary to what people think they know about something? Do we allow minority groups to dictate how museums conceive, portray, and show history or do we simply give them a small voice of consideration or can we/should we ignore them? How far can public spaces force people to confront their knowledge of historical events without overstepping perceived boundaries? The book implies that slave relations and the public are changing or evolving but how much are they actually changing rather than simply playing to a crowd? I wish the book had attempted to solve or create ideas of how to solve some of these questions. It stated what has happened and plotted a potential course of the future but resolves very little. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the articles and what they showed but there could have a been a little more to bring this problem of public relationships to slavery full circle.