Drunken Civil War Re-Enactors and Marxist Liberal Invasion!

Overall Bodnar’s article “Celebrating the nation was an interesting analysis of the ways in which Centennial celebrations have been problematized through government bureaucratic organization, personal/regional historical hijacking, and rampant consumerism. The article begins with the history of the American Civil War Centennial which essentially was describe those in the Governmental Agencies involved with organizing the event as not only a misrepresentation of history but a completely irreverent dishonor to those meant to be commemorated. Comments like “they ought to have use live ammo” in civil war re-enactments or that Mississippi’s state focused tourist trap celebration was its “secession in 1961” characterized unmanageable and ultimately doomed attempt at governmental regulation of state economic interests, ie tourism. These efforts may have been doomed for failure merely by the attempt to claim all who fought in the Civil war as heroes during a socially uneasy period, and I’m sure drunken civil war re-enactors and KKK displays next to confederate flags did not help.

However, Bodnar characterizes the American Revolution Bicentennial celebrations as beginning with much nobler hopes of widespread civic involvement and multiple cultural voices in the historical dialogue. Yet, there always has to be a wrench in the works. Rifkin and his People’s Bicentennial Movement is a man after my own heart. Although the article slightly unfavorably characterized him as a leftist upstart, he somehow managed to garner some public and political support to audaciously discredit the ARBA. He basically managed to infiltrate a government funded agency (the ARBA) with representatives of various marginalized social groups and “radical” social views. Although this may have taken away from the ARBA’s plan of a display of national unity, their objections are truly representative of the revolutionary American spirit, and the freedom of speech and assembly that the Revolution was fought for. Kudos to Rifkin.

Basically Bodnar demonstrates that regional and cultural interests inevitably get tied to any project especially when there is federal money at hand to stimulate industry and tourism. However, the main fault of the Civil War Commemorators was their dogmatic adherence to National ideals in order to efface a regional or cultural character to the histories. This simply won’t do because when the government makes decisions such as putting the main Centennial celebration in Virginia, another state is losing out. It is unfair to appropriate history in this way as a commodity that can be sold in order to promote one culture’s agendas but to stymie another’s. However, even at the state level there is always the possibility of misrepresenting a community or under representing a marginalized group.  

The Future is not Written in Stone

                Levinson’s book “Written in Stone” was exactly the kind of book I would like to write someday. Essentially, Levinson is arguing that monuments play a large role in defining cultural identity and can be very problematic in this way. The problem being, when revolution or at very least radical social change occur, culture’s prefer to look forward than backward. The act of demolishing and rebuilding monuments to efface the evil old past and replace it with a progressive unified message is a modernist endeavor. Basically, Levinson has claimed that, although post-modern, Joe Friday “just the facts ma’am” history reporting is devoid of this kind of ability to shape cultural identities. In the first few pages of the book when describing the history of monumental demolition and construction of the Millennium Monument in Budapest Levinson states ‘ “blown to smithereens by a series of explosions spread over a fortnight in 1962.” “All That remains above ground is the statues vast concrete platform,” which apparently is “a favoured spot for skateboarders” Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.(pg 13)’  Latin for thus passes the glory of the world.

                The ways in which we control what is defined as public space is an effort to define public identity and this identity must always be looking forward. Levinson claims that although post-modernism has taken a hold over the history profession in which the representations of history are used simply for their value as records of the past, devoid of value judgments, ultimately public history is a modernist endeavor. His case in point being you will find no giant bronze statues of Hitler in Germany. Although many of these monuments are socially controversial (The Enola Gay, Virginia’s Confederate Monument Avenue) rather than effacing the past by removing or even repackaging through little signs that show that “The views represented here in no way represent the views of the state” we should be asking ourselves why the monument was erected and what can be learned about history in it’s presentation.

                Levinson’s book utilizes scholars like Marx and Foucault to study the cultural, and monetary basis behind the act of monument building as a social and political enterprise. When suggesting possible ways to circumvent the social unrest created by a Civil War monument in Texas, the final suggesting Levinson gives after the list of sign suggestion stating that the state does not endorse the views of the statue, he recommends a sign stating something about the nature of museums and monuments in their historical value for telling us about the culture that constructed them. This is exactly what I am always driving for in my writing and this project of Levinson’s will definitely be one I cite. Levinson’s conclusion is desirable because he states that rather than trying to present these monuments in a void with no value judgments, instead we have to take an active role, as public historians, in the construction of these social narratives, and the most useful form of this narrative is when it identifies the public past in hopes of creating a progressive and informed society.

Town Character and The Mobilization of Public Funding

The Glasberg Chapters as well as the Waldbauer article reflect upon the interface between public preservation movements and socially constructed narratives to protect a specific cultural identity. What gets classified as “historic” or even worthy of preserving has everything to do with who wants to preserve the place and why it is to be preserved. Claims to original membership in a community are often appeals to protect those who believe themselves to be included in this group from often undesired changes. In Glasberg’s “Rethinking” chapter, he describes the argument over the town center of Wilbraham and how even though the academics had shown that the term center might only be able to be loosely applied to geographic middle of Wilbraham, the members insisted that this center existed and it was intentionally designed ineficiently to keep the community quiet. However the desire to avoid modernization and improve roads and access to Wilbraham’s center concerned it’s residents with the fear of low rent apartment housing that so diminished the character of the neighboring city of Springfield.

Ultimately these claims to original inhabitance are meant to draw boundaries and divide society, usually for the economic gain of one group over another. In the Glasberg Chapter “Making Places” he describes the ways in which influential, upper-class white members of the community mobilize their identity with 49’er heritage to historically mark and, in turn, cover up African American, Chinese, Native American and Spanish influences in the building of their communities. This is even more problematic in the Waldbauer article in which US Government funded Antiquities Act which was used to survey land and appropriate reserves from Native Inhabitants. The problem is that there are personal agendas driving public preservation and cultural history movements towards nostalgic remembrances of an ideal and homogenous community which never existed. This problem is further complicated by that fact that all citizens of a community have a stake in its governance and yet only certain members’ of society histories are being told and profited upon through institutions and public legislature.

                The public historian has a difficult task. On the one hand, multifaceted and historically continuous  narratives help to not leave out any particular culture or group’s history. On the other hand, detailed accounts of specific historical events and narrative histories of nostalgic periods have economic appeal and help to create interest and revenue for history museums. After all, it is hard to educate the public if you cannot get them to buy admission to your museum. So in some sense we must, as potential future public historians, navigate this sense of nostalgia and duty to give accurate and fair accounts of all the historic significance of a site. I agree that videos are the ultimate modern entertainment experience and tell a much more complete and complex story, but then why are we archiving scrapbooks and photo albums if they don’t have anything to teach us. This of course is being mentioned in reference to the analogy of preservation as a video and restoration as a snapshot.