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.
I think you have hit on something with the discussion of comprehensive social narratives in historic institutions versus a narrative that focuses on the activities and contributions of specific communities. However, I think it's important to remember that the representation of specific communities can sometimes have the effect of empowering those communities, especially if they have been previously neglected. A community specific narrative, therefore, can be a valuable exercise, not just an economic cop out. The key is balance between inclusivity and specificity.
ReplyDelete