Digital Media and the Future

Brown approached his analysis of digital media and its successes and issues by examining past projects that he was apart of and by studying the history of multimedia. He constructively criticized his own projects, while pointing out a major issue in digital media. Rather than allowing users to explore, discover, and make connections, Brown found that the program limited users by defining what information they acquired and how they applied it. By including the history of Frank Leslie’s publication and Barnum’s American Museum, Brown illustrated that interactivity is not new to the twenty-first century. The arrangement of images and artifacts allowed readers and visitors to “find connections, to rearrange, and restage to meet their own social, intellectual, and leisure purpose” (Brown 16). From his investigation of past museums and periodicals and modern examples of digital media usage for historical purposes, Brown argued that history scholars could use these examples to further the use of digital media.

Cohen and Brennan & Kelly discussed the future of historical records in the digital world. Comparing the collection of oral histories, narratives, and photographs pertaining to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, Cohen examined the issues and benefits associated with the collection of digital records and how they will be preserved over time. Quality and quantity represented the major concerns though the benefits of digital collections and their complementary position to oral histories made it a useful medium of gathering personal histories. Despite the benefits of digital media, Cohen presented issues of preserving a medium whose deterioration is more fragile than traditional paper collections. Cohen argued that the focus needed to be on the present. With the relatively short life of digital sources, they need to be saved and archived before they are lost. In a complementary piece, Brennan and Kelly used their experiences with the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank to outline the components needed when creating a digital archive. Their article focused on collecting photographs and oral histories in the present, much like Cohen. From their experiences, they offered four main categories necessary when collecting digitally: “collecting content; technical issues; attracting visitors to your site and building trust with potential contributors; and . . . allowing those most directly affected time to heal before they can share” (Brennan and Kelly, 4). Brennan and Kelly illustrated the importance of extending the professionalism of oral history to digital collections of personal narratives. Their article also showed the importance of people in organizing digital collections.

The articles presented the benefits and challenged of digital collections and media. Though they discussed the numerous issues that threaten digital media, they illustrated the importance of the medium to the future of historical scholarship and archives. The articles by Cohen and Brennan & Clark reminded me of our conversation with Gerard at the State Archives. He discussed their hesitance toward digitizing their entire collection, while the articles presented examples of collections existing only in digital format.

Popular History

The readings discussed the relationship between history and its representation in movies and television programs. The various authors explored how history was used to create a form of entertainment and ‘fact,’ and how the creators and viewers interpreted the presentation of history. Each reading examined a different aspect of history in entertainment. Glassberg investigated how the audience viewed the Ken Burns’s Civil War series through letters written to Burns. Glassberg found that the public’s positive response reflected Burns’s portrayal of widely accepted history that did not challenge popular opinions. The series focused on creating an emotional response from the audience, which Glassberg found to be the most important aspect of popular history (108). Davis also discussed how the main focus of popular history is not historical accuracy. Discussing her contribution to a movie about Martin Guerre and book on the topic, Davis argued that creators of popular history have a responsibility to adhere to the elements of the genre. Historians act as contributors to the creation of movies, but the producers, directors, etc., decide what appears in the movie based on factors that contribute to the overall success of their product. Davis argued that historians have a responsibility to comment on the history from a professional standpoint. She wrote, “It’s up to historians, those who have participated in the film and those who have seen it, to bring to debate both an understanding of the possibilities of the film” (Davis 48). Frisch’s chapter exemplified issues in popular history that often go unnoticed by the public. In Vietnam: A Television History, the creators used oral histories as the main authority without questioning the validity of memories or interpretations of the men and women telling their stories. Though oral histories provide an excellent primary source for researchers, professional historians and scholars are the authority on topics that they have painstakingly researched. Frisch’s chapter raised questions about the validity of sources and the presentation/interpretation of situations in popular history. For Frisch, oral history enhances the narrative created by extensive research by scholars; it does not act as an authority.

Glassberg, Davis, and Frisch examined specific examples of popular history. Toplin’s discussion of the film genre and the role of entertainment, cinema elements, and the creators enhanced the other readings by focusing on the film industry. Toplin examined why Hollywood (and independent filmmakers) present specific topics using specific approaches and formulas of representation. I found Toplin’s discussions of the three levels of researching historical films and of acknowledging the genre to be especially poignant. When viewing historical films, it is important to remember that filmmakers need to falsify or invent information, people, and situations to create a powerful representation of an event that fits into a specified time and adheres to the requirements of the genre. As Davis argued, historians need to comment and oppose narratives created in popular history, in order to present histories that do not conform their narratives for entertainment purposes.

Week 12: Thoughts on Reading

In Oral History and Public Memory, Hamilton and Shopes compiled writings to illustrate the connectivity between oral history, public history, and public memory. Dividing the compilation into three sections, the book progressed from oral histories that reflected ‘official’ state histories, to memories of individuals that create a local public memory and history, and eventually to oral histories as social activism. Through this progression, the authors exhibited the role of oral history in creating and perpetuating public memory. In the final section, authors discussed instances where oral history challenged the status quo.

A prevailing theme revolved around the connectivity of the past, present and future. We have discussed in class the concern with the past affecting the present and future through public memory, and vice versa. Through the discussions of oral history and public memory, the power of the present to affect the memories and histories of the past was prevalent. In “History from Above,” the political context determined what memories were captured in the oral interviews. Describing three museums of gum industry history, “’Scars in the Ground’: Kauri Gum Stories” illustrated how current, and continuous, social relationships affected the narratives at the museums. Matakohe Kauri Museum focused on the British gumdiggers. Jurlina Family’s Gumstore Museum and Yelash Gumfield Museum discussed the relationships between Maori, Dalmatians, and the British; including the oppression and common social standing. The past and present intertwined in oral history and public memory in other ways. In some of the accounts, the past gave the present a chance to voice their opinions and strength to challenge accepted histories. The Japanese-Americans first discussed their experiences during interment at reparation trials. Breaking this silence allowed them to record their histories that challenged popular ideas of Japanese-Americans during World War II and forced encampment. RIki Van Boeschoten used oral history to confront stereotypes through a course she devised.

The layout of the book into three sections provided an excellent method of examining oral history. As I read the book, oral history became more intertwined in the stories of public memory and activism. In the beginning, the authors focused heavily on their experiences with oral history and what these histories provided. In later chapters, the oral history became another aspect of creating and challenging public memory and social issues. I found Van Boeschoten’s and Kerr’s chapters to be especially fascinating. The authors showed how private, personal memories challenge public memories. Kerr illustrated how marginalized, disadvantaged groups can use their oral histories for positive benefits. Oral history does not have to be something stored in an archive. It was interesting to see how oral histories can make positive changes in society especially after we conducted oral histories.

Archives: More than a Collection or Repository

The contributors of Archives Stories argued that archives are a product of their political, economic, and social context from the very inception of documents into a collection. As chapters illustrated, the political context that surrounds an archives contributed greatly to documents available, the accessibility to researchers, and the amount of surveillance on topics, researchers, and collections. Jeff Sahadeo used his experience in Uzbekistan and its history to illustrate the dominating role of politics. Uzbekstan’s archive was used as a political tool to promote a specific history as regimes changes. “Uzbek leaders, meanwhile, are shaping the past to secure their own political future” (46). Archives became an important resource in establishing a past for the creation of the present and future that political leaders endorsed. Peter Fritzcshe argued how Germany used their archive for political actions. The Third Reich used archives to catalogue its citizens between Aryan and Jewish (196). Ghosh argued the role of social influence on accessibility at an archive. Indian archivists did not accept interracial relationships between Hindu women and British men. In their archives, documents attesting to this were not available, because these relationships did not exist. The context and history of archive not only shape the collection of documents, it also affects the resources and information available to researchers.

The approach taken by Archives Stories provided insight into the role of archives in research. The authors argued through their personal accounts and history of archives that archives are not collections of papers or repositories for holding papers. The archive does not exist in a vacuum, free from outside influences. The history of the specific archive for each chapter illustrated the importance of context. Who decides to allow access? Why was it created? Understanding the archive, allows a researcher to understand the limitations presented to them. When providing the history of the Passport Office under the Department of State, Craig Robertson illustrated the creation of the library by controlling archivists. The past of the collection set precedence for its present. James E. Schwarz controls the archive not allowing access to the collection.

While reading Archives Stories, I attempted to relate it to my experiences in archives. It is easy to dismiss the stories as products of less democratic societies, but the stories are universal. Despite our notions of democracy and freedom to access information in America, archives remain products of their contexts. The State Archives of Florida depends upon the state legislature for funding. A governor or legislature could decide to cut all funding to the State Archives dwindling its holdings and accessibility. Though “Intro to Archives” teaches you the basic principles of archives including accessibility and equal access for all, the archivists affect the researchers experiences to a great extent. I have seen an archivist’s interest in a topic prompting them to search relentlessly through the holdings while another request only receives a few minutes.

Interesting points of Week 10!

Bodner used the Civil War Centennial and the American Revolution Bicentennial to argue that celebrations reflected the political and social contexts of the time. To a lesser extent, Bodner pointed out the effects of the organizers and how they approach the celebration on the success of the celebration. In a nation divided over racial and social issues, the Civil War Centennial and the American Revolution Bicentennial were influenced by government officials who urged widespread citizen participation (Bodner 206). By juxtaposing the two celebrations, Bodner effectively depicted the role of the political and social contexts.

The Civil War Centennial was organized to promote national unity during a period of disunity. The planning commission attempted to create unity by reducing the complexities of war. In their attempt, the commission diminished the focus to heroism on both sides (209). The commission’s top-down approach hindered the celebration. The commission offered specific ideas for the ceremonies limiting them to somber ceremonies and civil education (214).Despite an attempt by the commission to simplify the history and to control the events, the celebration fractured into a regionalized presentation of the Civil War. The South offered an uncritical presentation of their part in the war while supporting regional unity (220). Racial tensions in the south also made it difficult to promote a national unity.

With the similar goal of promoting national unity, the American Revolution Bicentennial proved to be much more successful. The event “marked the end to a period of social unrest and dissent and a renewal of American consensus and patriotism” (227). Rather than directing the celebrations from the top-down, the organizers sought to “encourage citizen involvement as a display of social unity and loyalty” (227). The organizers held public meetings to decentralize plans (230). Unlike the Civil War Centennial where dissent was seen on the reenacting battlefields to the display of southern pride, the American Revolution Bicentennial was attacked by other organizations. The dissent revolved around the commercialism of the event and lack of clarity in what constituted a commemorative ceremony. The latter proved to make the celebrations more successful. The local celebrations were seen as national loyalty at the local level (238).

Glassberg addressed the political role of city celebrations and the interpretation of them by residents. Glassberg emphasized the role of officials in promoting a city unity, but his most interesting argument was the role of newspapers in perpetuating memories of the event. Newspapers were another way of controlling the ideas of the residents. In the example of Portola Week, the newspapers attacked the Union Labor Party and “pointed to the festival as evidence of the city’s ethnic unity” (Glassberg 78). The newspapers furthered the aim of the organizers by controlling and to some extent creating the memories of the event.

Week 9: Thoughts

The idea of multiculturalism and how communities address this diversity are prevalent to the arguments of Glassberg and Levinson. Glassberg used parades, history pageants, and community celebrations to examine how communities dealt with asserting ethnic and class differences, and ultimately attempted to create a unified city image. By examining the history of the city celebration, Glassberg illustrated the progression of city celebrations as they transformed from a bottom-up approach that enforced differences among classes and ethnicities to a top-down approach that focused on the unified city of multiculturalism. Regardless, all of the celebrations had political motives and were about creating and honoring an image of a specific community, whether of a specific class or ethnic group or a unified city. Glassberg argued that the city carnival proved to be the most successful in creating a memory of a unified, multicultural city. Despite a successful memory perpetuated by newspapers, San Francisco’s Portola Festival of 1909 was organized and run by a committee that was attempting to expose the Labor Party. The festival did not include the labor unions or African American or Mexican residents of the city. The realities of the festival are essential to understanding that these city celebrations of multiculturalism were a created memory for the promotion of economic and administrative systems, as well as the cultivation of “the powerful emotion of rooting for the home team” (Glassberg 85).

Levinson took a more critical approach by examining the South’s continual display of Confederate war flags and memorials despite their implications of oppression and racism. Though Levinson used arguments from historians who supported these public displays of Confederate history as representations of legitimate political and military actions that supported states’ rights, he asserted that they remain representations of an oppressive, chattel system. Levinson’s approach in analyzing the validity of state-sponsored Confederate history displays was rather interesting. He examined the constitutionality of a state supporting the displays since they promoted one ideology over another. Levinson used the First Amendment and approached it as freedom of religion and the responsibility the states have in remaining neutral. In his most intriguing approach, Levinson compared Confederate monuments and flags to the display of Nazi imagery in Germany. By making this comparison, Levinson focused on the oppressive nature of slavery that southerners often ignore. As a society attempting to promote its history, generations, not directly involved in slavery and the Civil War, have to find ways to address sensitive issues without marginalizing or continually oppressing certain groups.

Glassberg and Levinson argued that a unified history is difficult to achieve in a nation of immense diversity. Ultimately, the public remains subjected to the “discourse about the most basic use of public space and the construction o f a public narrative (and ultimately, a public psyche) that pays due heed to the complexities of the past that we share, with whatever unease” (Levinson 130-131). As other readings have discussed, it is this type of dialogue that promotes growth in understanding.

Week 7: Differences in Approaches

The Glassberg chapters and article by Waldbauer and Hutt illustrated different approaches in historical preservation. The Glassberg chapters focused on the private/local approach to preservation which relied on memory and idealized histories. In contrast, the Waldbauer and Hutt article focused on the federal government’s approach where preservation concentrated on lands and other antiquities of a more national significance.

Through the case study in Massachusetts and the history of preservation in California, Glassberg illustrated that historic preservation was driven by memory. The communities or individuals sought to remember a community, either theirs or their ancestors’, in an idealized form that had not necessarily existed. The juxtaposition of states with different histories and perceptions of histories allowed Glassberg to illustrate the importance of memory on preservation. In Massachusetts, the public talked about places they remembered from the childhood or from stories. The differences among the groups at the public meetings showed that the perfected memories changed depending on the person’s generation, race, and social standing. Lifelong residents held onto memories of the past, whereas newer residents were better able to look for historical importance. Similarly, in California, the early movement in mining towns was a result of descendents attempting to preserve the stories and remaining physical markers of their parents and grandparents. Interestingly, both Massachusetts and California utilized popularized images of the past to validate their perceptions. In Massachusetts, it was the idealized town layout that had not existed in the past. Californians used narratives from Bret Harte. Tourism also contributed to the historical preservation and how history and memory were seen.

The Waldbauer and Hutt article examined the federal government’s role in historical preservation illustrating the history of proposed bills and passed acts, notably the Antiquities Act of 1906. Through the history of the federal preservation movement, Waldbauer and Hutt illustrated the major differences between the government and private movements. The federal movement relied upon the connection between nature and culture. When a site was proposed for preservation, it was necessary for scientific validation in preserving the lands, structures, etc. The Antiquities Act of 1906 provided that a site needed “sufficient scientific evidence to support the designations” (42). This approach to preservation had laws supporting the requirements unlike the private approach where sites were chosen on a more personal level. The difference in approach also relied upon the diversity of sites being preserved. The federal government focused on protecting the lands and the threatened frontier. Bills were also proposed for the preservation of Native American relics on federal lands (41). The requirements and sites of interest illustrated the differences between the federal government and the private/local approaches to historical preservation.

The two readings exhibited key features in historic preservation on the federal and local/private level. The authors provided adequate examples and thorough research to support their arguments. Glassberg’s approach, using public meetings, was effective in illustrating the importance of memory and its role on history.