Week 6: The Parallels of Historic Preservation

The two articles explored the changes that have occurred in historic preservation. Nolan and Buckman examined two distinct preservation sites, Monticello and Montpelier. In their investigation, they addressed two philosophies in the preservation movement: the postmodern (preservation of the existing structure) and the restoration approach (or “humanism”). The restoration approach taken at Monticello lacked multiplicity in interpretation, focusing only on Jefferson’s time in the house (257). The focus on the house and Jefferson as one element defined the concept of “humanism.” Though the humanism present at Monticello represented a past approach to preservation, it seemed to be an ideal, in a way. In their “Discussion” portion, Nolan and Buckman noted factors that were important in deciding the approach: the period in which the house was acquired, the amount of work required to restore or preserve the structure, and the finances available (263-264). Even though restoration has been overshadowed by a postmodern approach, would the preservationists attempt to fully restore the area and structures of Montpelier to Madison’s version if they had the same resources?

Their exploration of the change from the restoration and humanism phases to the postmodern approach paralleled the two distinct phases of preservation described by Lindgren. From the articles, the relationship between to the personalism of early preservation and the approach taken at Monticello is apparent. Early preservation focused on human attachment to the building, as was done at Monticello (44). Similarly, the postmodern approach related closely to the professionalism Lindgren discussed. Though the history of personalism to professionalism seemed to correspond with a transfer of influence in historical preservation from women to men, Lindgren pointed out the importance of professionalism as a specific movement. Rather than historical preservation being a local, personal movement, it “would increasingly be constructed along corporate lines, be business-minded in its dealings, and advocate so-called scientific principles” (53). Lindgren argued for a balance between the approaches (55).

The articles interestingly pointed out the similarities between the approaches toward historical preservation and historical scholarship and presentation. The progression of preservation from personalism to professionalism, as well as from restoration to postmodernism, reflected changes in public history. As we have seen in past readings, public history has progressed from single narratives on public figures to multiplicity in the narratives and complex issues. The differences in approaches between Montpelier and Monticello exemplified this shift in historical approaches. Monticello celebrated the life and accomplishments of Jefferson by making the house about him. Instead of ignoring other owners and changes to the structure, Montpelier represented the life of the building and rejected the undemocratic approaches of Monticello (Nolan and Buckman 260).

Week 5: the Bigger Issue

Dubin argued for the right to present a specific argument in history with substantial evidence while acknowledging other view points. He utilized the example of the Last Act to illustrate how museums respond to opposition from different sources and the effects this has on the exhibit and the institution. Though exhibits are developed from extensive research by intelligent professionals, the credentials of the institution and professionals responsible for an exhibit are challenged by a public whose understanding of events in based on memory and emotions. By examining the controversy of the Last Act exhibit, Dubin illustrated that public historians faced opposition from governmental bodies and lobbyists, as well as from the public. When institutions are public institutions funded by the government, such opposition created a major problem. Dubin effectively illustrated the importance of government support for exhibits when he examined the government representatives on the board for the NASM and their opinions on the arts and public funding. Dubin also examined the role of the media in public history. The media used the leaked drafts of the exhibit to show the anti-American sentiments of the Smithsonian curators and director. Even though this draft was revised, it continued to be used as an argument against the exhibit (199-200). Most important to Dubin’s argument was the progression of the exhibit over time. Despite the many changes allowed due to public outcry and lobbying, the exhibit continued to face more criticism until the exhibit no longer had a narrative (212). Too much input from the outside stifled the narrative of the exhibit.

Dubin effectively showed how museums can relinquish their control of exhibits by granting too many concessions to the public, interest groups, and government bodies. By juxtaposing the story of the Last Act to other museums, Dubin showed how museums could successfully maneuver public relation issues without the backing of wealthy supporters or the media. America’s Concentration Camps: Remembering the Japanese American Experience could have faced the same controversy when Jewish American groups opposed the use of the term “concentration camps,” but addressing the issue directly with the interested groups diminished any problem (231). Similarly, Dubin examined how controversy was avoided with Between a Rock and a Hard Place by a “curatorship that is increasingly sensitive to the multiple voices connected to the subject” (243).

Though the examples of Last Act and the inclusions of other successful examples supported Dubin’s argument, he further validated his view by examining the opinions of his peers. By utilizing Jack Salzman’s opinion that “cater[ing] to a community” hinders a museum’s mission of coming up “with the best and smartest show,” Dubin illustrated the absurdity of disregarding the public (238). As I read Salzman’s words, I thought about how his statement went against the basics of public history. Dubin quoted Robert Macdonald which reiterated the importance of the public while using one’s intelligence and skill to create an exhibit worthy of supporting (239).

Week Four Thoughts

Through an exploration of how slavery, race, and the Civil War (in relation to slavery) are presented to the public, the authors discussed issues in public history that are a continuous problem. Rather than stating that there are problems in American culture involving race and the history of slavery and the Civil War, the authors delved into the histories that were being challenged to validate their positions. Their approach effectively supported their arguments especially when they were discussing histories presented by Confederacy organizations. Rather than stating that slavery was a major cause of the Civil War, numerous contributors used evidence of this claim by citing Jefferson Davis or historical newspaper accounts. James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton’s editorial skills contributed to the reader’s understanding of this theme regarding issues in public history, notably how the factual histories are not accepted by society as a whole. By organizing the chapters in such a way, the book follows a progression of opposition and issues in public history. As the book continues, the threats and opposition to the presentation of history become more extreme and have larger support. The beginning chapters discuss slavery and the misunderstandings in the history of slavery in America. Toward the end of the book, chapters address controversies surrounding the “Lost Cause” history, HERITAGEPAC, neo-Confederates, and black-Confederates.

The book skillfully addressed the differences between history and memory. In doing so, the contributing authors and editors illustrated the importance of public history sites and of presenting an honest history to the public. Rather than ignoring history or sidestepping the controversial issues, examples presented in the text show the necessity of embracing history and presenting it in such a way as to promote dialogue and grow. The controversy at Independence Hall exemplifies the importance of presenting an honest and complex narrative. Rather than focusing on a simple history, the NPS, after much resistance, created a wonderful display that allowed for understanding and healing.


When discussing the history and historiography of slavery, the Civil War, and race relations, the reliance on historical documents (especially texts of Southern leaders), contemporary newspaper articles (involving controversies surrounding exhibits), and the scholarship of notable scholars validated the arguments of the authors. The historical documents and scholarly findings provided a solid historical background of the issues being discussed. The contemporary articles and responses to exhibits put the exhibits in the social context of our times. The main focus of the arguments relied on the fallacies of southern histories or memories and misconceptions of history among Americans. In “A Cosmic Threat,” by Dwight T. Pitcaithley, the only explicit mention of exaggerations in favor of the North’s valiant contributions to ending slavery is presented (181). Though hinted at in the beginning when addressing the misconceptions of slavery in the United States, the book would have been more thorough if it addressed more fallacies in history on both sides of the argument.

Thoughts on Defining Memory, week 3

The compilation of chapters in Defining Memory, edited by Amy Levin, examines small museums through an analysis of curriculum theories (Joseph Schwab’s theory of “commonplaces of schooling” and Dwayne Huebner’s five methods of evaluating the teaching/learning experience). Using these theories, Levin and the other authors examine the presentation of history (or addressing memory) in small museums and the importance in creating identity through the representation of social, cultural, and political ideals as presented in the museums. Focusing on the changing (or unchanging) nature and curriculum of small museums, the authors examine the affects of the obstacles faced by museums: financial support, public opinions (and outcry), understandings of history and its presentation, and representation of minority groups. Analyses of the John Dillinger Museum, the Dickson Mound Museum, and the Daughters of Utah Pioneers Museum illustrate the influence of the above obstacles and the positive or negative affect they have on presenting history to the public. The examination of many museums effectively illustrates the affects of the community, financial restraints, skilled or unskilled professionals, and education on small museums. By choosing to address the issues of curriculum and society in a number of museums across America, the authors illustrate the importance of these smaller museums in creating identity and maintaining history in a changing world, notably Levin’s analysis of the three museums close to Ground Zero directly before and after the 9/11 attack.

Overall, Levin skillfully compiles chapters that defend common themes that are prevalent in small museums. By beginning the book with a definition of small, local museums and addressing the theories utilized throughout the text, Levin and the other authors argue successfully that small museums, though underfunded and underrepresented, represent an important niche in American museums by focusing on local histories and by following less strict guidelines for presenting historical artifacts and narratives. Levin and the other authors are attempting to depict the importance of small, local museums, often unaccredited, as compared to the larger, well known museums of America. Though rarely stated, the arguments revolve around the importance of these smaller museums in terms usually reserved for important, prominent museums. The book argues for smaller museums and their importance to America society and the defining of history.

The book effectively uses the knowledge of a number of professionals. Though relying on various scholars to present the issues and importance of small museums, Levin creates a cohesive text that ties together the ideas of curriculum theory and its relevance to small museums’ presentation of history. The questions presented about museums and the histories told at them are important to the text. Rather than giving definite answers to the questions, the authors create the questions for the reader to ponder. The sources of the authors prove to be a strength of the text. The authors rely on visits to the museums, interviews with the curators, and the works of other authors within the collection.