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.