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.