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.

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.

Week 2: What is Public History?

There is a common theme present in the readings about the nature of public history and the importance of mediation between professional and personal/amateur history. Though public historians, in a simple and misguided explanation, must make academia’s history accessible to the public, their role proves to be much more complex and difficult. The readings focused on the many conflicts that arise between the histories of academia and of the public. Though the articles presented common approaches to working with the public and understanding their needs, it seemed as if public history remains a complex, trial and error field. The Corbett and Miller article focused on public historians having to share power and control of history with the public. In the same article, they discussed the problems of focusing on one demographic. Though Corbett and Miller discussed numerous instances of collaboration and shared controlled, they continuously struggled with full collaboration and reaching the goals of the exhibits. As the Rosenzweig and Thelen article and chapters from Glassberg illustrated, public historians must be aware of the public’s interests and the mediums in which history is effectively presented to them. Despite differences in their arguments, the article and chapters illustrated the immense interest the public has in history. In their survey, Rosenzweig and Thelen noted how amateur historians, or the general public, considered more activities to be history than the professional, or academic, historians. All the readings emphasized this idea in some way. It seems to be the overall problem between academic history and personal history (that of the general public). From personal experiences, history as presented in books and some professors was aloof, making it difficult to understand even in a classroom setting. I can sympathize with the public’s disinterest and aversion toward the exclusive histories of academia. After reading through Rosenzweig and Thelen’s exploration of what history means for Americans, I am curious on how public historians are to address the numerous interests of the public. I am also intimidated by the notion of sharing power, control, and responsibility with the public. I find it intriguing that public historians focus more on the needs and interests of the public, rather than exclusively researching topics of interests to themselves, the ‘trained’ historians. From the articles, it seems that the collaborative effort between historian and public results in a more accessible, relatable history. If done correctly, the collaboration can result in thought provoking dialogue. Corbett and Miller shared many instances where errors in sharing control and authority affected the overall success of exhibits to a specific audience. I look forward to learning more about sharing history with the public in a way that interests them and creates opportunities for discussion.