This week our readings were Pennsylvania in Public Memory by Carolyn Kitch, The Presence of the Past by Roy
Rosenzweig & David Thelen, two chapters of Historians in Public: The Practice of American History by Ian
Tyrrell, and the Prologue to Museums,
Monuments, and National Parks: Toward a New Genealogy of Public History by
Denise Meringolo.
These readings were a great introduction to the profession of
Public History. I enjoyed that the readings gave plenty of real-world examples
of professionals in the field making history accessible to the public. Meringolo's
text, as well as The Presence of the Past,
gave me a sense of relief that there are historians out there right now working toward understanding the American public's needs. According
to Tyrrell, academic historians don't seem to be writing for the public anymore. Sometimes
in Graduate school it is easy to get lost in the heavy reading load, and
intense theory. Reading about Thelen & Rosenzweig's survey was like a
breath of fresh air. Surveying random Americans from many different backgrounds
brought to light what the everyday person thinks is historically important. These Americans are interested in history; they read historical books, watched movies with historical themes, visited museums and archives, and even heavily researched family genealogy. Most of the respondents kept to a theme that resonated with all of the readings
for this week: history is personal.
It seems that academic historians become too focused on
their specialties, while history teachers in high school focus too much on the
huge national narrative. The American public wants to feel personally connected
to history, and many of them satisfy this need through researching family
histories. Each of the readings connected back to oral histories, lived
experience, and family history. The steelworkers whom Kitch wrote about came
back to their old mills and factories to tell their story. Kitch noted that on many of the heritage tours she
went on throughout Pennsylvania, the tour guides were often interrupted by
locals who added their own history and memories to the tour's narrative. This
can be helpful, but also at times misleading. Kitch mentioned that oral history
is a funny thing because the accuracy of the memories are often fuzzy due to
looking at the past through rose colored glasses; or idealizing what once was.
Family history also plays into the idea of nostalgia. Nostalgia can be defined
as longing for something that never was. We often look back at our pasts and
see what once was as a "better way of life", "simpler" and "back
when people had values". For example, it is easy to look back on the
turbulent 1960s as an amazing time full of new ideas, new art, and political
change. But, was it really full of flower crowns and drum circles? It is easy
to leave out the most difficult times of the civil rights movement and the fear
and anger about the war in Vietnam. The same can be said of the coal miner
families in Scranton and the steelworkers in Pittsburgh; they seemed to long
for the days of the factory, where masculine men sacrificed and provided for
their families. But the truth of the matter is that working in a factory was hard and dangerous. It is our job, as public historians, to sift through
these public memories, and create a narrative that people can connect with. We
have a lot of power within our profession; the power to tell the story of a
family, or a community. But with that power comes the responsibility to tell the story of a community, or a factory, as
it really was.
Comments
Post a Comment