My thoughts on week 10 readings:

John Bodnar’s chapter struck me as an especially apt case study of some of the themes previously discussed in class. Namely, the fact that the past is immensely relevant to a vast number of people, and that because of this fact, people will always interpret the past according to personal priorities rather than outside interpretive frameworks. Bodnar argues that the US government used the Civil War Centennial of 1961-1965 and the Revolutionary War Bicentennial of 1975-1983 as opportunities to design programs of historical commemoration that would revolve around the themes of unity, heroism, and patriotism. Despite a few flops, these programs largely went forward as planned, but were joined by a host of alternative and competing commemoratory activities which varied from glorification of local identity to outright criticism of the country’s government and economic system. While Bodnar suggests that the government appointed bodies in charge of the “official” commemorations were sometimes disturbed by the proliferation of alternative commemorative activity, such as civil war reenactments, it would have been absolutely naïve to not expect such developments. Unlike the People’s Bicentennial Commission, I don’t see the government’s attempts to encourage loyalty to the existing political order as some sinister big business plot, but rather the natural outcome of government involvement in historical commemoration which is, inevitably, also historical interpretation. Governments, as such, will naturally use historic commemoration to advance what they interpret to be their own wellbeing, whether through American Revolution Bicentennial Administrations or the heroic statuary of Eastern European regimes which Levinson discussed. The difference lies in the fact that since the United States is not an autocracy, its citizens will necessarily exercise their right to dissent, in this case by commemorating the important episodes of national history according to their own priorities and agendas which may coincide with those of the government, but often does not.

My Thoughts on Week 9 Readings:

                I found Sanford Levinson’s Written In Stone to be frustrating at some times, challenging at others, and interesting throughout. I’m sure everyone shared my occasional frustration when Levinson drifts geographically from Boston to Hungary to Virginia to Texas and stylistically from historian to constitutional lawyer to public policy advisor with little explanation or justification given for these shifts. Levinson’s unannounced and unexplained segue into the role of constitutional lawyer in discussing the use of the Confederate flag is particularly challenging, because he adopts a strictly “legalese” line of reasoning to reach a conclusion—that states have the right to fly Confederate flags if they wish to do so—that he then denounces on moral grounds. This seems to be a risky path to take, given that an inattentive reader could easily misunderstand Levinson’s position. The potential for a deliberately out-of-context misquotation is also highly dangerous. Levinson might serve, therefore, as an example of how NOT to present ideas in public history where the audience might not recognize an academic thought experiment, and where interest groups of all kinds are ready to pounce on the smallest statement from an academic authority that seems to support their claims, honestly or otherwise.

                Beyond these disadvantages, Written in Stone offers fascinating analyses of the role of monuments and public art in modern society. I especially liked the way Levinson treated monuments, like historic buildings, as objects that have complex histories. Monuments are constructed to commemorate past events, but reflect also the realities of the time in which they were built, and acquire new meanings as they age and social attitudes change. A good example is the Liberty Monument in New Orleans that has at various times been seen as a tribute to courage, a bald statement of racism, and an object for historic preservation. Another interesting comparison Levinson makes is between the European context in which monuments are usually constructed by governments and demolished, almost as a matter of course, when those governments are succeeded by new ones, and the American scene in which monuments often originate from private interests and are subject to reinterpretation more often than replacement.

My thoughts on week 7 readings

Chapter 6 in Glassberg’s Sense of History highlighted the fact that historic preservation in locations which have witnessed multiple historical experiences, as most locations have, necessarily involves the preservation of one history over any others. While this issue emerged in Nolan’s article last week, Glassberg presents an even more compelling example in the McKnight neighborhood of Springfield, Massachusetts. McKnight’s recent white residents wished to restore the neighborhood houses to the architectural style of the late 19^th Century when the houses were first constructed, while the long time African American residents preferred to bring back the neighborhood as was in the 1950s and 60s. Architectural details such as aluminum siding and chain link fences separated the two styles to be preserved.

            The issue is so much more poignant in Glassberg’s example because, unlike Monticello or Montpelier, the McKnight neighborhood is a living community, not just a designated historic site. No director or team of curators can therefore make a professional decision about what interpretive framework to pursue. Also, a “post-modernist” approach such as that attempted by the Montpelier staff is impractical due to the fact that almost everyone seems to view neighborhoods as organic whole whose unique “character” depends on preserving all aspects of the community as consistently as possible, and in reconciling those aspects that are not in line with the overall atmosphere. Unfortunately, no two people, much less different social groups, seem to be able to agree on what that atmosphere should be, relying instead on a mixture of personal priorities unique to each individual. Given the complexity involved in the issue of historic neighborhood designation, it is definitely one in which authority sharing with the public should be maximized, since almost nothing is more likely to produce an emotional response than one’s own home and the environment surrounding it.