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.
I completely agree with you, Barrett. The government interpretations of history are not a "sinister big business plot" to me, either. The interesting thing about American versions of commemoration are that we are allowed to have so many dissenting viewpoints. This is also why there were so many versions of the centennial and bicentennial celebrations/commemorations.
ReplyDeleteAs you probably realized when you read my post, I DO lean more toward the sinister explanations. It's not government or even big business, per se, just those in power, who will do anything to remain in power, Since power goes hand in hand with money and money helps to solidify power, it becomes a 'chicken and the egg' conundrum. Is it 'bad' that 10% of Americans hold more than 70% of the countries wealth and the power that goes with it? I don't really know. If we're happy and healthy, does it really matter? I suppose that as long as 'the powers that be' give enough (or leave enough) for the masses to maintain comfort, none of us will care enough to rebel.
ReplyDelete