History and the Internet According to Cohen and Brown

Over the years, the internet and other forms of technology have influenced how history is recorded, preserved, and presented. From websites to blogs to CD-ROMs, technology has made historians question the effectiveness of the medium on historical narrative. Does presenting historical information, such as primary sources and pictures, on the internet promote easier accessibility to the public? Should one be skeptical about the authenticity of a historical account of 9/11 on the internet? Does history portrayed in digital format promote active inquiry?

This week’s readings answer all of these questions. According to Daniel J. Cohen’s article “History and the Second Decade of the Web,” the internet has contributed as well as complicated the recording and preservation of history. Through e-mails and blogs, historians have been able to communicate back and forth, sharing information and reading each other’s findings easily and cheaply. With sites such as the September 11 Digital Archive and Syllabus Finder, various sources are easily accessed by the public. While history has benefited from the internet from a communication and accessibility standpoint, Cohen also points out disadvantages. The internet is an open system that everyone can use to access historical records and partake in historical discussion, and unfortunately, according to Cohen, only a few take advantage of its perks.

In Cohen’s article “The Future of Preserving the Past,” the realities of the internet and digital collections are explained. Due to their complicated nature, the preservation of digital mediums unknown, among other issues, numerous people have shared their doubts about displaying history digitally. Authenticity is another subject that many skeptics have brought up. How dependable are historical accounts on the internet? According to Cohen, the pros outweigh the cons. Because digital collections are so extensive and broad, they are able to contribute different perspectives to historical record. And while communicating on the internet through blogs or emails may seem complicated, interactivity has promoted discussion and research findings in an easier, more cost effective way. Cohen also trusts the authenticity of blogs and other internet postings. With researchers dedicated to contributing to accurate historical evidence, authenticity should not be a major concern.

Joshua Brown also contributes to the discussion of the internet and historical record in his article “History and the Web, From the Illustrated Newspaper to Cyberspace.” According to Brown, the internet, while promoting access to historical information and interaction with historical information, can also dissuade active inquiry. With The Lost Museum website as his example, Brown explains that while users were able to navigate through Barnum’s American Museum and view what a museum might have looked like during the late-1800s, they were uninspired to question what they were seeing and experiencing. Because the website focused too much on a Clue-inspired plot to figure out who burned the museum down, it kept people from truly observing the historical material. According to Brown, historical images on the internet alone promote active inquiry and true interest in history.

Overall, these articles sought to dig up the truths behind the internet as a medium for promoting access to historical records. Although both Cohen and Brown shared their concerns on history and the internet, they also gave the other, more positive argument to the discussion. Another important factor presented in these three articles is that history presented on the internet has yet to, and probably will never rival the importance and liking of physical books. While the internet promotes access to various historical records, it will never make books obsolete.

My True Reaction to Three Journal Articles on Film and History

I started this week's by reading Natalie Zemon Davis’s “Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective.” Throughout her article, Davis encourages historians to grasp the medium of movies and media as a way to access the public about history. Because they have the ability to tell a story through cinematic performances, movies have the potential to narrate about certain people, events, and issues of the past. While movies do have this possible positive influence on the teaching and narrative of history, Davis qualifies that movies often leave out the specifics and instead focus on the historical context of a certain time. This especially bothered her when the costume director of The Return of Martin Guerre decided to dress judges of Parlement in red robes instead of black robes during a trial. Discrepancies like this, explains Davis, should encourage historians to question movies portraying historical events and to research and discuss the topic at hand.

Yes, that makes sense, I thought.

After reading Davis’s article, I moved onto Robert Brent Toplin’s “Cinematic History: Where Do We Go from Here?” Like Davis, Toplin sees the potential of “historical cinema” in accurately portraying history. Through entertaining Blockbusters, the more analytical “experimental movies,” and television specials, historical cinema has interpreted historical people, events, and issues. Toplin does go beyond Davis’s argument, saying that historians need to perform behind the scenes research of various film projects. He encourages historians to read and analyze correspondence, to interview artists on their vision of a certain costume, to discover the director’s vision. By performing this level of research on historical cinema, the meaning and intention of the film is better understood.

I nod in agreement in my cozy chair.

Once I reached Vivian Ellen Rose and Julie Corley’s “A Trademark Approach to the Past: Ken Burns, the Historical Profession, and Assessing Popular Presentations of the Past,” I admit that my blood pressure went up a little. As a Ken Burns junkie, it was hard for me to grasp and understand some of their negative commentary. Sure, I am guilty for crying here and there during The War, a usual response to a Burns documentary which Rose and Corley scoff at. And yes, I admit that I have all the DVDs and the box set of music to The War. So does this make me a horrible person for owning this documentary? Should I feel ashamed for liking this “formulaic” version of telling history?

My finger nails dig into my poor cozy chair. I somehow feel offended.

Yes, I agree that Burns should be more open-minded and apply more of the research the professional historians provide for the documentaries. Yes, historians and history students alike should discuss the discrepancies present in Burns’ documentaries. And yes, it is a little strange that a historian cited Burns in her journal article. Although I agree with Rose and Corley on these issues, I still felt their argument lacked in certain areas. What did those historians who were hired by Burns for the Not for Ourselves Alone documentary truly feel about their experience? Like Toplin discussed, do not directors have creative licenses in writing and creating historical films? Like any historian, is not Burns entitled to create his own argument with the information he is given?

My pulse is back to normal and I have a smile on my face. I just realized something – I am becoming an inquisitive historian.

Oral History in the Eyes of Two Americans

This week’s readings delve into the importance of oral history as historical evidence and to collective memory. In Studs Terkel’s Touch and Go, he describes oral history as more of a colloquial medium of collecting historical evidence. Throughout his own life experiences and interviews, Terkel expresses the importance of empathy in capturing a truly emotional, yet integral part of historical narrative. In Michael Frisch’s A Shared Authority, oral history is more of a procedural, systematic practice that is riddled with questions. Who is speaking? What is he/she talking about? Who has the authority in writing history? While Terkel's writing may be more captivating and easier to grasp than Frisch's, both are important in spelling out the importance of oral history in narrating the American historical narrative.

According to Terkel, oral history is more than just drilling someone with questions off a questionnaire; it is also more than just being an expert at using recording equipment. Instead, oral history is the art of need, naturalness, and true appreciation. Whenever Terkel interviewed someone, he made sure the interviewee felt needed. Terkel, historians, and the community needed the memory of the past recorded and preserved. Oral history, according to Terkel, was also meant to be a natural conversation rather than a scripted, almost robotic procedure. One of his secrets, Terkel explains, is “logorrhea” – the inability to stop talking. By engaging in informal conversation, not only does the interviewee tend to open up more, but he also understands the need of his story to historical narrative. In the end, Terkel explains that the overall appreciation of the oral history is essential. Not only is the spoken history appreciated by the interviewer, but it should also be spread, understood, and incorporated into the memory of a nation. Unfortunately, Terkel explains, this appreciation by the public is absent in today’s American society. Instead of opening a book and taking more than a second to look at a newspaper, the American public has only absorbed what they deem satisfactory – pop-culture, bottom-line news, and sports updates. In the end, this has led to an American culture stripped of intelligence and the absence of a sense of decency. (233)

While Terkel successfully expressed the importance of oral history by relating it to his life experiences, Frisch takes a more research-based approach in A Shared Authority. Through various essays, Frisch takes a look at the seemingly complex nature of oral history and other aspects of public history. Some of the issues he discovers are how oral histories are conducted and how they should be conducted, how oral histories have been used by the media, how oral history has been influenced by certain events, and so forth. A lot of his findings are based out of an American Studies program he chairs at SUNY-Buffalo. Rather than being focused on the emotional, almost sentimental side of oral history like Terkel’s book displayed, Frisch takes on a more systematic, almost drone explanation of an otherwise interesting topic.

While I liked Terkel’s book more and Frisch’s book did little to capture my interest (let alone gave me a headache because the text was too close together!), both are important glimpses into what oral history really is. On the one hand, Terkel successfully transformed oral history by placing a potential face, feeling, and understanding to an interview. On the other hand, Frisch poses the reality and complexity of oral history and public history. Together, Touch and Go and A Shared Authority create a coherent description of oral history.

John Bodnar’s Look at Commemoration in America

According to John Bodnar’s Remaking America, commemoration in America through pageantry, monuments, and festivals has entailed more than just parades and waving the nation’s flag. Instead, it is a story centered on “ordinary” and “official” people in certain forums and how their ideals on commemoration progress through time. Another important factor expressed by Bodnar is the influence of patriotism on commemoration. While both ordinary and cultural leaders express patriotism for their country and its history, each share a different view on it when related to commemoration.

Throughout Bodnar’s book, he describes the different views of commemoration shared by ordinary and official people. Ordinary people are those individuals who can be found in the American public, while official people are those cultural leaders and government officials who express power in society. In relation to commemoration, Bodnar believes that ordinary people display a vernacular ideal, focusing on the individual and smaller local communities. In contrast, commemoration to official people is a unifying force and a tool often used in the twentieth century in attempt to calm the public when political dissolution occurred.

In his argument, Bodnar displays the difference in ideals between these groups in three different forums. In the communal forum, Americans in various ethnic groups view commemoration as a way to “consent” and “descent” from their ancestral heritage. To Norwegian-Americans during the early twentieth century, they shared a desire to remember and commemorate their ancestral descent while also sharing the consent of incorporating the ethnic group’s influence on the founding of America. In a regional forum, Bodnar used the Midwest as an example of how a specific area and group of people search for symbols when commemorating their past. Throughout the Midwest, the pioneer was used as a symbol depicting the region’s progress and individuality. In the national forum, Bodnar describes the influence of the National Park Service (NPS) on historical interpretation starting in the 1930s. While the NPS had the final say in what historic sites were recognized and commemorated, Bodnar argues that their decision and information related to the sites were influenced by the efforts of local and ordinary people throughout the nation.

Within these forums, patriotism played an integral role in how commemoration and American history were presented. To ordinary people, patriotism meant individual valor and how one influenced a community through their progressive thinking. The pioneer in the Midwest retained this influence as people looked up to their ancestors as a way to remember traditions and the past. In contrast, government and cultural leaders view patriotism in relation to commemoration as a unifying force and an effort to create a broader national history. At the local level, cultural leaders and upper class citizens lead various state centennials and other celebrations, influencing how history was celebrated at more personal levels. The NPS influenced historical narrative of the nation by relating historic sites to the overall narrative of the creation and progression of America.

Overall, Bodnar’s Remaking America is an interesting look into commemoration practices throughout American history. Through the influence of ordinary people and cultural leaders, commemoration has evolved into a complex national pastime. As time progressed and ideals changed, so did commemoration practices. Various ethnic and regional groups lost their individual commemoration as leaders at the national level consumed their history as part of the whole historical narrative of the nation. To some extent, cultural and national leaders popularized commemorative celebrations for capital gain. What once seemed to be a reflective, personal look into one’s past has now become an effort to create a popularized, and an almost desensitized national practice.

Monuments: Nothing is Set in Stone

Overall Message
Since the beginning of the semester, we have read and learned the realities of public history and how its different areas of museums, historic preservation, archives, and so forth are influenced by controversy. This week’s reading of Written in Stone by Sanford Levinson is no exception to this theme of controversy. In his book, Levinson describes the issues and questions surrounding the legitimacy of memorials. According to Levinson, memorials are more than just physical, marble structures in public areas. Instead, flags, names, and sites are just some of the memorials that communities and states create to symbolize and honor their history or culture. While this attempt to memorialize a person or an event may initially have good intentions, questions always arise. Why should Confederate soldiers be recognized? Why should the Confederate flag be flown over a state capitol, or why should it not? Should old monuments symbolizing a previous totalitarian regime in a current democratic society stay in public squares, or should they be demolished?

According to Levinson, issues surrounding monuments are a result of a current multi-cultural society questioning the government’s efforts of popularizing certain aspects of the country’s history. Currently, Levinson argues, government officials in the United States, among other countries, have attempted to neutralize and censor the country’s history, creating a national hegemony. Why else would we as Americans think that naming a street after “Bull” Connor questionable, when in reality he played an important part during the Civil Rights era? Why would some think that placing a Confederate soldier memorial in front of a state building unethical?

As Levinson points out, historical narrative is constantly changing. As a result, the government’s attempt to reach a consensus on a memorial’s meaning is a “naïve” and unrealistic one. Ultimately, it is up to historians how to interpret the past and how much the public decides to believe. In reality, questions Levinson, will the “tutored” academics of history reach and influence those of the “untutored” public? As history is re-written, the significance and interpretation of monuments can change. While certain words or phrases may be set in stone, Levinson concludes and hopes future generations understand that there is always the possibility of changing a memorial’s interpretation and questioning what one sees.

Critique
Overall, I enjoyed the book. I liked how Levinson used different examples from around the world to depict how truly controversial memorials really are. The one aspect that I did not like about the book was how Levinson incorporated the Constitution into the narrative. I felt that it was a forced effort by Levinson to show how knowledgeable a constitutional lawyer he really is (as he makes note of throughout the later half of the book). While I understood his argument about how states are not portraying a neutral stance on memorials, I think it could have been narrowed down to less than sixty pages and presented better.

Behind the Scenes Look at Archives and the Reality of Limited Access

To many researchers and scholars, archives can be associated to countless hours of research and miles and miles of microfilm. To Antoinette Burton and other scholars, archives go beyond the physical documents. In Burton’s Archive Stories, a series of essays were written to expose the true nature of archives. Within each archive there is a story of its creation and progression as a public, records-holding facility. Through the narrative of progression, some writers describe archives as being influenced and succumbed by the government of that nation. From varying political beliefs to protecting individuals in government, archives have been subject to the ups and downs of current politics. In turn, archivists have even related current events and political beliefs to their archival practices in terms of documentation and research access. As a result of the political influence on archives, as described by the writers, the issue of limited access to many records has been noticed and experienced. As both an obstacle and a frustration, limited access has only furthered the confusion toward archives and archival practices.

As described in most of the essays in Archive Stories, limited access to various records in archives has influenced how researchers and scholars have researched. In some archives, access to documents is limited as a result of censorship. During Jeff Sahadeo’s experience with the archives in Uzbekistan, access to archives meant waiting weeks until a form detailing his research topic was accepted and filed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In another instance, Helena Pohlandt-McCormick had to consider the archives in South Africa as incomplete and manipulated by the apartheid government of the time. Even archivists in South Africa played a role as “guardians” of the archives, making it nearly impossible to gain access to certain records that may reveal certain injustices and crimes.

In other archives, limited access is a result of political officials and movements attempting to re-write and legitimize their country’s history. During Durba Ghosh’s experience at the archives in India, archivists found it difficult to accept her research topic – defining the history of interracial relationships between Indians and Britons during colonial times in India. Ghosh faced another hurdle when the documents she needed were never processed by archivists as a result of their sexual, interracial content. From the warnings expressed by the archivists to the difficulty of researching, Ghosh concludes that these various efforts were a result of archivists and others in India trying to keep their history “clean.” By trying to prevent this “unsavory” aspect of India’s history becoming too publicized, archivists have found ways to minimize the interest and research of certain topics.

According to the essays in Archive Stories, access to archives and their records is harder than it seems. To researchers like Sahadeo, Pohlandt-McCormick, and Ghosh, access to archival records has been limited and often hard to come by. Archives have been influenced by various political and national-related issues. To many, these influences have proven to be detrimental to the accessibility of a nation’s actual history to the public.

What is Considered "Historical?": Different Interpretations on Historical Preservation as Displayed by Eddie Izzard

At one point in Barthel's Historic Preservation, she mentions how Britain and the United States have different interpretations on what they consider "historical." Because Britain has historical sites that date back to Roman and Celtic times, they are more selective to what they consider worthy of preservation. There is also the factor that Britain has numerous historic landmarks in a small, densely populated country. In constrast, preservation efforts in the United States has been performed on landmarks as recent as the early McDonald's hamburger stands. Because the United States is a relatively "new nation," historic preservation is able to save more recent, and even commercial, entities. The United States' term of "historic" is more broadly defined because it has the room to do so. (29-30)

While I read this portion of Barthel's book, I could not help but think of a stand-up routine performed by Eddie Izzard. Throughout his act, Izzard criticizes and jokes about historical events. In one of his jokes, he makes fun of Americans and what they consider to be "history." To Izzard, Europe is "where the history comes from." Here is a link to this portion of Eddie Izzard's "Dress to Kill" routine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4QmfJGBug&feature=related

Drag the starting point to 55 seconds, which is where he begins the joke about American history.

(JUST TO LET YOU KNOW: Eddie Izzard is known to use strong language in his routines. And yes, he is wearing make-up.)

Thought the class would be interested to see it! Enjoy!

Diane Barthel and the Importance of Historic Preservation to Collective Memory

According to Diane Barthel, the preservation of historic buildings and lands is essential evidence of the past. While Barthel argues that historic preservation is an important aspect of national identification, she also stresses the complexity of the trade. Her viewpoint in Historic Preservation focuses more on the progression of preservation as a movement of social change and its bureaucratic aspects. By comparing preservation efforts in Britain and in the United States, Barthel depicts the Preservation Project as an effort that is constantly changing and interpreted in numerous ways, yet essential in creating a collective memory.

Although preservation efforts in both Britain and the United States have aimed to create a national identity in each country, Barthel argues that they differ in practice. Preservationists and other activists, mostly artists and intellects, in Britain initially sought to save any property they could get their hands on. As time progressed, preservation organizations became more complex and the local voice in preservation efforts diminished. As a result, preservationists began to follow a more elitist mentality, ranking only lands and buildings of national significance suggested by the organizations. In comparison, the preservation movement in United States followed a more grass-roots upbringing. With preservation efforts associated to patriotic fervor and civic duty, local groups and communities battled their way up to the federal level to see preservation acts performed. While preservation efforts in Britain follow a top-down process, Barthel argues that the United States performs a bottom-up process, making it more of a democratic system.

Whether in Britain or in the United States, Barthel argues that preservation efforts in both countries have to take interpretation into perspective. While preserving a building can contribute a tangible perspective to a time in a nation’s history, each person is still entitled to their own opinion. A preservationist in Britain may look at an upper class country house in admiration of the once simple past, while an onlooker may see it as a symbol of oppression of the elitist classes. Capitalist John D. Rockefeller may view Colonial Williamsburg as a slice of utopian American history, while a tourist may see the reenactments and reconstructed buildings as superficial and unrealistic way of depicting life in the past. Especially in the United States where cultural diversity is present, historic preservation projects are never going to contain one significant meaning. According to Barthel, as long as humans have the instinct to interpret their surroundings and to consider their political and religious beliefs, preservation as an art of total agreement is non-existent.

Since its inception, Barthel argues that the Preservation Project has been successful in establishing the collective memory of various nations, cultures, and classes. As a result of preservation efforts in Britain and in the United States, hundreds of buildings and sites have contributed to each country’s historical narrative. While historic buildings and sites may be subject to various interpretations, there is no doubt that preservation projects provide valuable evidence to the past.

Homage to Dwight Young: The Guru and Ardent Activist of Historic Preservation

After reading Dwight Young’s fifty-four articles that comprise Road Trips Through History, I admit that I had spring in my step. For what seems like years, I have been searching for someone or something to summarize my beliefs of history; someone who looked at historical buildings or documents as more than just “buildings” or “things.” With both relief and happiness, I have found refuge in Young’s prose. Throughout all his articles, Young’s message is certain: that the preservation of various historical items and buildings is essential in our remembering and appreciation of our country’s beginnings.

Whether it is a music studio or a historical courthouse, Young describes the importance of preservation efforts to all things labeled “historical.” His articles provide insight to the complexity of preservation and its ultimate reward of remembrance and nostalgic “remember when’s.” In his article “Battlefields,” Young argues that even what seems only an expanse of land is important to preserve. While there may not be tangible objects or buildings to see on the battlefield, that piece of land allows us to remember and to be warned of the nation’s past mistakes. (18-19) Buildings, says Young, are also important to preserve as they give a community character and they provide tangible links with history. (93)

An important aspect to point out in Young’s writing is his association of emotion with history. In most of his articles, his appreciation for preservation and its activists exudes. While mostly enthusiastic about the subject of preservation, Young also portrays another emotion. In “Past Imperfect,” it is clear through Young’s sarcasm that the act of replicating various historic landmarks frustrates the ardent preservationist. According to Young, destinations such as Las Vegas that replicas of the Eiffel Tower and the Pyramid of Giza call home are detrimental to the actual landmark’s historical importance. (22-23)

Even through his witticisms, Young is able to effectively portray the importance of history to today’s American society. Through preservation, Young argues, the tangible and even intangible aspects of history can encourage remembrance and appreciation from where we came from. As a result, history becomes associated with human emotion, connecting Americans to history in a more meaningful and understanding way. As I read his essays, I imagine Young on his labeled “Preservation 4 Life” soap box while I stand in front of him awed and energized to follow in his footsteps.

Museum Controversy and the Media: A Response to Displays of Power

In Steven Dubin’s Displays of Power, the issues and controversies surrounding present-day museums are clearly expressed. From descriptions of picket lines in front of museums to the unresolved conflict between museum staff members, it is obvious that the creation of museum exhibits is more than just show-casing artifacts and expecting record number visitors. Instead, Dubin views the formulation of a museum exhibit as a “process” that eventually results in a finished “product.” (11) It is also during this process that various issues arise, and museum organizers and staff attempt to resolve them. Throughout this process, describes Dubin, is when a museum truly “displays [its] power” and ultimately decides the outcome and message of an exhibit. While he provides consistent evidence to his argument throughout the book, it is also clear through various examples and sources that the media is another powerful entity during the creation and end result of an exhibit.

According to Dubin, museums have featured displays of power through “great men, great wealth, or great deeds.” (3) Throughout each chapter of the book, the power of museums and their organizers is noticeable when dealing with the concerned public. At the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the “great men” behind the Harlem on My Mind exhibit in 1969 exercised their power by refusing shared authority between themselves and African Americans living in Harlem. In response to the racial controversies over including African American art in the exhibit, among other issues, P.F. Hoving and Allon Schoener stayed with their predominately white-influenced exhibit, ignoring the concerns of the public. (28) Hoving even went so far as to leaving the state when picket lines formed in front of the museum and paintings in the museum were defaced by the upset public, further avoiding the issue at hand. (37)

Within this same chapter, Dubin’s describes the influence of the media on the Harlem on My Mind exhibit. Even when the exhibit opened to the public, the media continued “stirring the pot,” allowing the unstable relationship between the museum organizers and the African American public to worsen. (49) According to Michael Kammen’s review of the book, the tone that the numerous news articles provided are essential in expressing Dubin’s underlying message that the media tends to “blossom” a dispute into a “much larger struggle.” (Dubin, 112) By just flipping through the “Notes” portion of the book, it is apparent that Dubin’s depended on newspaper and magazine articles to support his argument of the incessant controversy surrounding museums.

As the title describes, museums truly have Displays of Power. Whether it is an organizer finalizing a component of an exhibit or a committee agreeing on a certain point of view of an exhibit, Dubin’s depicts the museum as an ultimate power. Although controversy is bound to occur in today’s museums, says Dubin, it is only part of the process; especially when Americans possess the need for individual and cultural representation. Unfortunately, the process of creating an exhibit is further complicated once the media displays its power during and after the exhibit process. To Dubin, once the media is mixed into the controversy, the less chance there is for true progress and overall satisfaction from both the museum staff and the public.

The Holocaust Museum: More Than Just a Tourist Attraction

In the later half of Edward Linenthal’s Preserving Memory, he describes more in depth the physical aspects of the Holocaust Museum and how committee members and visitors reacted to them. From individual artifacts to the actual permanent exhibit of the museum, Linenthal’s narrative depicts the controversies and issues that overwhelmed the committee from its inception. Once the Holocaust Museum opened its doors to the public in 1993, the American public began to scrutinize the committee members’ years of work. Along with other committee members, Linenthal expressed his concern of the public’s misunderstanding of the museum as a tourist attraction. According to Alison Landsberg, the Holocaust Museum goes beyond a tourist attraction, and instead resembles an institution of preserving Holocaust memory.

To Linenthal, he hopes that the museum will become more than just a symbolic vessel transporting the public overseas to the camps in Europe. While he expresses the importance of humanizing the Holocaust at an individual victim basis, Linenthal believes that the Holocaust Museum has a deeper meaning. According to Linenthal, the museum should be more than just a commemoration, rather a “stark reminder” of how historical events such as the Holocaust begin at grassroots levels of a society. (270) Not only do exhibits such as Yaffa Eliach’s photo gallery preserve the memory of a Lithuanian town that was devastated by the events of the Holocaust, but it also acts as a reminder of how extreme, radical acts of violence can influence a community, and eventually a culture. (179)

Like Linenthal, Alison Landsberg believes that the Holocaust Museum is more than just an American institution. According to Landsberg, the museum is a “cultural technology” that effectively preserves the memory of the Holocaust. In her article “America, the Holocaust, and the Mass Culture of Memory,” Landsberg describes the Holocaust Museum as a true display of “prosthetic memories”; although a majority of the visitors did not experience the Holocaust themselves, the Holocaust Museum is a way of expressing a memory to the public that they can incorporate into their own memory base. (66) To Landsberg, exhibits such as the shoe display and the use of the identification cards is more than just individualizing the events of the Holocaust. Instead, these tangible objects provide a narrative to the Holocaust that textbooks cannot portray. (77) By allowing the visitors to “wear” the memories of those who experienced the Holocaust, the more realistic and profound the event is. (86)

Although Landsberg agrees with Linenthal that the Holocaust Museum is more than just a building that houses artifacts, she never mentions the importance of the museum as an essential reminder to the effects of violence and genocide to a culture. In contrast, Landsberg argues that the museum is a true example of the “radical potential” American institutions possess in communicating memories to the public. (75) While Linenthal may agree that the “Americanization” of the Holocaust has proven beneficial in preserving the memory of the event, it is not the major goal of the museum.

According to Linenthal’s Preserving Memory, the Holocaust Museum is more than just a tourist attraction; it is even more than just Landsberg’s vision of a ground-breaking “cultural technology.” Instead, the Holocaust Museum is proof of what unmitigated violence can do to a community and more profoundly a culture. Hopefully, argues Linenthal, the museum can be used as a tool to prevent future uprisings and counter violence.

Pictures of Dachau

As part of the Munich trip I went on last year, the professor took us to Dachau for a day. While there we were walked around the camp and eventually went to the museum. Toward the end of our visit, the professor introduced us to the archivist of the Dachau museum. During our visit, the archivist showed us some artifacts that people have donated to the museum.


Entrance into Dachau












At the entrance into the camp, this plaque was placed commemorating the US troops that liberated the camp. There were other plaques similar to this around Dachau.








This picture was taken during our visit with the archivist. A man donated this shirt who actually wore it during his time at Dachau. The red triangle on the shirt identified him with one of the many ethnicities that were present at Dachau.






These are examples of art that the workers made while they were at the camp. The archivist told us that these sculptures were made out of bread dough and are very fragile. The sculpture on the right is a candle stick holder.



Above the shirt are the shoes that one of the workers wore during his stay in Dachau.

Holocaust and Other Memorials Around Munich, Germany

Last Thanksgiving, I went to Munich for a study abroad trip. Since we are reading about the Holocaust Memorial Museum, I thought that maybe some of you would be interested in seeing the different kinds of memorials they have around the city. I'll post some more next week if you want :)

This memorial is in front of the University of Munich. As you walk into the main entrance of the lecture hall, these images of pamphlets are scattered along the sidewalk. The tiles show examples of pamphlets that the White Rose group passed out around campus. There are also newspaper articles about them.







Another view of the pamphlets.









This is an example of a way the citizens of Munich are trying to memorialize Holocaust victims in the city. It has been suggested that the city should place gold bricks in front of the houses where Jewish family members lived before they were taken out of their homes by the Nazis. Surprisingly, the city officials of Munich are not too crazy about this idea. According to the officials, this would bring unwanted attention to certain parts of the city.

Another tidbit: this model is in the old Nazi Headquarters where the Munich Conference took place!





This memorial is outside of the Judiciary building in Munich. It symbolizes the efforts of the White Rose, which was a group of students and their professors whose goal was to reveal the injustices of the Third Reich. Some of the members of the White Rose were tried here after they were caught throwing pamphlets over a second story balcony at the University of Munich. Those members were later executed.






This memorial is commemorating the spot where the city's synagogue used to stand. When Hitler came into power in Germany, he ordered that all synagogues be demolished.










This is the new synagogue in Munich. Next to it is a Jewish museum with various exhibits about the Jewish culture.

The Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Threat to Jewish Culture

In 1978, efforts began to construct, organize, and open the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Early on, the project proved to be complex and laden with various controversies. In Edward T. Linenthal’s Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America's Holocaust Museum, he depicts the decision-making process of the President’s Commission on the Holocaust and how its members attempted to resolve various issues. Of particular interest within the first few chapters is the question of inclusion: should the museum focus only on Jewish Holocaust victims? Would including “other victims” of other ethnicities deter from the Commission’s initial goal of memorializing and remembering the Jewish experience? In the years since the Holocaust Memorial Museum’s opening in 1993 the public has resurrected those questions that so plagued the minds of the Commission members for years.

Throughout the initial meetings of the Commission, chairman Elie Wiesel expressed his hopes for the Holocaust Memorial Museum as a living memorial to the memory of the Holocaust. Through this memory, he wanted the Museum to depict the uniqueness of the Jewish experience during the Holocaust. When public and political leaders from other ethnicities expressed their desire to include “other victims” into the permanent exhibit, Wiesel was hesitant. Although he agreed that other ethnicities influenced by the Holocaust should have a place in the museum, Wiesel was still unsure about the motives of the political leaders. He was also worried that once “other victims” besides Jews were included into the Museum that the uniqueness of the Jewish story of the Holocaust would be lost. (113) The debate that ensued caused multiple members to resign their positions in the commission. Finally they agreed to “careful[ly]” include the stories of the “other victims” into the exhibit. (139)

According to Fath Davis Ruffins, the overall outcome of the Holocaust Memorial Museum was a “triumphant success.” In her article “Culture Wars Won and Lost,” Ruffins expresses the fact that some historians and history professionals appreciate the Museum as a living memorial to the Holocaust and comprehend its essential role in remembering the uniqueness of the event. (87) While this small portion of the American population has an educated understanding of the Museum, Ruffins continues to say that most non-Jewish Americans interpret the Museum as a “narrative” of Jewish culture, leading them to associate the Jewish culture with the “bleakest aspect” of their history rather than embrace the rich heritage they possess. (88)

Similar to Ruffins’ depictions, Anson Rabinbach forms the argument that the Jewish-American population is subject to be only associated with the Holocaust. In his article “From Explosion to Erosion,” Rabinbach even goes so far as to saying that the “Americanization” of the Holocaust has resulted in a superficial interpretation of the Jewish culture. Popular movies, documentaries, and the institutionalization of the Holocaust have subjected the historical event to American popular culture, desensitizing people to the importance and memory of the Holocaust. Rabinbach goes so far as to blame the Holocaust Memorial Museum for the “inevitable erosion of Holocaust memory.” (227) Instead of a memorial of remembrance, Rabinbach believes that the Holocaust Memorial Museum has steered the memory of the Jewish history toward a “worrisome” path. (242)

Throughout Linenthal’s book Preserving Memory, the debate on including “other victims” into the Holocaust Memorial Museum persisted until its opening. Commission members agreed to include other ethnicities which ultimately contributed to preserving the complete memory of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, a new issue arose when Americans began misinterpreting the Museum’s message as a display of Jewish culture rather than a significant historical event. To some, it is this superficial view of the Holocaust that is contributing to the erosion of true Jewish heritage.

Public History: The Art of Open-mindedness and Listening Skills

     To those of the National Council on Public History, the profession and execution of public history is viewed as a multi-faceted engine with various collaborating parts. While numerous public history practitioners converse with the public, ideas of structured methodology are considered by the practitioners to ultimately create a history that is both “accessible and useful to the public.” Although agreed upon by many, this vision of public history is not shared by all historians. Rather than follow a “public history method,” some historians believe that keeping an open mind and listening to the public is the best way to capture the interest of the public.

     According to historians Katharine Corbett and Howard Miller and their article “A Shared Inquiry into Shared Inquiry,” public history practices go beyond a methodology, and are more based on how the public interprets and considers history and how the public’s vision of history ultimately is what is important. According to their article, public history is “situational,” that the best oral histories and ideas for exhibits come from the public often at serendipitous moments. Corbett and Miller even suggest that public historians should be flexible; even a “seasoned practitioner” knows to take situations as they come and to be open-minded with different ideas that are presented to them by their colleagues. (19) To Corbett and Miller, public history is a shared effort between the practitioner and the public, no one side formulating or analyzing history alone. (37) If history practitioners were to follow their own set of guidelines, they would run the risk of not engaging the public in history and allowing them to relate to the past.
     Along with Corbett and Miller’s argument, historians Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen’s case study presented in The Presence of the Past is further proof that listening to the public’s interpretation and opinion of history ultimately results in better history recording and teaching. During their study in the 1990s, the two historians explored how the public utilized and felt about history. The study consisted of 1,453 “respondents” interviewed by hired students. (12) As the mediators, Rosenzweig, Thelen, and other “professional historians” over-looked the project and observed the results. While the students were given a set of questions to ask the respondents, there was no set methodology on how they should converse with the individuals. Instead, the interviewers kept the open-mind ideal that Corbett and Miller stress in their belief of how public history should be executed. As a result, the study became a more vital source of information than Rosenzweig and Thelen could have ever imagined.

     As a good example of how Corbett and Miller’s argument is credible, the study proved to be an informative, yet eye-opening experience for Rosenzweig and Thelen. In their “Afterthoughts” toward the end of the book, both historians shared a similar concern. While optimistic that the public used history in everyday life through the use of photographs, collections, visiting museums, and research, the lack of communication between the public and the professionals still exists. (190) As the study showed, this has resulted in the lack of trust in important history mediums such as books and even school teachers.

     To make history more accessible to the masses, these historians believe that professionals need to open their doors to the public and listen to what they have to tell. As is made obvious by the arguments of these historians, public history is more than just a method or approach; it is a challenge to somehow record and display history to the liking of the public.