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.