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.