Looking Back to Look Forward

Well the semester is coming to a close – as is my undergraduate career.  As I was writing my review of the course for the university, I realized how disappointed I was that I didn’t have this experience earlier in my undergraduate experience.  It really changed the way I thought about and dealt with history.  I’ve always felt that history was relevant.  However, I never realized the multitude of ways it affects everyday life.

Mostly, though, I wish I would have had it earlier because it made me more aware of my relationship with history.  I have done research, which I have been emotionally invested in and passionate about; however, I still failed to realize that through my research, interpretation and then presentation to the public –  I altered that history.  That is what struck me most about public history.  We are each involved in every step of it: the process, representation, interpretation and history itself.

This realization has helped me with my individual project as well.  I had to think carefully about my audience, how I was presenting the material and what I was presenting.  Does each step convey the message I want?  Am I leaving out an important detail that changes the whole story?  Since I am shaping how others learn and interact with history, it is important that I am aware that I change that history by interacting with it.  So, I have to make sure I use it in a way that is true to the history, while still is appropriate and engaging to my audience.

I also realized that history is never an individual pursuit.  It would be impossible to do on one’s own.  You can see this in our group project.  While working together may have been tough and confusing at times, we ultimately accomplished much more together than we ever could have separately.  You can also see this in the practice of history.  No one person can complete research without using work by previous historians.  The pursuit, learning and conveying of history is pointless without other people, without an audience.  Therefore, history is not a dry pursuit done by yourself, for yourself  disconnected from the world; it is actually a highly intimate endeavor which connects you with people across space and across time.

This is the reason I went into history.  I felt like it was relevant and connected me with others.  However, I never saw this as a necessity of the field, but more a reflection of my feelings about it.  I now believe that intimacy and personal connections is an intrinsic aspect of history.

I also do not think that there is necessarily any history that is not public history.  All history is conveyed for an audience of some kind.  Some may seem more public than others, but all history has an audience.  If it did not, there would not be a point to it.

This seems like an incoherent string of thoughts.  Well, I guess it is.  The point is that this study of public history that I have done this year has made me contemplate the many different aspects, role and influence of history.  I think this is important for anyone going into a field that conveys history.  I took for granted what I thought I believed/knew about history as true without considering why I felt that way or the implications.  This course has forced me to do so.

So what is public history?  It is anything and everything.  It is complicated, messy, and never finished.   It is uniting, contentious, and ever-present.  It both influences and is influenced by its creators and audiences. Mostly it is full of more questions than answers, which is how it should be.  History should push us to think critically of ourselves, the world around us and our past – and public history is not different.

So as I go off onto the next part of my adventure, I will take this with me. Hopefully I will successfully push my students to contemplate not only historical topics, but history itself as well.

Buy me some peanuts and crackerjacks…

In a previous post I talked briefly about how I want to focus on the “racial atmosphere” (for lack of  a better term) and civil rights action affected and was affected by different sectors of American society for my individual project.  Last time I talked about Berry Gordy and Motown.  Today I turn to America’s pastime…baseball.

Baseball presents a natural way to investigate and analyze the role racism has played in American society.    At the American Bar Association’s Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries (yup they have those), there was an interesting article presented by Clark Griffith on the role of Jackie Robinson.  In this, Griffith makes several interesting points.   He points out how baseball shows the progression of civil rights action from Plessey to Brown (this focus makes sense since this is an ABA forum).  After Plessey, baseball had a separate but equal mindset during the beginning to mid 20th century that reflected that attitude of the rest of American society.  There were separate leagues for whites and blacks.  They often used the same stadiums, but not at the same time.  They attracted huge crowds, since it was after all, America’s pastime.

However, this all changed when, in 1947, Jackie Robinson was signed to the Dodgers, a white team.  Clark argues that this was the quintessential moment in American society that signaled the change from Plessey to Brown.  He says, “it was baseball that broke the color barrier in America.”  He points out that the armed forces were integrated shortly after and the Brown v. Board of Education decision followed within the next decade.

I think his points are interesting and worth considering.  However, I am not convinced that the Dodgers signing Robinson created the Civil Rights Movement.  Rather, the country was already headed that way.It was most definitely influential, because it is something that everyone would know about.  However, I don’t know if there can be ONE quintessential moment in the Civil Rights movement.  If you asked random people,  I think you would get many different answers: Rosa Parks refusal to move on the bus, March on Washington, “I have a Dream” speech, abolition of slavery, Brown v. Board, some may say the election of Barrack Obama as president, etc.  The list could go on and on.  That is why I think this lesson plan is important.  It attempts to show the many different ways that racism affected American society and how those barriers were broken down in sectors that aren’t usually covered in a classroom.

Muhammad Ali versus Sonny Liston (1965)

This is why I want to discuss the relationship between sports and the Civil Rights Movement.  Baseball is definitely a natural avenue to analyze this relationship (and ,as a baseball fan, an enjoyable one); however, it is not the only one.  I could just as easily discuss Muhammad Ali’s relationship with Malcolm X and how he threw his Olympic gold medal into the river after being denied service.

John McLendon

Or John B. McLendon’s fight for racial equality in the basketball world and as the first black coach at a predominately white university.  This theme can be found in many different ways throughout the world of sports.

By incorporating sports into the lesson, I will be including another interest of many of the students.  So, it is another way to get the students interested in the topic.  I think it is again a matter of thinking of your audience.  In my case, it is teenagers.  What are their interests outside of the classroom?  If I can incorporate these interests inside the classroom then they will be more likely to be interested and involved, which makes my job much easier and enjoyable.

Questions in a Museum?

I repeat: questions in a museum?  At first glance, it almost seems like an oxymoron of a phrase.  However, it is what Dr. K (my professor) suggests for our museum project on I-496 in his infamous blog for the course (in the post “Questions and Answers”).  He suggests that instead of giving the answer, our exhibit could pose the question.  I think it is a great idea.  At the beginning of the course (in conjunction with discussions about the Enola Gay controversy ~ see my earlier post), we discussed the role of museums.  Most of the class seemed to agree that part of the role of a museum is to promote critical thinking.  Critical thinking is not possible without questions.  Critical thinking can not happen if answers are simply provided to the visitors.  It requires people to interact and come to their own conclusions.

Following that reasoning, if one of our goals with this exhibit is to promote critical thinking than I say why not pose a question instead of providing an answer?  It should be our job as exhibit creators and researchers to come up with the material to get visitors of the museum thinking.  So, perhaps instead of shaping our message around the answer we should, as Dr. K suggests, shape it around the questions we want people to think about and ask themselves as they interact with the material.  Why did the interstate end up where it did?  Were racial politics at work?  Or was it purely economics and geography at play?  Was it the best possible option?  Did the positive outcomes outweigh the negative outcomes?  Was this a reflection of something larger?  Why learn about I-496?

This does have some obvious implications.  First, what if people do not interact on a deep enough level with the material to ask any questions?  On a previous visit (for a different class), a museum guide explained that most people will only spend 18 seconds on any given artifact.  This means minutes on any single exhibit.  Is this enough time?  Can the material be presented in a way that either makes people stay longer at this exhibit or interact at a deeper level?  Second, by posing a question instead of an answer, it has the obvious implication of not specifying an answer.  By this I mean, people can come to any conclusion they wish.  People could come to an answer different than you expected or intended.  However, if people are engaging with the material, critically thinking about it, hasn’t the museum succeeded?  Or is it necessary for a museum to convey a certain message and for all the visitors to learn and accept that message?

On a more specific level, I think the idea of creating the exhibit around a question works really well with ideas the design team has discussed.  We have talked about having an interactive part at the end of the exhibit where people can post their reflections about the old community, exhibit, and/or other related items.  If the museum poses a question then this reflection board can have particular relevance.  It gives people a place to pose the other questions they have come up with and/or answers and thoughts about the issues presented.  It will also help address some of the negative aspects of organizing the exhibit around a question(s) because it allows museum personnel to see what people are thinking from the exhibit.  This way the museum can see if the exhibit is effectively evoking critical thinking and the conclusions it leads people to.

All in all I think it is a great idea to a least discuss.  Why can’t a museum be about questions?

“Come and Get These Memories”

Well after much speculation, I’ve decided to focus on Civil Rights in a round about way for my individual project.  I recently visited the Motown Museum in Detroit with some friends for the first time (which is also one of Michigan’s Historical Sites as well).

If you drove down Grand Boulevard, you would probably miss this house unless there was a gaggle of tourists sitting on the front lawn at the time of your passing.  It fits right in between the other buildings with just a small parking lot on the side.  After taking the mandatory picture of ourselves in front of Hitsville, we decided to go ahead and actually go in the museum.  (YES, I am a history major, but NO I had not came with the intention of actually visiting the museum thinking it was more of a tourist trap than museum).  After seeing that it would cost $10, my poor college student instincts kicked in and said to myself, “there is no way I am paying $10 to walk through this house.”  Wrong.  I did pay the $10 and the cashier decided to tell me AFTER she had ran my debit card when I asked about discounts for school field trips that there were also discounts for college students (this was after we had also said we were from MSU).  So, anyways, I paid the $10 and life goes on.  The museum visit also comes with a tour, which I am generally never thrilled about.  I was wrong.

Motown Museum

The tour made the museum visit.  I would not have gotten nearly as much  without the help of the tour guide.  Not only was he very informative, but he was very entertaining.  It made every exhibit seem interactive.  So, if you decide to head over to the museum, pay the $10 and tap into the knowledge of the people who work there.  You won’t regret it.  While some parts are slightly “touristy,” they are entertaining.  They pull people in and keep you there.  And isn’t that an important mission of any museum -to have visitors?

However, what really struck me was the ingenuity of Berry Gordy (founder of Motown). I had know that racism affected the industry and creation of Motown; however, I was incredibly interested as the tour guide explained how Berry Gordy changed the industry to work arouond racism (how it affected the ways he “trained” singers, the way album covers were designed, etc.) and also how the indurstry worked to combat racism.

It was this that led me to the topic for my lesson plan.  I want to focus on different areas where this occured besides Motown (sports, literature, education, social groups, whatever).  Students always learn about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks.  That is not to say that they were not important, but I want to supplement that knowledge.  What were other people doing in other areas?

And just to explain the title of this post and for a little fun…

Michigan Historical Center Revisited

I went to the Michigan Historical Center again today with my education class.  If I am being honest I was not particularly excited for this visit because I was afraid it was going to be the same thing covered as my last visit with this class.  I was pleasantly surprised.

Unlike most people who grew up in the Michigan school system, I had never been to the Museum there.  I don’t really know why, but I had low expectations.  I was incredibly impressed.  I feel like they identified their audience (as we were told on our last visit it is elementary aged students primarily).  Their exhibits I felt were really relatable and placed in context rather than just artifacts randomly placed around a room.  Their exhibits (or at least the ones we visited today) were designed as though you were walking through an early 20th century city (for example).  I feel like this will better hold the attention of fourth and fifth graders.  So, it was interesting to see how someone (or institution in this case) identified their audience and organized their historical information accordingly.

It was also interesting to talk to someone from the museum (unfortunately I never learned her name) at the WWII exhibit.  She gave us three directions.  First, try to figure out what the intended big message of the exhibit was supposed to be.  Second, what artifacts stand out to you.  Third, what would stand out to the students.  I think these make some great points about my search for my audience and this class’s project on I-496 for the museum.

She explained how the museum had to choose how they wanted to approach WWII and they decided to focus on the home-front.  They had contemplated using soldiers’ uniforms and other artifacts, but instead decided on focusing on what was going on at homes in Michigan.  I found this so relevant when considering my future in education and anything regarding history.  It is impossible to address everything from every angle.  You have to make a decision.  For every unit (if not the course in general), I think it will be much more beneficial for my students (and myself) if I think about, plan and now what my bigger message is.  What am I trying to get the students to know, understand, or contemplate by providing all the information or “artifacts?”  Otherwise it will simply be a tangled mess of facts.  Similarly, what do we want the I-496 exhibits greater message to be?  What would we want visitors of the exhibit to take away?

I also found it interesting and useful that she had us consider what we found interesting and what students would.  This insinuates that these are not the same.  I cannot assume that my students’ interests will be the same as mine.  I have to come up with innovative ways to make them interested.  When considering our audience, it is important to realize that they will be different and have different interests than ourselves.  For our I-496 project, how would we reach a group of fourth and fifth graders and make them interested in I-496?  She also said that the average person spends 17 seconds on an exhibit.  An EXHIBIT, not an artifact.  So when we are planning our project, how are we going to grab people’s attention and what do we want to be most important?  S, if the visitors only notice one thing it is the thing we want them to notice.

I found these interesting to think about for my teaching, but also for the I-496 project.  They also shared some interesting websites to use for resources for teachers, but I think they can also be useful for our project.  I am also curious to look for genealogy information too.

First an index for the archives can be found online.  This is an index so that we can find out what is there before making a trip.  I personally thought the photo section would be helpful.

Next, there is Seeking Michigan.  This is where MHC is putting all the archives on-line.  So instead of looking at the index, you can look at the documents themselves.  This will be especially useful if you can’t make trips there.  However, everything is not up yet.

Just a few things to think about as our project really gets rolling…

Looking toward Pittsburgh

As part of the background reading for the I-496 project, I read John Bodnar, Roger Simon and Michael P. Weber’s Lives of Their Own: Blacks, Italians, and Poles in Pittsburgh, 1900-1960. I would recommend this to anyone interested in urbanization, industrialization, migration or immigration.  It provides an interesting case study of Pittsburgh on all of these topics.

At the most basic level, their argument is that urbanization and industrialization treat different people differently.  They argue this by looking at how migration to Pittsburgh and then adapting to life in an industrial Pittsburgh affected Poles, Italians and Blacks differently.  They considered background and expectations, work and residence, family dynamics, neighborhood formation, and occupational mobility (devoting a chapter to each) for each group from 1900-1960.

Pittsburgh c. 1900 - from Encyclopedia Britannica

The authors found that each group was affected differently; however Italian and Polish immigrants had similar experiences and Black migrants’ experiences differed drastically.  Family played a major role in migration patterns, job choice and housing for Poles and Italians.  They were able to supply housing and jobs because they had enough clout within their industrial sectors to get their friends and family into companies.  However, for Blacks, family was important for providing information about migration and housing, but couldn’t help their family find work because they were “unable to establish beachheads in any major local industry” (7).

This resulted in different groups raising their children differently.  African American families stressed individualism and the necessity for their children to rely on their own abilities, while other groups stressed the importance of familial relationships more.

The same issues seemed to surface for each category the authors discussed.  African Americans in Pittsburgh faced more negative implications of urbanization, industrialization and migration than the other groups.  The authors argued that all of these groups experienced racism.  For example, as soon as one of these groups would move into a neighborhood, the native population would move out.  However, Italians and Poles benefitted from the stereotypes (they were seen as dependable, hard workers), while African Americans suffered (seen as inefficient, unstable).  Poles and Italians were able to get (and keep) stable jobs, which aided them in creating secure ethnic neighborhoods.  However, the African American population couldn’t get steady jobs and were scattered throughout the neighborhoods.  Thus, they were unable to create a solid, racial community.  Partially because of this, as time went on, Italians and Poles were seen as more stable and almost as natives, but African Americans continued to be seen as migrants.

The authors make an important point in the conclusion of their book.  They say, “racism…did not operate in isolation…[Italians, Poles and Blacks] lived out their lives in response to multiple pressures exerted by tradition, discrimination, urban structure and industrial employment” (264).  I find this one of the most intriguing parts of their book.  Through the research they present, it is evident that racism and discrimination could not really be separated from the other pressures.  It influenced industrial employment and housing, which in turn influenced how children were raised.  It is clear that other factors were important: unions excluded African Americans, unions became ineffective in Pittsburgh after agitators in the 1892 Homestead Steel Strike were blacklisted from working in the industrial sphere anywhere, competition increased in the industrial sector, and mechanization increased the demand for unskilled labor (and drastically reduced the demand for skilled labor).  However, racism was deeply intertwined with the other pressures that resulted from industrialization, urbanization and migration in Pittsburgh during this time period.

[It is interesting to look at two different perspectives on the Homestead Steel Strike, I came across.  Here is the PBS version based on a film about Andrew Carnegie.  Here is the AFL-CIO version.]

This book also has implications for our research on the I-496 development in Lansing.  It is important to consider the role of racism, but also to consider the authors statement about Pittsburgh.  What other pressures were at play?  Was this a simple case of racism?

It was also interesting to learn that one of the few African American neighborhoods was eliminated in Pittsburgh: the lower Hill district.  This neighborhood was eliminated as a result of the “Pittsburgh renaissance.”  It took 1,551 families out of the neighborhood to build a domed arena and new high rent apartments that would accommodate 594 families.  The authors say this “attests to the lack of political power of the residents” (221).  These African American families that had resided here moved to other ethnically populated neighborhoods – usually ones that already had a Black population, which then expanded.  However, the old residents of these neighborhoods generally left as the Black population increased.  Unfortunately the authors only spend about a page on this topic.  It still presents important parallels for our work.  They also say to look into Roy Lubove‘s work for further description of the Pittsburgh Renaissance.  This suggests that the development of I-496 in Lansing was not an isolated incident, but rather may have been part of  a larger pattern.  This provides important context for our own research.  It puts our research into better perspective knowing what was happening in other cities.

Hunt for History…

What should have been a simple assignment ended up as a treasure hunt of sorts.  My Mission: to visit one of Michigan Historical Center’s official historic sites.  This would prove a much more complicated task that I planned…

First, I identified the site I was going to visit.  I decided on the United States’ Indian School in Mount Pleasant.  Then I decided I should probably find directions, rather than wandering aimlessly around Mount Pleasant.

Easier said than done.  According to the Historical Center’s website, the school is located on Harris St.  That is the entire address they provide.  Great.  The Historical Center website explains how in 1934 the school was given to the state of Michigan and became a home for the mentally challenged.  It said it was now part of the Mount Pleasant Regional Center for Developmental Disabilities.  So I decided to get an address and directions for there instead.  This gave me directions to an address of 1400 Pickard St.  So I wrote down both streets and went off to Mount Pleasant in search of what I hoped would be a hopeful expedition.

One hour later I get off the exit to find the school.  About ten minutes later, singing at the top of my lungs, I realize I turned the wrong way when I got off the exit.  So I quick turn around and head the other way on Pickard.  I know I have to go about three miles past the exit to get to the address I found for the Center for Developmental Disabilities.  After about only one mile, I’ve already reached 1400…no sign of the building.  So, I decided to keep going for the three miles.  I pass a chained off building that said that it was the Center, but it definitely was not the Indian School building.  So I decide to drive down Harris and see if I can see it there.  Well the good news  is that it was a short road.  The bad news is that there was no school.  Instead of turning back onto Pickard and heading back to the highway, I decided to go straight – the road changes names (so it is not Harris or Pickard)  – but I decide to go anyways.  Aha!  I found it (well actually I was taking pictures of a different building until I realized it was the wrong one).  On neither of the roads that I was given on-line.

However, I quickly realized that I would not be able to get close to the building.  There were no trespassing signs everywhere and every driveway had chains across so that you could not pull in.  It looked like the state had shut down the Developmental Center and had shut down all access.

This brings up a whole new issue with preservation of historical sites.  What is the goal and/or point of preserving these sites?  Is it simply to preserve history for the sake of preserving history?  Or is it for the public to learn more about their surroundings and how it connects to history?  If it has anything to do with the public, then my site is problematic.  The public is completely denied access.

You can identify this building as a site preserved by the Historical Center by the green marker posted on the building.  The public would have no idea of the significance of this building because they cannot get close enough to read the sign.  They probably would not even notice the sign unless they knew to look for it.  I had to take all the pictures from the road and then edited the pictures on my computer to zoom in and focus on the sign.

This is a very interesting historical site.   It was created in 1891 and operated until 1931 for educational and vocational training (with an average enrollment of 300) for Native Americans (according to the Michigan Historical Center).  It went from one building to several (including dormitories).  It had the same ambigous history as other Native American Boarding Schools at the time. (Check out this site about “Mount Pleasant’s Unpleasant School”).  This site would also have significance for much of the population of Mount Pleasant in particular.  Mount Pleasant is home to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe; many of this population has relatives who would have attended this school.

So, I simply don’t understand denying the public access to this building.  What is the point of preserving the building and posting a sign about its significance if people cannot get within one hundred yards of the building?  Once again, what is the role of history?  How about historical preservation?  I keep coming back to the same questions.  I think perhaps the problem is that everyone has different answers to these questions.

(Future teachers: I found this website about Native American boarding schools, but it also gives lesson plans and suggests books to use and avoid)

Just a Couple Questions…

Well now we are really getting started on our I-496 project, where I will really delve into “public history.”  We will look at the construction of I-496.  The construction of I-496 meant the destruction of the largest African-American community in Lansing during the 1960s since the highway was to be built right over top of their neighborhood.

Before I read the first article about the construction of I -496, I first read Nearby History: Exploring the Past Around You by David E. Kyvig and Myron A. Marty.  It was an extremely helpful book that is written in a plain, get to the point way that any college student juggling classes, work, internship (plus anything else that is going on) can appreciate.  The second chapter of gives hundreds of questions to stimulate research based on many different categories.  While these questions do not particularly pertain to this topic, they suggested similar questions that could/should be asked for this project.  Here are some of the questions I think should/could be asked, which I separated by categories:

The Decision:

How did it get decided that the highway would be placed through that neighborhood?  Who got to decide this? What factors did they look at?

Community

To what extent were people involved in community affairs, local government, etc.?  Did this affect how/if the community fought the decision to demolish their homes?  Did this change after they were relocated?

Were the houses, buildings, stores, etc. that were demolished owned or rented?

What was type of community was it, e.g. primarily residential, business, recreational?  Or did it have some of everything?

Did any buildings/institutions have special significance to the population there?  Why?  Did they find a replacement?

Who were the community leaders?  How did they react

Effects

Where did people move to?

How did people in this neighborhood earn a living before the interstate?  Did this change after they were forced to move?

How did relocation and the destruction of their neighborhood affect different age groups?

Did the social activities of the community change after relocation?

Then I read Matthew Miller’s article “Looking Back: I-496 Construction: A Complicated Legacy” from 2009 in The Lansing State Journal. This helped me really create three some more specific questions for the project and validated some of the questions I had already created.

Miller mentions Stuart Dunnings, Jr. as a lawyer who worked on civil rights issues in the city.  Who exactly was he?  What other cases did he work on?  How did he become involved in this issue (his own initiative or was he approached)?  Was he a member of the community?  A leader?

In his article, Miller also quotes someone who said that most people who were forced to leave and whose businesses were demolished, never reopened their businesses.  What did they do afterwards then?

Miller also reports that the Chamber of Commerce argued at the time that more white houses would be ruined.  By looking at the map that shows the population breakdown of where the interstate now lies, you can see that some white homes were destroyed (I am not a math major for a reason and so didn’t do the math to figure out if there were more white homes destroyed or not).  However, what was the reaction in the white community who had to relocate?  What did their compensation packages look like?

Out of these three questions, I find the first most compelling.  I am particularly interested in the community’s response to the decision to demolish their neighborhood.  I think knowing who was involved in the fight for compensation/relocation packages is important.  What other kinds of cases he tried as a civil rights lawyer provides the context for the “racial atmosphere” during the time that this decision was made.  Was this just one more decision in a parade of seemingly racist policies/decisions?  Or was it an isolated decision? If he was indeed a member and leader of the community, if we could learn about him, it might give us an idea about popular strains of thought of the community during this period.

Whose history?

I find the entire Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II, exhibit at the Smithsonian controversy incredibly intriguing the more I learn about it.  It is important to learn about, evaluate and analyze the Enola Gay, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the effects of using the atomic bomb then.  However, it also raises larger questions about public history that cross into all topics.  It does present the seemingly obvious question of what is the role of museums?  However, it also leads to larger questions as to what is the role of history?

In “Museums and the Public: Doing History Together” from The Journal of American History, Thomas A. Woods says, “History has always been pragmatic in the sense that historians revise and rewrite constantly to meet their own needs and the needs of a new generation.”  This suggests that history exists to meet the needs of people (be they historians or the public).  It also suggests that these needs are changing.  I found that this really brought more questions than answers for myself.  Who gets to determine the “needs of a new generation?”  The public, historians, the Senate, interest groups?  Each of these members of society took a different view of the Enola Gay and each seemed to genuinely believe in their position.  Each group was simply coming from a different group and a different perspective.  This is highlighted by the Senate documents surrounding the hearing about the exhibit.  Throughout the proceedings, the personal experiences of veterans are recounted as different than how the proposed exhibit would have presented the dropping of the atom bombs.  However, this does not devalue or illegitimate the experiences of those veterans – neither does it necessarily mean the Smithosinian exhibit was false.  This seemed to be the main point of controversy in my opinion: some public and veterans believed that the exhibit devalued their contribution.

However, during these hearings Senator Ford also said that people should leave the exhibit “understanding the full ramifications of the war, but still somehow feeling good about the role that the United States played in ending the war.”  This suggests that history has a role in building nationalism.  Public history should be heritage.  However, he also goes on to say in argument that the exhibit shouldn’t focus on Japanese perspective, “I want our citizens to have it all, because history is awfully important.”  How can citizens have it all, though, if certain perspectives aren’t presented?  I believe that it is important to present all perspectives because the reality of the situation probably lies somewhere in the middle.  If museums and public history only serve to bolster nationalism and present one side of a story, than it denies citizens the ability to think critically.

So, the question remains: who gets to decide history?  Who gets to determine what is recalled and how it is told?  What is the goal of history?

It also raises the question of what are the stakes for the Enola Gay exhibit, but history in general?  From Senator Ford’s comments it seems as if American patriotism is at risk.  From many of the scholars involved, it seems like the stakes are greater understanding of global issues like racism, nuclear war, etc.  Since this discussion centers around the Enola Gay I cannot help but consider the effect history has had on Japan’s foreign relations.  Japan is a great example of how history can affect such important things as foreign affairs.  Japan has had its own debates on history considering its museum at the Yasukuni Shrine (where Japan’s war dead, including class-A war criminals, are enshrined), textbook controversy (for example how it  portrays the Nanjing Massacre), and comfort women.  All of these center around how Japan remembers and handles its part in WWII.  These issues continue to come up in Japans relations with its neighbors in the regions, especially with China and South Korea.  History, how it is remembered, and how it is told has very real consequences.  What do we risk in our interpretations and retelling of history?

All for one and one for all?

State education standards can give us a clue into what state and society view social studies and history, as well as the purpose for studying them.  I took a look at Montana’s state social studies standards.  These standards are set up fairly straight forward.  It begins with an overview of Montana’s view of social studies.  It then sets six content standards, followed by rationales and benchmarks (set at the end of 4th, 8th, and 12th grades) for each standard.  It concludes by saying that each student is evaluated at one of four performance levels: advanced, proficient, nearing proficiency, and novice.

According to these standards, “Social studies is an integrated study of the social sciences and humanities designed to foster citizenship in an interdependent world.”  So, according to Montana the “point” of social studies is to make students citizens.  However it is unclear, according to these standards, what “citizenship” actual entails.  It is obvious from the requirements that students know how governments work, economies run, and history occurred.  Is that what it means to “foster citizenship?”  It doesn’t explain if citizenship means voting?  Doe sit mean running for an office?  Being aware of political debates?  It seems that the more definitive aspects of citizenship are left to teachers’ discretion.

So if that is the goal of social studies, what is “social studies.”  It then explains how social studies includes “economics, history, geography, government sociology, anthropology, psychology and elements of the humanities.”  I am going into the social studies – secondary education field.  Some of these are pretty basic elements that everyone includes in social studies.  However, I have never thought about anthropology in the social studies.  Mostly, I’ve never heard of a high school that offers anthropology classes.  I also was surprised by seeing “elements of the humanities.”  After looking at their standards.  I have to assume this means Content Standard 6, which is for to understand “the impact of human interaction and cultural diversity.”  However I have never seen this listed as a component  listed on its own in social studies’ discussions.

What about history?  One of the six standards is focused on history.  Content Standard Four reads, “Students demonstrate an understanding of the effects of time, continuity, and change on historical and future perspectives and relationships.”  This suggests that it is imperative in Montana that teachers link the past with the present and future or as the rationale states, “students need to understand their historical roots.”  Montana state standards clearly see history as relevant to the present.  It is not simply “history for history’s sake.”  The point seems to be that it influences the present and the future.  I would agree.  I also think this has a very strategical aspect as well.  Most students are not going to be interested in history for its own sake.  However, if you, as a teacher, can help them see the relevancy  of history on their own lives.  Overall the standards are all pretty basic and leave teachers’ much room for their own interpretation and creativity in presenting lessons, though.  For example it says simply to identify significant events, people, and ideas.  It also emphasizes the use and analysis of both primary and secondary sources.  It also returns to theme of tying past and present by investigating and interpreting the impact of historical events.  So, these are all vague ideas.  It doesn’t give specifics about what/who these significant events, people and ideas are, but only gives a few examples like freedom, democracy (highlighting the emphasis on citizenship).  An “Advanced” student (which would be the top category) would graduate high school able to “consistently analyze historical patterns and conduct[s] independent research to thoroughly and effectively develop and defend a position on an issue.”  So, Montana wants their students to know how to analyze, research, and defend.

It was also interesting to see that the standards continued to mention “tribal” aspects of the social studies.  It is included under the government standard by saying students should be able to recognize tribal governments (along with the obvious local, state and federal) and identify representatives within tribal government.  Part 3 of this content standard for 8th graders actually reads, “identify the significance of tribal sovereignty and Montana tribal governments’ relationship to local, state and federal governments.”  “American Indian tribes in Montana” is also specifically mentioned several times in the history content standard discussed above.  Tribal is listed along side local, Montana, national and global in the economic standard (Standard Number 5).  Under the culture standard (Standard Number 6), Part 4 is solely devoted to identifying, comparing, illustrating and evaluating the “unique characteristics of American Indian tribes and other cultural groups in Montana.”  I think this is a reflection of the local culture in Montana.  However, I think it brings up the important question, whether certain geographical/cultural areas have different historical/social studies needs than others, but not students from other states?  Should what is important in history and social studies differ state to state?