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.

Read Full Post »

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?

Read Full Post »

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…

Read Full Post »

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)

Read Full Post »

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?

Read Full Post »

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?

Read Full Post »

Radio’s Holy Experiment

Today I listened to an episode of Cavalcade of America, which was a radio program done by the American Historical Association. I had heard old radio shows about Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie’s Monsiour Poirot, the Green Lantern, and others. However, this was my first exposure to this program, which ran from 1935 until the mid 1950s. It was meant to bring history to the masses in an entertaining way. As Ian Tyrrell says in Historians in Public, “Cavalcade sought to use the the past to legimate the present…” (105).  This episode supported this argument.

The episode I listened to was called “William Penn and the Holy Experiment,” which originally aired on October 13, 1937. By reading the title, I thought this was going to be about the type of colony William Penn created in Pennsylvania, specifically how he extended religious freedom to many different religions (hence the “Holy Experiment”). I was mistaken. It was about how Penn set up a colony, but had little to do with the religious freedom extended. While, the issue of the persecution of Quakers did come up (Penn defended them to King Charles II) and it was mentioned that everyone would be free, the majority of the episode focused on relations between newly arrived Europeans and, as they were called in the show, Indians/Injuns/Painted Red Men. You hear Penn refuse 6,000 pounds from a company that wanted to have a monopoly to trade with the Native Americans. To which Penn responds, “‘There shall be freedom and equality for all”‘ and that they should try to ‘”make friendship and a league with them.”‘ This topic continues to arise throughout the episode as you witness Penn making peace and friendship at the first meeting with the local tribes, trying to convince his friend that the Native Americans are good, and as he discovers that one of the local tribesmen rescued his friends daughter who was lost in the woods. This validates Tyrrell’s claim that the purpose of the series was to legitimize the present with the past. By showing Penn’s relationship with the natives as kind, giving, and understanding, it argues that Europeans presence and then the creating of the Untied States here is okay and just because the Native Americans wanted us to be like brothers (as the Chief tells Penn in the first meeting, “Injuns brothers with Yankees”).

The “Holy Experiment” refers not to the experiment of extending religious freedom to all as I had assumed, but instead refers to the experiment of colonizing Pennsylvania. It is holy because Penn describes it as a gift from God. God chose them (him and his brother were talking at this point) to create a country there. Once again, the past is serving to legitimize the present by insinuating that the United States was a gift of God.. If God wanted Penn to create a colony there, who are we to argue with God?

There were some other aspects of the show that I found very interesting.

First, at the beginning of the show the explain when and where Penn was born and then move quickly to his meeting with King Charles II. Through this, though, we discover that Penn lived in England his whole life (36 years) at the time of his meeting with the King. I find it interesting that although he has lived there for 36 years, he has no English accent. The King and his brother, who was also at the meeting, had British accents, but Penn did not. The only explanation I came up with for this is that the writers, producer, whomever, wanted to further show Penn as an American, not English. It does nothing to legitimate American present if an Englishman did all these things; it is only possible if he is American. By choosing not to give Penn an English accent, they are accentuating his “Americanness”.

Also, I found their choice of background music interesting. The background (and three minute introduction) to the show was an instrumental version of “Here in My Arms” from the operetta Dearest Enemy. Throughout the show, the narrator continued to make connections between Penn and the formation of the United States that would happen about a century later. This choice simply continued this trend since this operetta was about the Revolutionary War. It just serves as another reminder for the audience of Penn’s influence on where America was in 1937.

While this did make the audience faintly aquatinted with William Penn. It seems that this is not the intention. When truly reviewing the content of the show, it becomes clear that very little is actually told about Penn. The only thing one truly learns about him is his date of birth, he was married, had a daughter and son, and wanted to create peaceful relations with the Native Americans (which seems accurate). However, it doesn’t discuss how these peaceful relations seemed to be the exception rather than the norm. It doesn’t discuss how this did not apply to Pennsylvania after William Penn. It doesn’t talk about the role of religion in Pennsylvania. The list could go on and on.

Why not include these things? The answer relates back to the intention of the show. It would be harder to legitimize the present through the past if the show had presented the ways Native Americans had been negatively treated. My best guess as to why the freedom of religion wasn’t covered was because this show was run on popular radio (CBS and NBC), so they were trying to draw in the most listeners possible. By not discussing religion, they did not isolate any groups of people (like anyone who was anti-Catholic or anti-Semitic) and could thus get more people to listen.

So, is this good or bad? Is it better to provide a more accurate picture and have less people receive it? Or is it better to give a general (or partial), glossed over, only positive picture that more people will listen to? I don’t actually think these are the only options though. I think it is possible to provide a more accurate picture of history in an engaging way that pushes people to challenge what they know and think. This is what I hope to do with my audience. I don’t want to use history to legitimize anything. Instead I want to use history to challenge my future students to think critically. I would want them to question what their history books are telling them. What is being told? Who’s perspective is this? What is missing? What does all this mean to us today? To assume that the audience of the Cavalcade of America or my future students are incapable of doing this is a misperception. I believe they are capable of this and would actually become more interested and engaged in history in the process.

Read Full Post »