Wallace, Section II Review

In Section II, Wallace again goes after Walt Disney this time pointing out various attractions throughout his theme parks. It seems that history, at least in part, has become rather commercialized in Disney World. The Carousel of Progress, for example, is basically a walk-in advertisement, subjecting visitors to 80 years of progress sponsored by General Electric. While this might not inspire a child to go out and buy a dishwasher, it does undoubtedly place product labels on influential minds. What is ultimately drawn into question is the role of Disney and its portrayal of history. With such contorted historic displays such as the Hall of Presidents, Main Street, and the aforementioned Carousel of Progress, tied in with the credibility of Disney, what potential harm is there in a theme park representing history? Wallace seems to worry Disney's slant on history will become overly influential. I would argue that those most influenced by what Disney "teaches" (I use the term loosely) would simply be offered a brighter side to a nation's past which they learn about every other day in classrooms when they are not on vacation. However, it is important that such mass marketed history be kept in check. General Electric essentially being the poster-child for progression is a bit overstated and contrived. There is certainly some liability for such influential institutions to "teach" history given their impact and accessibility. Still, it likely does not do more harm than good if harnessed responsibly.

"A Trademark Approach to the Past" Review

Burns gets burned...

Ken Burns is a profiteering tycoon whose purpose is to slant historic facts, hire a narrator with an attractive voice, put a camera in front of it all, and throw in a few interviews for good measure. At least, that is what Vivien Ellen Rose and Julie Corley would have you believe. In their review of Not for Ourselves Alone, the duo of authors assess Burns' job on the documentary on the history of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Burns is accused of using clever editing to get the answers he wants out of his interviewees and not relying on serious scholar. The abominable use of red leaves during the introduction is worthy of at least one or two paragraphs and the authors scrutinized his artistic use of the autumn leaves to the extent that one would think Burns committed a crime. Towards the conclusion, the authors insist that "These are not mere quibbles" to which I would have to reply: "Yes, they are." Ten and a half pages later, the authors finally make their case by stating how historians need be extra cautious about how history is presented in film as various media outlets continue to grow in popularity and number. Avenues have grown from simply radio and film to the far more accessible outlets of television (History Channel, anyone?) and of course, the Internet (Wikipedia, anyone?). It seems obvious why the article was written by two authors--the chip on their shoulder is far too large to carry by just one person. The animosity is almost overwhelming and had it not been for ten pages of Burns-blasting, it might be a article worthy of some valuable claims. Their apparent hostility and scrutiny of details where it seems clear that they are grasping for straws undermines the ultimate argument, however.

"Cinematic History" Review

Shades of gray...

Here, Robert Toplin also discusses the role of historians in the field of filmmaking. He focuses both on experimental and blockbuster films (Gladiator is a big example). He moves beyond just historical accuracy, however, also noting on the political impact of films, in addition to other underlying themes and how they might be used to draw attention or relate to current events. Toplin explains the example of the 1981 film Reds. Reading this reminded me of critic reviews following the huge success of 300. The movie about the famous Spartan uprising against the Persians in Thermopylae was criticized for having an underlying reference to the present Iraq war. (A vastly outnumbered army uses advanced tactics to take on a large horde from Persia, which is today comprised of the nations of the Middle East.) While this may borderline over-analyzing on the part of the critic, it is worth noting all the same because the fact is that it is a derived meaning that many individuals can make. Ultimately, it is clear that as more historic films are created, they must constantly remain in check by historians and others. Given the accessibility and popularity of movies versus literature today, this role is important now more than ever. Media cannot overly influence historic facts for the sake of blockbuster hits and long lines at a movie theater.

"Movie or Monograph?" Review

"The book was so much better!..."

In her article, Natalie Davis discusses the problems facing historical movie makers and, particularly, the role of historians as consultants in such films. She notes how Hollywood tampers with historical facts in exchange for a more well-rounded film that builds drama and plot. Davis' ultimate argument seems to be if you are going to do something, do it right. In most cases, far more individuals will see the film than read its corresponding literature. But then again, historical accuracy is often eschewed in place of Hollywood drama that will guarantee to sell. One need look no further than Pearl Harbor. Davis' remedy--at least in her situation--was to just write a corresponding novel to go along with the film on Martin Guerre. This is certainly a noteworthy attempt at righting a wrong, but probably futile since films almost always seem to perform better than literature.

Historic Topics on the Internet

Juxtaposition...

History topic:

The B-17 Flying Fortress

Sites studied:

www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html

www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b17.html

www.warbirdalley.com/b17.htm


For my study, I decided to use a topic I am already quite familiar with so that I could easily discern where a website may be deficient in historic facts or accuracy. I also felt it necessary to do a very broad, unscholarly search since I felt that is likely what most laymen (by that I mean, non-historian folk) would do when searching the web for a topic. By this, I mean simply using Google and going with the first few search results and not doing any serious in-depth research. So, I googled "History of the B-17." (On a side note: I love that "googled" is a verb now. My spell check did not even pick it up. How is that for a sign of the times?)

My first hit led me to Boeing's website. This was an interesting one. Boeing provides just 3 or 4 paragraphs on a plane that was the workhorse of the war. Clearly wanting to avoid controversial topics, it completely eschews missions or discussion on tonnage of bombs dropped during any campaigns. This is obviously a PR move. Instead, Boeing discusses how it answered the call when the Army was desperate for a large, multi-engine bomber. They also, of course, mention how the Flying Fortress had a reputation for being able to take "brutal poundings" and return to base with "large chunks of its fuselage shot off." These are certainly true and noteworthy facts, it is just interesting (convenient?) to see how the company who designed it focuses on its sustainability instead of its performance and overall impact on the warfront.

The Aviation History website, conversely, focused more on the battlefront than anything else. With a hefty introduction, this site discusses the various models of the B-17 and mentions the differences in each, including how many of each were built. It then goes on to broad overviews of the Flying Fortress' service in the European and Pacific theaters, breaking occasionally for some sensational stories. Also interspersed between stories is plenty of visual aid, including anything from the B-17 sitting idly on a tarmac while awaiting bomb loads to the plane in action over Europe.

My final result in this study turned out to be a shade of gray between the other two sites. Where Boeing was conservative and Aviation History was liberal with information, Warbird Alley's history of the Flying Fortress comprised of a basic history seen in the last site, but with random bits of trivia, including perhaps my most favorite factoid about the B-17--how it got its nickname. (In case you are wondering, here's the tale. During the press conference which introduced the plane to the media, a reporter exclaimed, after seeing the half-dozen guns bristling out of nearly every corner, "Holy cow, it's a flying fortress!") This is a fact about the B-17 which is not very well-known, so I felt that whoever put this historiography together really did their homework.

For fear of overanalyzing, the interesting thing about doing this assignment was that objectives were rather apparent. The latter two websites I imagine were just there to present the facts, but it was rather obvious that Boeing was crafting their historic synopsis to skirt around sensitive discussion. In a way, this is reminiscent of museum discussions we have had earlier this semester. The Enola Gay controversy or the Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag are good examples. When money and funding is involved, historians have to be cautious on how to present a topic. Boeing has to do the same thing so as to maintain a positive reputation with clientele.

I guess it's all about that bottom line, even when it comes to presenting history. Too bad.

Archives Visit

Strozier Library Special Collections
West Yellow Pine Co.
Box 483 & 484

West Yellow Pine Co. appears to have been a lumber shipping company specializing in flooring, ceilings, and siding and their archives consist of correspondence from other companies around the eastern part of the country. There are letters requesting prompt payment which was clearly long overdue for a shipment, quicker shipping on an order a customer placed, and discussions over the best delivery methods for some lumber. Apparently West Yellow Pine was not the most efficient lumber company in town and it shows. But they made up for it with their "rock bottom prices." You get what you pay for--even in 1899.

Like Amanda, I also found it interesting that I was not first asked to use gloves before looking through 108 year old documents. Even so, they were cautious to allow me to look through just one box, one folder at a time so as to avoid getting them mixed up or out of order--not that there was any order to the documents in the first place.

This being my first time in an archives, I was not exactly sure what to expect. One thing I found especially fascinating was the handwriting of some of the letters. It was so foreign that I could not even read it, yet it was written exquisitely. It was incredibly interesting to look back at letters that were so old, especially dealing with such pedantic matters as some angry customer wanting his lumber shipped faster. I could not help but try to imagine the secretary typing up a memo while her angry boss dictates and wonder if, at some point, she ever thought that over a century later someone would be casually reading over them trying to make sense of it all.

What's more: visiting archives gave me a rather humble perspective on history. On a daily basis I study everything from war generals to bombing raids, aerial combat to infantry movements. But today I am sitting here examining the toils of a small town shipping company with competitive prices and disappointing delivery services and wondering what that boss' pink slip must have looked like (maybe it's in the archives somewhere!).

Oh, and in case you were wondering, it looks like West Yellow Pine Co. finally got their business in order by the turn of the century; there are much fewer irate letters by 1900.

CHNM Article: Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past

by Roy Rosenzweig

In this article, Roy Rosenzweig presents the topic of Wikipedia and the obvious issues inherent with having an open source website accessible and editable by literally anyone. He compares and contrasts Wikipedia to other well known encyclopedias, admitting that the comparison, though unfair (the well known encyclopedias have huge multimillion dollar budgets while Wikipedia just has volunteers), is surprisingly favorable towards Wikipedia. First and foremost, much light is shed on relatively obscure events or figures in history--he uses the example of the 900-word entry on Union general Romeyn B. Ayres. He also notes that although a volunteer base, the Wikipedia society works around a strict non-bias point of view, insisting each article be written neutrally. Another noteworthy benefit here is the Wikipedia community actively discusses historical debates to best present a topic without bias. The example is given over whether John Brown was "murdered" or "killed."

On the other hand, however, the amateurs who operate Wikipedia lack an understanding of literature and the ultimate ability to analytically interpret sources and arguments. Additionally, there are other obvious negative implications such as the ability for anyone with a computer and Internet-access to edit an entry.

Rosenzweig eventually begs the question of "why care" to historians? He warns that students often use it to study for terms on a test, cite it in bibliographies on term papers, and notes that Google search results often place Wikipedia entries high on its list. Therefore, searchers will go to the first obvious choice than to extensively search for better sources.

I would argue that this is perhaps a bit overstated or far-fetched, especially because the article is pretty recent (2006) and thus the ramifications in the scholarly world should be fairly apparent at this point. From personal experience, I have never had a TA or professor not warn me against using Wikipedia or any other Internet site as a source, at least without prior approval. Also, students who use it to prepare for exams will likely reflect such lack of preparation on the test itself. So, while I feel the impact of Wikipedia is certainly noteworthy, it is hardly something to fear.

Double Fold Review

In Nicholson Baker's Double Fold, he discusses the astonishing rate in which books, articles, periodicals, and newspapers are being replaced by microfilm. He also examines the way in which libraries are using microfilm to replace books and newspapers. Furthermore, the use of microfilm and its role of replacing books, articles, and newspapers are investigated. You get the point. Basically, Baker exhaustively uses 300 pages to tell a story that could have been told in 150 which is a bit ironic when you consider that one of the topics discussed extensively is storage.

According to Baker, there is a war against printed literature or, more appropriately, genocide. Gone forever are certain archives from the New York World, for example. Baker's facts and figures are certainly words worth heeding. He begins by examining preservation issues across the pond in the British Library in London and then begins to scrutinize methods here in the United States, especially with the Library of Congress. The ultimate issue, as it seems, is storage. He equates the extravagant costs of microfilming to those of simply building a storage facility the size of a Home Depot, claiming the latter would be cheaper. This may be true, but just how accessible would that make them? It is not just about preserving, it is also about being able to use them when research is necessary. It is certainly much easier to pull a microfilm out of a drawer in a library than to begin whatever arduous task would be needed to get some newspaper clipping out of a massive storage facility.

Baker also seems to have problems picking his battles and at times he comes across as just whiney. His chapter on DEZ and the efficacy of this gas in preserving paper is summarized simply with "Leave the books alone" (p 135). And thus we have two sides now approached by Baker: you cannot microfilm and destroy the books, but you also should not use gases in an attempt to further preserve the originals.

Baker ultimately has a great argument and it is all noteworthy, but his chastising comes across oftentimes more as sarcastic than informative and this gives a bitter and resentful undertone that makes it difficult to take him seriously. A self-proclaimed Luddite, speaking in such a way about microfilming and other methods, he gives the impression of being against backing up or preserving literature altogether. As with anything that ages, you cannot just "leave it alone."

The Other Suburbanites Review

In The Other Suburbanites, Wiese's focuses on the insurgence of blacks living in neighborhood residences specifically during the years following World War II using Chagrin Falls Park in Cleveland as his focus. In what is clearly an exhaustive study, he blends oral history with research and portrays both about equally. From first hand accounts, it is learned, for example, that building a home was particularly rough for black families and required a lot of help from the community in what Wiese refers to as an "ethic of neighborly aid" (p 1506). Since those who lived in the residences struggled with poverty, their "rustic" landscape had to make more use of rudimentary services than in upper class divisions. This in turn served to perpetuate white racism. Still, settling in Chagrin Falls Park gave many blacks their first chance at buying and building their own property to avoid renting. This was clearly an important stepping stone towards acculturation and overcoming racial barriers.

The use of oral history in Wiese's study truly helps to get an understanding of the individuals who lived there. It is one thing to read a study strictly written by someone who is articulate and adept at theses with several years of college under his/her belt and a couple of degrees. It evokes much different emotions, however, when significant oral history is interspersed throughout and especially if it is riddled with grammatical incorrectness. Observing such statements as "wasn't nobody could buy in the city" (p 1514) and "haven't got any money" (p 1506) induces similar feelings as if watching a documentary with interviewees giving testimony. The responses are raw and unedited and thus show true character.

To me, that shows a bit of irony within historiographic writings. As student historians we write term papers, theses, and dissertations and then toil tirelessly over every marginal inch, sentence structure, and punctuation mark. We double check to make sure that page numbers are in the upper left hand corner for this professor, but in the lower right hand corner for that professor. We face humility and embarrassment by having our peers read over our rough drafts only made possible by weeks without sunlight and countless ounces of caffeine, only to have them rip it to shreds with red ink so that we can then turn around and rinse and repeat until we get it right. All of this to make sure that the story, research, and study we are presenting is done cleanly, correctly, flawlessly, and professionally with the hope that our readers will be captivated and mesmerized. Meanwhile, Wiese's oral history project and many others like it take raw, unedited statements from living witnesses and paste them into their written work in its most archaic and rudimentary format and evoke that same dazzlement.

Interesting.

Can You Do Serious History on the Web? Review

Consider the source...

In his article Can You Do Serious History on the Web?, Carl Smith provides his own perspective on using the Internet as a medium for history, particularly in reflection to his own experiences as curator for an exhibit on the Great Chicago Fire. More notably he questions, "Has the unregulated culture of the Internet made cyberspace a bloated refuge for work of questionable value that otherwise couldn't--and shouldn't--see the light of day? (par 2)" Smith clearly embraces the potential use of the Internet for posting historical content, boasting that the Internet's advantages outweigh its disadvantages but errs on the side of caution in regard to whether or not it is serious history in the traditional sense. The obvious traditional mediums for serious history, of course, are books and articles. Smith contends for his readers to consider that constructing an online exhibit of this magnitude was no small feat and that it required just as much research, work, and financial and institutional backing as any other exhibit. He also states that the exhibit he pieced was not done to replace or displace a current exhibit elsewhere. All worthy considerations while trying to answer the topic's question.

The web is littered with historical junk, especially in the age of Wikipedia and less-than-scholarly Google search results. By that same token, library's are laden with occasional literary muck, as well. There are entire volumes addressing the myth of Hitler's single testicle or arguing that Lincoln was a homosexual. These are examples, but it is testimony to the fact that just because there is a published historical document on a bookshelf, it does not denote it as "serious history." Granted, it is much more difficult to publish a book than to post something historically inaccurate on the web, but clearly the questionable material transits all mediums regardless.

When regarding serious history, the medium should not be as much of a factor as the supporting sources. This may go without saying to an audience of student historians, but it is an important point not to be overlooked. If the mindset eventually slips into the categorizing of serious history into a column of strictly books and articles and bunk history into a column of strictly websites without any regard for a particular study's sources, then there are much bigger problems.

Wallace's The Virtual Past: Media and History Museums Review

The Wave of the Future

In Wallace's essay The Virtual Past: Media and History Museums, he approaches the topic of technology and its incorporation into museums. He seems particularly wary of virtual reality and the Internet and how it just might prevent individuals from visiting museums altogether. Indeed, they just might become "couch-potato museum-goers. (p 107)" Now, some leeway is allowed given that the article was written in 1993, however, Wallace's approach borderlines either propagandaesque fear-mongering or just downright ignorance, I'm not sure which. Anyone who grew up in the 90s knew about the potential of virtual reality, but it was a given that it would never be something which most people would use as much as they use phones, as Wallace suggests on page 93. He also fears that museum visiting will once again become a hobby of the elite as the Internet will become privatized and thus inaccessible to the less affluent.

The benefit of retrospect allows us to see that much of what Wallace fears is not really the case. Putting a museum on the Internet can never possibly replace the real thing, just as seeing a theme park on the web cannot replace going and riding the rides. It is not as if seeing what is in museums in another format--a book, for example--is a novel concept. While researching Holocaust resistance, I came across a book which photographed a myriad of death camps being preserved in Europe. This hardly hindered my desire to visit Auschwitz. Ultimately, the Internet just makes this type of information more accessible in an informative and summarized format. It is far from a replacement.

As a final, rather superficial observation--and I implore you to take this with a grain of salt--I also believe there is the factor of just saying you did or saw something not done everyday. It is not worth much of an experience to simply say, "I went online last night and saw pictures of the Kitty Hawk at the NASM." However, it is far different to say, "Last summer I went to the NASM and stood 3 feet away from the Enola Gay, one of the most famous planes in history."

Preserving Nature in the National Parks Review

In Preserving Nature in the National Parks, Sellars explains the history of the National Park Service from its inception to present times. Over time, the NPS' focus graduated from tourism to conservation. The struggle between the two objectives rages on, however. One argument is to preserve a park so as to appeal to tourists, thus allowing visitors to come and enjoy nature which was the original idea behind Yellowstone National Park. On the other had, it is argued that national parks should be kept in their natural state. It remains a question whether or not a happy medium can be attained here between the two arguments.

The ultimate issue is that enough scientific and ecological research was not incorporated while trying to keep the national parks tourist-friendly and so certain species were either over-killed or over-produced. The last thirty years has seen a transformation in that, however, and now what stands is a rift among the park service. The traditionalists want to adhere to the NPS' original objectives and attract tourists while the other side wishes to incorporate this newfound research.

While studying the issues Sellars provides, it is easy to understand the predicament the NPS finds itself in. With so few areas remaining that are untouched, it is reasonable to want to have land preserved in its natural state. Still, it is just as important to provide safe and enjoyable outdoor areas for individuals to visit. Seemingly, the jury is still out on this one.

Landmarks & Legacy Tour Review

Rookie Mistakes...

This Saturday's tour was certainly an eye-opener into corners of Tallahassee I had admittedly turned a blind eye to. As I looked at the map for the Riley House location, I had to do a bit of a double-take. Here, located literally in the center of downtown Tallahassee is this historic trinket standing as a testament to one man's victory over slavery and adversity in deep south Florida. Maybe if I had done more research on Riley before the tour, I would not have been as dumbfounded by the fact that this slave-turned-millionaire had the epitome of humble beginnings.

As we rode around what is and what used to be Frenchtown, it was increasingly interesting to hear various trivia about the town I'd called home for so many years. Where a large Civic Center now stands was once a free trade market for blacks. When Gus began his tour with the statement that many blacks found desegregation to do more harm than good, I was taken aback slightly. But as we drove through the rundown areas of what used to be a booming and vibrant district, it was easier to understand how this might be so. Still, attempts are clearly being made to "revitalize" the area and with great success. Certainly, some of the housing being constructed is far out of the price range of those currently residing there, but there are also affordable and attractive apartments standing in the same place of what used to be projects. Still, the message derived from Gus' claim on desegregation became clear. It is easy to look down one's nose and blame individuals for their plight, but to stop and think on how the downward spiral may have started presents a much different opinion. Another stop at the Old City cemetery and as Gus said, it was again a classic example of just how segregated whites and blacks were as it was literally taken to the grave. It seemed a bit poetic that two dozen black Civil War Union soldiers are buried there.

If the Riley house was a modest introduction, the Goodwood Museum was its grandiose conclusion, standing in stark contrast to the humble house of the successful ex-slave nestled among a maze of one-way streets, law offices and condominiums still under construction. At first, including the Goodwood Museum in this tour seemed out of place after a journey of Tallahassee History that spanned everywhere from Frenchtown slumps to the once-prominant Lincoln Academy. Upon reflection, though, what revealed itself to me was a duel of stories that shined light on the life of two very different ethnic backgrounds in the same city and era. In one corner, there is the freed African-American who owns the majority of downtown Tallahassee and has the ability to build a home that would make Goodwood look like a shack, but whose humble origins perhaps kept him modest. In the other corner, you have a legacy of families laden with backstabbing, avarice and widows on a plantation so large, its staff of servants would not even fit into the Riley House. From mirrors to paintings, fine China to cocktail dresses, the Goodwood plantation was anything but modest with etiquette that borderlines pretentiousness with a series of bathrooms, hallways and staircases that could only be entered into if a certain level of clothing was being donned. A hierarchy for underwear and other unmentionables? Why not, you don't have anything else to worry about.

As Valerie quoted, I admit a tour of this magnitude would be nothing short of spectacular in, say, Washington. But I had to reflect a bit on the deep and rich history laden in our own backyard which up to this point I had not even truly appreciated. I suppose my nose was so deep in my own books admiring and studying monuments and museums that I missed the area's history that is literally all around me. Granted, I cannot just go see the Lincoln Memorial or the White House whenever I wish. But we have our own monuments just yards away from where we study those which are hundreds of miles away. Indeed, statues of three black individuals who overcame similar adversity as Riley stand in the middle of our own campus. They aren't Civil War generals or former Presidents who led our nation in times of war, but they faced their own challenges all the same. Personally, some kid making a stand and carrying his books into a campus dominated by those who had oppressed people like him for so long makes him much more human than a man who crossed the Delaware.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to finish wiping this egg off my face.

Road Trips through History Review

Don't forget...

Dwight Young's Road Trips through History offer a clever, often humorous, but always candid look at historic preservation. While his views sometimes borderline sensationalism, most, if not all, of his essays seem to perpetuate the idea that something is going horribly wrong with preserving our past. From second-hand books to the Slow Food movement, Young's collection takes the reader on a journey of often nostalgic moments, embellishing on drive-in movie theaters of old and looking forward with worry towards the architectural future of "glass boxes" (p 33).

But there are victories. Five-hundred drive-ins still remain, for example. The glorious churches in Kizhi, Russia still reach toward the sky. New Mexico legislature passed, with surprising success, the Night Sky Protection Act to prevent glaring lights from dominating the sky and thus drowning out the stars above. There is Polk County with its "deserved" Court House and some random home on a country rode with a sign proudly proclaiming "God Bless America" in reaction to September 11.

Still, what is perhaps more important is the more trying times. Washington's President Monroe faded into obscurity. So to did one of its musical landmarks as the "wrecking-ball silence[d] the melody" (p 11). The cruise ship Ile de France become a destroyed movie prop. And of course, Europe is being reconstructed in Las Vegas.

Young's attachment to historic preservation is clearly emotional and heartfelt. He reminisces over a Civil War battlefield the same way he does over a lost sock. With an eclectic array of subject matter, it becomes obvious that Young simply tries to remind his readers to soak in one's surroundings. Indeed, in a world that moves at breakneck speed, it is easy to forget why this building is important or why that battlefield shouldn't be converted into a theme park. Therein lies the importance of historic preservation. Indeed, a historian's job is nothing else if not to help the world to slow down and just remember.

Mickey Mouse History, Section III Review

Historic preservation is the new black.

As we have already seen in past readings, historic preservation took the back seat following the American Revolution. This was soon remedied however as the subject would eventually become a hobby of the elite or affluent and the 1880s saw the first real advance in preservation as individuals who felt personal ties to their historic structures wanted to maintain them. Wallace lists four groups of Preservation Pioneers who spearheaded this historic movement into the 20th century. 1906 witnessed the first real intervention by Congress into historic preservation as the Antiquities Act was signed into law. But the past of historic preservation is littered with ups and downs and the Roaring Twenties indeed saw it being put on the back burner to new and exciting contemporary attitudes. Preservation bounced back again with the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and again in the 1960s with individuals protesting the bulldozing of historic buildings and neighborhoods. What Wallace calls "adaptive reuse" finds its place in the 1960s as well with corporations now using historic developments for commercial use. However, Wallace's view of historic preservation's sworn enemy (Reagan, of course) would come to power in the 1980s and the budget to preservation concerns were cut. As a result, the National Trust sought to coalesce with the real estate market which, as Wallace notes, is a mistake. Instead, Wallace feels the best bet would be to join up with other proactive groups like civil rights groups and environmentalists.

While I could see how this may prove beneficial, I feel that to ally too far to the right or too far to the left will isolate your cause and appeal to just one group. Since not everyone is really concerned with environmental, civil rights, or public housing issues, the message may be lost on many. Wallace seems intent on bringing issues of class struggle in on every essay. He criticizes programs that saved developments at the expense of converting them into housing which became too expensive for minorities and the poor. In the same breath, he complains of bulldozing which "rammed" roads through historic districts as the "growth coalition seemed to revel in leveling the past" (p. 186). Pick your battles, Wallace.

Mickey Mouse History, Section IV Review

Ronald Reagan, The Great Communicator Liar

Wallace begins his tirade on Ronald Reagan by blasting him so relentlessly and subjectively, it leaves one to wonder where, if anywhere, he got his facts. This would not be very difficult if he supplied his accusations with evidence. Wallace claims largely that Reagan attempted to rewrite the past by, first of all, replacing a picture of Thomas Jefferson in the White House with another. To Wallace, it was all downhill from here. Subject to the Hollywood that was his environment for so long, Reagan supposedly was so influenced from starring in movies during the era following the Second World War that he used it all as justification for American involvement in foreign affairs and also served to skew his view of the nation in general. While it is certainly plausible to believe that there are many out there who are slanted by movies, it is downright baseless to say that Reagan was such. One really begins to wonder where Wallace's priorities lie, especially in light of the blatantly hurtful words he uses throughout his treatise. This was not just a statement about the supposed bastardization of history by the Great Communicator, this was a borderline verbal attack.

In his second article, Wallace uses the controversy surrounding the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian NASM as his focus. He investigates the problematic roller coaster that curators went on with trying to best portray the events of August 1945. He discusses the problems museums have in general now of having to deal with opposing views over a given topic and finally, with a blanketed statement, says that museums just should not worry about it so much and should have a variety of viewpoints regardless of potential public backlash. Naturally, this is much easier said than done, especially when funding of museums is already not what it used to be.

A Narrative for Our Time Review

... and after that, question mark?

It is difficult to exactly understand the point of Post's post. What begins as a telling story about the trials and tribulations of the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum gradually progresses into a tirade of right and wrong and downplaying of facts in a museum display that he clearly feels should be littered with controversy ad nauseam.

It seemed as if Smithsonian's attempt at displaying the famous (infamous?) B29 Superfortress that delivered the first atomic bomb over Japan was doomed from the beginning. Although it certainly seemed as if it had the best of intentions initially. The exhibit's originator, Martin Harwit felt that a display of the Enola Gay could both pay tribute to veterans while visiting the brutality resulting in the bombings of the two Japanese cities. However, lack of revising the original script for the exhibit brought it to the forefront of national attention and stood to ruin the careers of its players and the reputation of its home, the NASM.

With Harwit's resignation clearly suggested by his new boss, Heyman, he would later publish a book accusing the NASM of being a propaganda machine while claiming that history could be told however one wishes for the right price. This did not seem too far from the truth. Heyman's threats to bring the federal funding for the museum to nil certainly had to have had at least some impact on the rather politically correct spin the exhibit wound up with. Casualties were casually mentioned and alternative strategies for pressuring Japanese surrender were completely omitted.

So, what did end up on display was the front fuselage of the B29 with a label so disparaged of information that it left visitors to "fill in the blanks" (p 391). Post further critiques the display, stating that the "museum label [is] full of facts but empty of meaning" (p 391). Of course they are empty of meaning, they are facts. As such, they are not supposed to convey some message or controversial subject matter, they are just to be facts. Therefore they are dissolved of scrutiny. Another well-placed display on just the atomic bomb or perhaps a picture of the airplane in flight next to fuselage could have just as easily addressed the issues which Post brings up. So, in essence, I am agreeing with his argument that more should have been explained answering such crucial questions (why did the Enola Gay have such weak counter-weaponry, what was such a vessel which delivered such a grand weapon of destruction named after a mother) seemingly omitted out of the fact sheet underneath the Enola Gay, however, the barebone, moderate facts are certainly deserving of their place as well. Questionable or accusatory displays should be in the region, but not the main focus.

Post begins to conclude his treatise by lashing out at revisionism and quoting a book which states that strategic American bombing already ruined Japan's chances of continuing the war and thus hints that the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary. It's unfortunate Post makes this statement because what was a great story of an ill-fated exhibit which started with the best of intentions took a sharp turn towards Post subtly pushing his own feelings about the subject and doing so poorly. His quoted text, Flight: 100 Years of Aviation, is indeed nothing more than a picture book which discusses the topic of the atomic bomb in, literally, one page. Moreover, it makes no mention of the warnings Japan received prior to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am not critiquing Post for making an argument in an article--that is often an article's purpose--however, I feel a highly-revered individual as one who has worked on two dozen exhibits at the Smithsonian (p 373) could find a better source to cite to support his claim than a book which is quite literally the headcheese of aviation history, stuffing one-hundred years of flight's past into four-hundred and forty aesthetically pleasing pages.

Ultimately, the story of the Enola Gay exhibit is one in which there seemed to be no win, at least at its inception. The attempt to do what is right--show both sides of the atomic bomb controversy--was certainly the right idea but its poor execution went uncontested until it was too late. How were they to know this, though, without actually having it out the door? Its revision, of course, was so lacking that it was borderline extreme. It is understandable here how curators suffer with the debacle of avoiding offensive topics while challenging visitors to think beyond just the facts, especially in a museum carrying the distinction as the world's most visited, as the NASM is.

American Memory, Culture Wars, and the Challenge of Presenting Science and Technology in a National Museum Review

Stuck between an exhibit and a hard place.

As a chairman at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, Roger D. Launius offers a great perspective on controversial exhibits, especially those proposed in his own museum. Launius first discusses American’s varied views and uses of the past. Using Rosenweig and Thelen’s claims in Presence of the Past, he examines how Americans do not use history in a generalized and global fashion, but in fact relate to it personally. For example, studies over individuals going through exhibits over the history of aviation found families overlooking certain portions of the exhibit while focusing on an airplane design a grandparent may have helped build or a World War II aircraft a relative flew. Similarly, Vietnam veterans went directly to a display concerning the war and discussed it with other veterans while, again, ignoring other parts of the exhibit.

Launius also touches on the history of the collective American consciousness viewing its place in the world as a good power attempting to battle the rest of the world’s evils. Following events such as the Vietnam world and the end of the Cold War, this mentality has become more liberal with the advent of civil and women’s rights. Still, it remains a myth in American society that its role is that of an “Innocent Nation” and this belief was only perpetuated with the terrorist attacks and the subsequent feeling of patriotism after September 11, 2001.

The National History Standards established a basis for how history should be taught in grades K-12. This was scrutinized, however, for focusing too much on the struggles of minorities while embellishing on the shortcomings and mistreatment by white males. The education of history, it was argued—and eventually signed into law in Florida—was to be refined so as to focus more on positive aspects of American history and, as Lynne Cheney suggests, shy away from the political correctness.

This term rears its ugly head again in the discussion of museums, which Heather MacDonald summarized as overly characterized by economic, racial, and capitalist pitfalls. She proposed, of course, a curatorial blood purge of the Smithsonian to allow the institution to get back on the right track of a more centralized view of history. Indeed, it is certainly important for one of the world’s most highly revered museums to get it right as they play such a key role as contributors to “American’s public identity” (p 20).

What Launius makes apparent is the importance of American mindset and consciousness and how to best represent it. Concluding his article with a “Top Ten” list of exhibits in the world’s most visited museum that could-be but won’t-be, he provides a great example of the potential consequences and backlash of such displays in a museum. This insight is especially important to students of public history as it allows one to see the process involved in articulating an idea for an exhibit. Indeed, it is not as easy to simply have an idea and execute it, even with a simple topic such as life on other planets as this could insult those who do not believe in evolution or an examination of the moon landing as this would hastily give conspiracy theorists far too much attention.

While it is undoubtedly important to avoid stepping on as many toes as possible when designing an exhibit, it is unfortunate that potentially great opportunities to inform the general public of a topic cannot go unabashed for fear of harming the institution’s image or insulting visitors. In a nation that is so evenly split down the middle between liberal and conservative views, it is no doubt a safe bet that individuals will be offended no matter what type of compromise is attempted, such is the case with the Enola Gay. Apparently, as admitted by Launius, the only way to truly avoid this "fear of cultural warfare" (p 29) is to avoid controversial topics altogether. However, the issue then becomes that museums are not approaching new and diverse subjects, they are merely exhibiting what visitors already know and what they are comfortable with. Thus, as we have already seen in Written in Stone, it is seemingly a no-win situation.

Mickey Mouse History Review

Section I

Visiting the Past: History Museums in the United States

For years, historic preservation was a task left to society's elite. This is evidenced especially with the large turnaround Henry Ford had, transcending from an individual with large disdain for the past to someone who hoarded literally every historic artifact he could find while having antique buildings trucked in. Greenville Village, as it was known, became a "hodge-podge" of history, Ford's attempt to remind Americans what life was like before the war to end all wars. Ford rephrased his previous claim of history, now just stating that only history as taught in schools was bunk--an argument echoed by professors at this university ad nauseum. However, Ford's massive museum was clearly slanted. Omitting wars, politics, banks and lawyers, his "utopia" was chided for being anticapitalist.

Conversely, John D. Rockefeller's Colonial Williamsburg was far from the miscellaneous cluster of preservation that Ford had assembled. Indeed, Rockefeller envisioned a pristine mock up of his colonial town which was so precise, it arguably bordered on fanaticism. Where Ford appeared anti-capitalist, Rockefeller was nothing but, constructed from the top-down to reiterate notions of a corporate ideology.

A boost in historic preservation saw staunch criticisms of Rockefeller's work, most notably that is was ridiculously historically inaccurate. To counter this, initiatives were spearheaded by preservationists to make such sites as accurate as possible, even down to the flies, slaves and pig feces that blotted the colonial living space Rockefeller so poorly duplicated.

The Living Historical Farm movement grew as a result of "static" environments like that of Rockefeller's. Actors in these areas actually lived in the houses to further legitimize the colonial accuracy for which the movement strived. In the 1970s, slavery was even included using local black actors. Still, even in living history as accurate as these, notions such as politics and capitalism were as overlooked as they were when Ford built his village. Conclusively, Wallace deems using history in this way condemns it to a source of entertainment and nostalgia which insightful trivia and little else. In this manner, it could not be used as a tool to understand and change the present which, arguably, is history's purpose.

This is certainly a notable argument. With just the first chapter, what becomes apparent is the evolution of mainstream history as a hobby of the affluent to a topic of controversy of what should and should not be represented about an historic society and to what extent. Undoubtedly, any living history museum takes a risk by literally incorporating slavery into their acts. Nevertheless, this is especially important if such a museum truly wants its visitors to get a real "feel" of the era represented.

Similar affluent dominance and influence over museums is also reflected in the history of New York's exhibits. The need for diversity in the Empire State's museums was not just a matter of accurate and varied representation, however. Indeed, it also grew out of a need for a central location that allowed a struggling community torn asunder by crime to recognize its commonalities. So, giving all cultures, races and topics its place in museums was doubly crucial.

Twentieth century New York saw rampant changes in museums. Exhibits emerged representing black, Jewish and Hispanic cultures and heritage. Conversely, those who failed to get on board eventually faded into obscurity and had to close shop, such is the case with the New York Historical Society in 1993 whose community eventually turned its back on it just as it had done so to its community for so long. Thus what becomes evident is the large importance diversity has in museums in what has, for lack of a better word, become a seemingly cutthroat institution. And rightfully so. A museum fits the needs of its "customers" by providing them with accurate, assorted histories. If a museum repeatedly fails to meet expectations, especially in a late 20th century nation, it is unrealistic for it to survive.

Even Ellis Island saw controversy as it too was misrepresenting a variety of cultures and also tiptoed around provocative issues such as immigration, going so far as to cover the topic in an entirely different exhibit and having a rather one-sided approach.

So far, Wallace's approach borders on the message of caution. He brings to light some very key issues with warnings. For example, history must not become a form of entertainment. Also, it is apparent the dangers when an historical society is overly run by affluent: historical inaccuracies run amuck and other events or notions of the past are just overlooked. The NYHS especially serves as a clear example of what can happen to a museum when it fails to become contemporary and broad. Wallace also notes the incredible importance of museums as they emerged from a hobby to a cornerstone in a community. They provide a sense of commonality in an urban area or allow individuals to come and learn their or another's past. Thus, it is crucial that museums get it right as their responsibility and obligation is only growing.

Paradise Lost? Review: Introduction, Chapters 12 & 16

Introduction

The introduction briefly covers the diverse history of Florida. It describes the state as a vast area rich with wildlife and an incredible environment that settles first found when discovering Florida. Naturally, a nod to the futile search for the Fountain of Youth is mentioned as well. During the past 100 years, Florida has transcended from a plush “land of diversities” into the nation’s fourth largest state. Interestingly, this was due largely to a mixture of the roaring 1920s, post World War II prosperity, and the advent of the air conditioner. Indeed, the latter transformed the previous six-month tourist season into a year-round affair. The perfected drudge-and-fill process also made Florida more habitable, turning land into water and vice-versa. Carelessness led to irreversible scarring of Florida’s once paradisaical landscape. Now, campus oaks older than the university itself exist simply because man chooses for it to exist. The Everglades run on what is quite literally a life support system.

With a summarized look into the vast floral, fauna bird, and wild life, it is easy to see after just a few pages into this unappealing look into what Florida has become where the book’s title originated. The moral of Florida’s environmental history could perhaps best be summarized with the classic cliché: everything in moderation. While any sort of human contact would have undoubtedly scarred Florida’s environment, excessive construction and manipulation took its toll beyond any desired effect to the extent that environmentalists and politicians alike are trying to right its wrongs.


Chapter 12
Lake Apopka: From Natural Wonder to Unnatural Disaster
Nano Riley

Long ago, Lake Apopka—just north of Orlando—was once described as one of Florida’s most beautiful lakes. Once the state’s second largest lake, in the early 1900s it was touted for having water so clear, one could easily see the fish. Five decades of human activity, however, transformed the lake into literally a cesspool.

The first transgression against Apopka came in the 1920s with the local dumping of raw sewage and wastewater. However, this was just the first in a series of environmental disasters. Fears of food shortage during the Second World War would spark the Army Corps of Engineers to build a levee to drain 20,000 acres of the lake for farming. As a result of this tampering, the water’s color became green and an abundance of nutrients gave rise to algae and other plants, which in turn ruined the fish population. For the next five decades, farmers were allowed to use their part of the drained lake while the remaining 30,000 acres were used for drainage and dump-offs.

Attention to Lake Apopka came in recent years when environmentalists noticed a severe drop in the alligator population. Further examination showed that many of the male alligators had not developed sexually while others were not properly gender-defined at all. Alligators were not the only victims, however, as fish in adjoining lakes suffered abnormalities as well.

As it seemed like the pollution was getting out of hand, environmental activists and groups emerged and started to work together. A massive joint effort was established by the year 2000, 90% of the acreage belonging to farmers had been collectively bought out for the price tag of one $100 million. Gradually, the lake began to be flooded by to its original glory, but an old concentration of chemicals in the restored lake led to the death of over 1,000 birds. It would later be determined that this was the result of poisoned fish from said chemicals such as DDT.

The effects of the restoration effort reached beyond just birds and fish, however. Indeed, many farmers were without jobs. Families who lived on these farms were without other skills. The relocation program provided them did not leave them with adequate housing.

An investigation was eventually opened up and laid ultimate blame on the St. Johns River Water Management District. In an agreement settled in court, the United States agreed not to file criminal charges in exchange for them to comply under several rules and regulations that involved maintaining the lake and its wildlife in addition to educating other water districts regarding wildlife laws.

Currently, the lake’s restoration is still undergoing. Certainly, fifty years of damage cannot be undone immediately. While the story of Lake Apopka serves as a reminder as to what can happen when mankind messes with nature, it is also a testament to the ability of individuals to correct its environmental wrongdoings.


Chapter 16
“The Big Ditch”
The Rise and Fall of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal
Lee Irby

The story of the Cross-Florida barge canal is quite literally a roller coaster. Originating in the 16th century, lack of funds or support impeded its construction. The canal did not receive a large boost until after the Depression whereupon advocates of the project promised “unemployment relief” as a benefit to building the canal. Clearly, putting idle men to work as a definite perk at the time.

The plans to build went so far as to even have a clear route designed. Still, the proposal involved clearing a path through the pristine Ocklawaha River, known for its beauty to the extent that even natural dignitaries traveled its water on sightseeing tours. Railroad industries would also suffer and spoke out against the canal. Moreover, lobbyists touted the damage that could be done to the Floridan Aquifer used as drinking water. Indeed, the tainting of water by outside salt water would seem inevitable.

However, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt obviously saw the perks behind the canal and construction began in 1935. In 1936, however, a group called the Central and South Florida Water Conservation Committee pressured for construction to be delayed so that a more comprehensive study on the environmental impact of constructing the canal could be done. This is testament to the impact that environmentalism began to have. Thus the initial $5 million approved by FDR to begin construction would be the last dollar spent for another thirty years.

The Cold War years again saw the importance of a canal. So did John F. Kennedy who used the canal as a campaign platform to gain votes in Florida, at this time the nation’s twelfth largest state. Kennedy kept his promise and after election, construction again began on the barge canal. By 1971, however, a constant back and forth battle between environmentalists with the construction would cease as President Richard Nixon would issue an executive order, done so because of potential environmental impacts.

While this would be the end of the canal, it was not the end of the environmental struggle. Marjorie Carr and others who worked tirelessly to combat the building of the canal now served as advocates to the restoration of the Ocklawaha River and forests which were damaged by the construction, going so far as to address Florida Governor Jeb Bush who advocated restoration of the famous river by 2006.

Written in Stone Review

In Written in Stone, Stanford Levinson looks at a variety of ways in which historic figures are remembered in the public eye and some of the surrounding controversy. Discussing a range of examples from a typical monument or statue to even street names and flags, Levinson points out the different ways that such controversies are handled and discusses methods to perhaps find that happy medium.

Levinson first notes how statues from Russian regimes are regularly removed or torn down following a successive regime. Similarly, Albania attempted to erase any history related to Enver Hoxha. Scholarly debates are abound over keeping monuments. One solution is to construct a current monument in contrast to one already in place so as to show both sides of a debated event. The sensitivity over such issues is certainly validated. An immediate impression of monuments is that they serve not only to stand as a reminder of an individual or an event, but do so in a glorified statement. Indeed, that is its definition.

The discussion over the Confederate flag dominated Levinson's book and rightfully so as it is a topic for debate even today. But memorializing the Confederacy extends beyond just flying the flag; monuments play a key role in how the Civil War is remembered. The monument in Texas, for example, is understandably controversial especially in regard to its rather skewed plaque which claims Southern failure on overwhelming numbers instead of the Confederate's own shortcomings.

One solution to questionable monuments is incorporating accurate explanations of the atrocities committed onto the plaque of said monument. Another method used by Hungary involved placing statues of Communist figures in a centralized location for visitors to come and learn about them. I feel this is the best solution as it allows the history to remain and be learned from while "de-glorifying" it. I would argue that one of the best ways to get a true understanding for the impact an individual had on history is to see that as a consequence of his actions, he was important enough to have a statue built in his honor by his followers. This drives home the point that such a figure was once highly revered and teaches the lessons which are so important for historians to drive home--to learn from the past.

Presence of the Past Review

In Presence of the Past, Rosenzweig and Thelen compiled a national study of individuals in order to have a better understanding of how history is used at the interpersonal level in day-to-day life. The authors drew from a sample that consisted of a variety of ethnic backgrounds. While the project was certainly important and ambitious, a pool of just 1500 individuals interviewed seems a bit shy to truly get an understanding on the national level of how history is utilized, especially in relation to the American population as a whole.

What I found particularly noteworthy and as a good testament to the importance of personal, microscopic interpretations of history was how one individual may perceive an event differently from another. While this may seem obvious or cliche, it develops a different sentiment in light of historical context. Indeed, such personal reflection is almost certainly overlooked by history teachers or textbooks which presents events in broad, sweeping descriptions (page 38).

Also important and especially interesting is the obvious distinctions between white Americans and other ethnic Americans and how they use history. While whites tend to relate history to their family backgrounds, blacks and Native Americans relate it to not only their families, but their communities as a whole. This seems consistent to a minority mindset. Obviously, being seen and treated as an outcast will undoubtedly create stronger family ties as well as community ties. Still, to see such a mentality perpetrate itself even to the extent as to how such individuals relate to their past seems particularly fascinating.

The Afterthoughts section helps to bring the previous chapters together in a conclusive format. There seems to be a cautious responsibility and obligation for historians to insure that history remains accurate while also moving it beyond the walls of the university and into the public in a professional and accurate yet understandable and relating format that is digestible by the layperson.