Tuesday, November 27, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, November 5, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)