Celebration Sensation!

The Bodnar article examines how the country celebrated the Centennial of the Civil War and the Bicentennial of the American Revolution. Both of these events occurred during a time of political unrest and national unease, and the committees created to organize these celebrations hoped to instill a sense of unity amongst Americans again. The words unity, loyalty, and patriotism were used frequently throughout this article. For the Civil War Centennial, the committee tried to promote the theme of heroism in conjunction with the war in an effort to avoid remembrance of a time of disunity and regionalism. Their definition of heroism had to do with loyalty to authority, to sacrifices for patriotic efforts. The Civil War was about much more than patriotic duty, and citizens recognized this. As we’ve talked about in class multiple times, one can’t consider the Civil War seriously without addressing the issue of race. The Centennial occurred in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement, and different groups reacted to the celebrations in diverse ways. Some were hopeful about the progress that has been made, while others recognized that the country has a long way to go in terms of racial equality. The latter belief was exemplified during the commission’s National Assembly in 1961 when blacks were not allowed to stay in a Charleston hotel. This reiterates the point that we cannot gloss over racial issues in relation to the Civil War. Trying to celebrate its end with ideas of heroism and unity romanticizes the past and the glory of war.

The Bicentennial was a little easier to sell on the symbol of unity and patriotism. Again, the commission promoted the themes of consensus and pride in our country. The strategy here was to encourage communities to look to the past, present, and future: to recognize where we have been, where we are now, and where we want to go. The goal was to get ordinary citizens involved in local celebrations that were connected to the larger themes of patriotism and unity. Overall, this goal was achieved as communities across the county participated in the celebration. People enjoy celebrating history on a local level because it makes them feel more connected to a shared past. Though the overarching goal was to get communities to focus more on the “official expressions of patriotism” (Bodnar, 238), people were drawn to the localized level. It hits closer to home and makes history more personal.

The Glassberg chapter provides more localized examples of civic celebration, showcasing how diverse groups can pull together to celebrate a community and its history. The example of the Portola Festival in San Francisco demonstrates how a celebration can be politically charged, as it was held in the hopes that the organizers would regain power over the labor unions. Though the countrywide celebrations of the Centennial and the Bicentennial also had political goals (to reunite an estranged population), the Portola Festival was more overt. One begins to wonder it’s even possible to separate the politics from the pageantry on this level. 

Written in Stone.

Professor Levinson’s book, “Written in Stone,” addresses the significance of symbols in society. He focuses primarily on the influence of monuments and flags throughout history. His prose, snarky at times, is engaging and opinionated, though it does seem to meander a little aimlessly on occasion. One of his main questions asks how we are to deal with symbols that offend a specific population. What event or person is worth the legitimacy a monument provides? While reading, I kept thinking back to our first day of class and the statue of Onate and the controversy surrounding it. That statue symbolizes something that means different things to different groups. Should it be taken down because it offends one, or should it remain standing to represent a part of our country’s past that we can’t erase? The tearing down of old monuments as new regimes are put in place is one way to try and deal with a troubling history. But in another sense, it is equivalent to a “cultural death,” denying future generations the opportunity to analyze what was once considered worthy of memorialization, whether or not it is still considered as such. Levinson’s view is that we should not destroy these pieces of the past, but rather, consider where they would be appropriately housed. He also believes that these kinds of decisions should be made locally on a case-to-case basis, not by the federal government. I tend to agree.

I thought it was interesting as he delved into different countries’ ways of dealing with the more unsavory topics from the past. In Budapest, they have taken all the statues (save one) having to deal with Communist rule and moved them to a Statue Park Museum. Levinson contemplates whether this kind of idea would work for Confederate memorabilia. Housing the flag in a museum would place it in a much different context than flying it from the top of a government building. Objects in a museum are seen in a different light than objects displayed in public space. Museums suggest to the public that an item is static, a piece of the past, whereas when it is visible from the highway, blowing in the breeze, it seems a more vital part of the present. Levinson asks whether we can consider this act unconstitutional.

Glassberg also contemplates the interpretation of a memorial and what it means to the people who view it. His example of the WWI memorial in Orange, MA shows how a community can bring a national message to a local level, giving it their own spin. Their monument, with its emphasis on the loss that is part of war rather than the victory, expands the definition of patriotism. The community is reminded of the costs associated with war, and it can be used as an educational opportunity for the future. Because the community decided how the memorial would be presented, it says something about the views of that group of people. Glassberg and Levinson both believe that this is how it should be: a message from the local community and not the federal government.  

The Place of the Past.

The readings for this week continue to focus on preservation and restoration projects, and we have our first encounter with conservation practices. In the chapter, “Rethinking New England Town Character,” Glassberg recounts a study he conducted in three towns in Massachusetts. The trend has been to restore New England towns to look old, to revert to a romanticized past and cling to historical aspects. What he learned from the study is that the members of each community have diverse interpretations on what they consider important aspects to their town’s history. In the community of Northfield, what was considered historically significant varied from neighborhood to neighborhood. Diversity becomes an issue in McKnight, as different racial groups value different eras of history; the ‘town character’ is hard to pin down. In the town of Wilbraham, Glassberg notes that outsiders do not feel any sense of community upon visiting the town, but the residents speak to the contrary. I think one of Glassberg’s points is that history is going to change as time marches on. What people value today, they may not care about in fifty years, and the town’s sense of place will reflect that.

“Making History in California” is interesting for its title. It made me think again about the definition of history and how we choose to preserve or restore. We are making history, making choices about what will be remembered and what will be lost. California is the ultimate place for placelessness. It has a storied history of people moving there in search of something better, from the Gold Rush to the Great Depression, up to today as would-be actors go out to get their big breaks. It was never really considered home. The Native Daughters sought to change this around the turn of the century as they began their project to mark historic sites. Many groups followed this trend, placing their own name on plaques along with the place being commemorated. In this way, they claimed a part of the history of the place. The Antiquities Act, discussed in the Waldbauer and Hutt article, played an important role in the conservation of history in California as groups sought to preserve the sequoias and the redwoods. The Act gave the people some power over the future of these resources, therefore involving them in the history of the state.

In the end, the community decides what history they will make. They decide what to preserve, restore, and conserve based on their own opinions of what’s worth saving. The public makes and shapes history, and Glassberg makes this clear in these chapters.