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.
I think the idea that it's the people who decide what gets saved is definitely a piece of what Glassberg is trying to show. BUT if it's the people making decisions without regulation, then memory will trump history AND each generation will place their memory above the others. Seems like a pretty good endorsement for governmental regulation and control.
ReplyDeleteThe point about different communities viewing their history differently is a good one, and I wish I had brought it up in my post. In addition to outsider's perspectives of a community being different than how the community views itself, it shows that communities define their history in a way that they can relate to, which can sometimes be problematic.
ReplyDeleteYour interpretation of the article over presentation of the new england era is good when it address different groups think different things in their town is important. I thought that was an important part of the article. I found it interesting that some of the townsmembers did not like the colonial look and found other parts of the town important that people did not think to look at. Especially in New England, it is important to remember that a town changes with time and history moves with it. New versions of historic play into importance depending on the era and a town cannot stay only representing one kind of history and remain static.
ReplyDeleteI agree, history (especially local history) is determined by the community. The challenge may arise depending on who tells the story and what side they are tellin it is great when a community can come together and contribute various parts to the history. Glassberg definitely demonstated a community's effect on history.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and the other commenters that communities will use history to their own advantage, with both positive and negative results. Also, you capture nicely the ironies of doing historical work in a place like California that, despite the fact that it has an old and respectable history, has gained the reputation of a place without a past. In Oregon, California's supposed lack of history is sometimes used to denigrate the state, quite unfairly.
ReplyDeleteI think it is apparent from the responses that Meg nailed the point the Glasberg chapters. I wonder if its always such a bad thing to appropriate history in the constructing of our modern identities. It seems to me that nostalgia, which may carry generational significance at best, sells tickets to museums and funds preservation projects. How can we profit from this personalization of history while maintaining sound pedagogy?
ReplyDelete