In the book The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History, David Lowenthal aims to distinguish the difference between history and heritage by looking more in depth to the meanings of the two things by giving examples of all sorts to help the reader realize that although the two are linked and are routes into the past, they are “habitually confused with each other” (X.) Before reading this I would have assumed that heritage and history were of the same category and that it was a compilation of past events and facts when come to find out heritage is a compilation of all sorts of things that celebrate and represent the past whether it be memories, cultural traditions, homes, people, artifacts, etc. Also it is composed of less concrete things such as kinship, faith, language, words, feelings etc. In reality it is a very difficult word to define. When looking up a quick definition of the meaning of heritage online I encountered the same varying definition in Lowenthal’s book.
In one of the chapters Lowenthal focuses on one’s personal relationship with heritage. This chapter made me question what I thought my heritage IS or what I know about it. I was baffled to realize that as far as knowing my ancestors further back from my grandparents I know very little other than names. I do not know where they lived, what their religion was, what they did for a living, what items may have been important to them etc. I am curious now to know the answers to these questions because maybe some of it is of some significance to me as well as to the world? Maybe my great grandfather was a soldier in World War I and saved a lot of people or was the owner of a popular business during his time. I have no idea!
It is evident from the reading as well as from my own experiences that heritage is being lost. People know less of their own past and some of those who even know these details do not realize the meaning and neglect to celebrate such great things. One’s knowledge about wood carving could be the result of his/her great-great-great someone and never know that this skill has actually been passed down from generation to generation.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Cavalcade of America - "The Will to Rebuild"
Cavalcade Of America was a radio show that broadcasted from the 1930’s to the 1950’s. The show depicts various historical events using characters with strong feelings if optimism and initiative. The characters in the episodes are generally everyday people who lived through the event and events are told through simple dialogue.
The episode that I listened to was titled, “The Will to Rebuild” and first aired on October 30, 1935. This episode focused on two historical events that took place in California: the Sacramento fire of 1852 and the major Dust Storm of 1935. The “will to rebuild” was the focus of both stories. The Sacramento fire of 1852 was a tragic event in which nearly every single building in the city was reduced to ashes. People were homeless and without jobs and left with absolutely nothing to their name. The story was told by a local resident of the city and he had the optimism and desire to rebuild the city they had lost. It was a heart-felt episode in which one individual helped to spark the rebuilding process of one of the biggest cities in California. The second event described was the dust storm of 1935 and was told through the dialogue of a family who lived through the storm. The father and son of the story came home from the town drugstore one night and got stuck in the storm. Vivid descriptions of the roaring wind and the circling dust were made. There was no sun, no rain and no way out. Henry and his little Jimmy had to walk home covering their faces from the harsh wind/dust trying to breathe as best as they could. It was a hard time for many. Little Jimmy could not go to school and Mary (Henry’s wife) could do nothing but stay inside the house. Even so, Henry was optimistic that everything would be fine and that they would re-plant their crops as soon as the dust settled and rain appeared. For 5 long days the height of the dust storm prevailed and it was said to be the “worst the southwest had ever seen.” On the 6th day the sun shone giving a sense of hope but even so the dust remained for another 2 months until one day rain fell. Henry with all his optimism knew it would rain, and when it did the town re-planted their crops.
This episode did not really tell all the facts about the actual events it meant to portray. Yes, the episode did mention two of California’s past struggles that they had to deal with as a state and it described when and where they occurred and how people felt but there was not a lot of detail given about how for example did Sacramento actually re-build their city, or why it was such an important city to re-build so quickly in the first place. Also, did anyone die in the tragedy? Most assumptions would lead the listener to think YES but there was no reference to the tragedies at all. Also, during the second event described in the episode, many feelings and descriptions of a day in the life of a single family living through the dust storm was told. This was good for the listener to get a good idea of what took place but again there was no reference to when the dust storm actually started and did it just appear one day or was it a gradual even that took time to worsen? Also, over how much area did this dust storm affect? Did anyone die? Did people move or did they withstand the torture? How did this affect families economically? These are questions that I think people may be curious about.
Was this radio show meant to inform the listener historically or was it meant more for general entertainment? From this particular episode I would think the show means to inform but with the basics and is formatted the way it is to allow the audience to relate to the people telling the stories. My opinion could change based on listening to other episodes about different historical events.
The episode that I listened to was titled, “The Will to Rebuild” and first aired on October 30, 1935. This episode focused on two historical events that took place in California: the Sacramento fire of 1852 and the major Dust Storm of 1935. The “will to rebuild” was the focus of both stories. The Sacramento fire of 1852 was a tragic event in which nearly every single building in the city was reduced to ashes. People were homeless and without jobs and left with absolutely nothing to their name. The story was told by a local resident of the city and he had the optimism and desire to rebuild the city they had lost. It was a heart-felt episode in which one individual helped to spark the rebuilding process of one of the biggest cities in California. The second event described was the dust storm of 1935 and was told through the dialogue of a family who lived through the storm. The father and son of the story came home from the town drugstore one night and got stuck in the storm. Vivid descriptions of the roaring wind and the circling dust were made. There was no sun, no rain and no way out. Henry and his little Jimmy had to walk home covering their faces from the harsh wind/dust trying to breathe as best as they could. It was a hard time for many. Little Jimmy could not go to school and Mary (Henry’s wife) could do nothing but stay inside the house. Even so, Henry was optimistic that everything would be fine and that they would re-plant their crops as soon as the dust settled and rain appeared. For 5 long days the height of the dust storm prevailed and it was said to be the “worst the southwest had ever seen.” On the 6th day the sun shone giving a sense of hope but even so the dust remained for another 2 months until one day rain fell. Henry with all his optimism knew it would rain, and when it did the town re-planted their crops.
This episode did not really tell all the facts about the actual events it meant to portray. Yes, the episode did mention two of California’s past struggles that they had to deal with as a state and it described when and where they occurred and how people felt but there was not a lot of detail given about how for example did Sacramento actually re-build their city, or why it was such an important city to re-build so quickly in the first place. Also, did anyone die in the tragedy? Most assumptions would lead the listener to think YES but there was no reference to the tragedies at all. Also, during the second event described in the episode, many feelings and descriptions of a day in the life of a single family living through the dust storm was told. This was good for the listener to get a good idea of what took place but again there was no reference to when the dust storm actually started and did it just appear one day or was it a gradual even that took time to worsen? Also, over how much area did this dust storm affect? Did anyone die? Did people move or did they withstand the torture? How did this affect families economically? These are questions that I think people may be curious about.
Was this radio show meant to inform the listener historically or was it meant more for general entertainment? From this particular episode I would think the show means to inform but with the basics and is formatted the way it is to allow the audience to relate to the people telling the stories. My opinion could change based on listening to other episodes about different historical events.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Catching the Public Eye!
Tyrrell and Brinkley both write about history being a distant topic from the general public and both investigate reasons for why this may be the case. Some may attribute this to the idea that something is “wrong” with history but I rather agree with a statement given by Tyrrell in which he states, “Historians have – despite the mythology – long been engaged with public audiences but the particular audiences engaged have changed over time.” This one phrase sums up a lot. Today for example, many interested in learning about the past turn to the infamous History Channel on television. Why you ask? It is both entertaining and sometimes viewers can somehow connect to what they are watching. Now this obviously is not always the most scholarly form of learning history but it does give the raw facts necessary to understand a past event. Before television existed it can be inferred that the reading of text by the public was much higher. So like Tyrrell states, history and the way it has been presented by its scholars is not necessarily wrong, its audience has just changed and therefore scholars need to accommodate their text to reach out and catch the eye of the ever changing audience. What captured the minds of individuals in the 1920’s probably will not do the same to individuals today!
As far as audience goes, I do feel in a way that I am the kind of audience that the historians in the readings are trying to reach. Yes, I may be an undergraduate college student studying History and fit into that category that Brinkley considers the “undergraduate classroom” (1027) but at the same time I believe I am part of the general public that many times refuses to read a majority of works written by academic scholars because I am simply disinterested, especially when something is written very far in the past. Yes, this may be more scholarly in some terms but it is just not interesting to generations today.
The way in which history is written, I believe is a key player in attracting any individual audience. If a text, whether it be book, journal, essay etc. is written using complex language in which a reader has to retreat to a dictionary every few words to look up a definition or search on Wikipedia to find the jist of what a word means in context, readers are going to be turned off by what they are reading. There is no doubt that this especially happens with the general public. I believe that a lot of historians present their topics/case with very precise and intelligent information giving little connection for the general reader to relate to. For example, I know someone who has a historical writing class this semester and one of the required texts is Constitutional Law by authors Sullivan and Gunther and contains about 1370 pages dealing with various constitutional and Supreme Court cases that have been significant in the history of the United States. Now as informational and great this book may be, general readers are going to be turned away from this text the second they see how large the binding is and when they flip through the pages to realize the pages are phone book thin filled with less than 12 pt. font. I think that if historians want to reach the general public they need to consider a few things such as: What will entertain my reader? How can I make this text informational AND appealing? Is there a way to create personal connections with the reader? Considering these things as well as many other factors I believe could greatly increase public interest! Even Alan Brinkley questioned this in his article in a similar fashion asking “How do academics make the work they consider important seem interesting and significant to others?” (1029)
Question to think about: What big name historians are out there that do catch the public eye? Are there any? If so, how do they catch the snag?
As far as understanding the past, how do I understand the past? I would have to say initially I do tend to look toward the works of academic scholars and then when I come across their works being too intellectual and tedious I immediately turn to other forms of research such as works by less scholarly academics leading me to firsthand accounts of specific historical events by an author telling his/her story and what happened and what they saw and how it affected their lives.
As far as audience goes, I do feel in a way that I am the kind of audience that the historians in the readings are trying to reach. Yes, I may be an undergraduate college student studying History and fit into that category that Brinkley considers the “undergraduate classroom” (1027) but at the same time I believe I am part of the general public that many times refuses to read a majority of works written by academic scholars because I am simply disinterested, especially when something is written very far in the past. Yes, this may be more scholarly in some terms but it is just not interesting to generations today.
The way in which history is written, I believe is a key player in attracting any individual audience. If a text, whether it be book, journal, essay etc. is written using complex language in which a reader has to retreat to a dictionary every few words to look up a definition or search on Wikipedia to find the jist of what a word means in context, readers are going to be turned off by what they are reading. There is no doubt that this especially happens with the general public. I believe that a lot of historians present their topics/case with very precise and intelligent information giving little connection for the general reader to relate to. For example, I know someone who has a historical writing class this semester and one of the required texts is Constitutional Law by authors Sullivan and Gunther and contains about 1370 pages dealing with various constitutional and Supreme Court cases that have been significant in the history of the United States. Now as informational and great this book may be, general readers are going to be turned away from this text the second they see how large the binding is and when they flip through the pages to realize the pages are phone book thin filled with less than 12 pt. font. I think that if historians want to reach the general public they need to consider a few things such as: What will entertain my reader? How can I make this text informational AND appealing? Is there a way to create personal connections with the reader? Considering these things as well as many other factors I believe could greatly increase public interest! Even Alan Brinkley questioned this in his article in a similar fashion asking “How do academics make the work they consider important seem interesting and significant to others?” (1029)
Question to think about: What big name historians are out there that do catch the public eye? Are there any? If so, how do they catch the snag?
As far as understanding the past, how do I understand the past? I would have to say initially I do tend to look toward the works of academic scholars and then when I come across their works being too intellectual and tedious I immediately turn to other forms of research such as works by less scholarly academics leading me to firsthand accounts of specific historical events by an author telling his/her story and what happened and what they saw and how it affected their lives.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
This old-fashioned contraption is one of the first steam-powered fire truck in Michigan built in 1895. This truck is from Traverse City but currently resides in a glass case in the East Lansing vicinity in front of an insurance building. It was eventually replaced by the gas powered fire engine in the early 1900's.Historical questions about the site:
1. Who designed the truck and why was it significant?
2. How did this truck change society during its time period?
3. What was the power that this truck had? i.e How much water could the vehicle carry and what type of water pressure did it have?
4. What types of material was the truck made of and why?
5. From what time period to when was this truck utilized?
6. What was the durability of this contraption? Was there anything that it could not withstand?
7. Where was the truck first used?
Visitor questions about the site:
1. How old is the fire truck?
2. How sturdy is the vehicle?
3. How fast could it go?
4. Why is the truck now located in front of an insurance building instead of being in a museum?
5. How much water could the truck carry at one time?
6. How did fires get put out before the truck was built and used?
This photo was taken on the grounds of Michigan's capitol and is one of the first multi-conflict memorials. It was presented to the state of Michigan by the Veterans Organization on November 11, 1982. It stands to represent all of the major wars during the 20th century in which the U.S. was an active participant: World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. It recognizes the 1,399,000 men that died for our country.
Historical questions about the site:
1. Why is this memorial so significant?
2. What year was the memorial built?
3. Who funded the construction of the memorial?
4. Who designed the memorial and of what material is it made of?
Visitor questions about the site:
1. How many people lost their lives in these conflicts?
2. How much money did the memorial cost?
3. Why did they choose the capitol's grounds to dedicate this memorial?
This is a photo that I took in front of the Michigan Capitol. The Capitol is located in the heart of Lansing and is the third structure to serve as the symbolic and functional center of state government. It was built in 1878 at a cost of about $1.5 million dollars and in 1992 it was officially designated as a National Historic Landmark.
Historical Questions about the site:
1. Who designed Michigan's capitol (architect)? Is this person significant and why?
2. Why was the capitol moved to its permanent location in the city of Lansing?
3. What is the architectural design of the capitol and does this have anything to do with the time period?
4. How was the construction of the building funded?
5. Who painted the detailled dome located in the rotunda room? Is this characteristic of the original design of the building or was it added during the restoration period?
6. The capitol itself appears to be in great condition being built almost 132 year ago, how has it survived in this great condition?
Visitor Questions about the site:
1. How many rooms are in the Michigan capitol?
2. How much did it cost to build such a grand building?
3. Is the building a functional or symbolic site?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)