tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034927952176157131.post3219614603174765355..comments2014-04-08T23:18:12.089-07:00Comments on NCPH 2008 conference blog: Language, Emotion and Power: The Frustration and Exhilaration of Public HistoryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034927952176157131.post-20623908105061461792008-04-17T14:46:00.000-07:002008-04-17T14:46:00.000-07:00The seminar on the historical interpretation of th...The seminar on the historical interpretation of the Atomic Bomb offered a lively debate on the differences between the treatment of the subject at the Truman Library, Smithsonian, and Los Almos. The question of memorial or museum came up and one attendee questioned whether it should be the Smithsonian's goal to portray the history of the development and use of the bomb in an even-handed comprehensive way (to the extent that is even possible). <BR/><BR/>It was clear that the Smithsonian only provides a limited version of the story at this time, largely celebratory, and this led to a significant amount of consternation among the historians in attendance. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, no one seemed as concerned that the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials sit at the other end of the Mall with nary a mention of the complex histories behind those two individuals and their times.<BR/><BR/>It was explained that "those are memorials" and the Smithsonian is a "museum" and the two should be treated differently. Coming on the heels of the Linenthal speech, and John Barnes' excellent piece in the latest issue of the Public Historian on the Bear River Massacre, I was left to wonder whether such a distinction is appropriate or even possible.<BR/><BR/>As Barnes points out, the original plaques commemorating Bear River were simply memorials to settlers who "overcame" the difficulties inherent with Western expansion. Only years later was the massacre better identified, acknowledged, and a fuller picture provided for in the monumentation. <BR/><BR/>The memorial evolved to tell the story we expect a museum to tell: the complete picture. Should we expect every memorial to do the same?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4034927952176157131.post-89070209500029468012008-04-14T08:50:00.000-07:002008-04-14T08:50:00.000-07:00Once again Linenthal offers powerful commentary on...Once again Linenthal offers powerful commentary on our cultural attitudes and preconceptions. How can old historical societies fruitfully participate in the "felt history" that motors so much public engagement in history? <BR/><BR/>After collecting September 11th objects, presenting Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America and exhibiting the 3 part series Slavery in New York, the New-York Historical Society has become more closer involved with the emotional power of history. Much of today's enthusiasm for African-American History was propelled by the seemingly official neglect of the African Burial Ground, which was saved only through noisy public action. <BR/><BR/>The notion that historical artifacts both memorialize and document events captures the overlap between scholarly and community-based responses to history. Our encounter with such hidden resources in history as lynching photography and slavery documents demonstrates the power of joining traditional research with vital public issues.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, collecting items associated with the tragic history of the attack on the World Trade Center prodded us to look at how we use other earlier collection objects of everyday life, which resemble the sad remnants of desk drawers and pocketbooks retrieved at Fresh Kills landfill where the WTC ruins were carted. These insights collected from episodes of difficult history have encouraged curators to think more about the personal dimensions of these new landscapes of evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com