Public Monuments

Sanford Levinson’s, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies, addresses the role of government involvement in regards to public monuments and memorials, focusing mainly on the Southeast region of the United States. Levinson’s discussion about the changing governments in Hungary and Russia and the subsequent changes in the countries’ public monuments sets the groundwork for his discussion on the legality and constitutionality of government involvement in public monuments in the U.S. Because Levinson focuses the majority of his discussion on the American South, the issue at hand surrounds the memorialization and commemoration of the Confederate past. Levinson’s experience in constitutional law helps him illustrate his point that government should not involve itself in the creation of or location of public monuments. One way in which Levinson backs this belief is by arguing that government involvement with public monuments is similar to government involvement with religion, that is, they shouldn’t be involved; but his explanation makes for one of his more interesting arguments.

Part of the process of creating a public monument is in the decision of whom or what event is to be memorialized. Levinson goes on to wax philosophically about the somewhat absurd nature of deciding what is the most important event or person in history to honor in stone. History is always popularly told by the victors and, therefore, the majority of public monuments commemorate those “great men” and symbolic events that support their (winning) version of history. In the case of the American South, the public monuments memorialize the so-called “lost cause” of the Confederacy, and because slavery was THE issue of the Civil War, these public monuments have come under fire because they are seen as a means of venerating the “peculiar institution,” that is, slavery. Levinson defends, yet at the same time offers alternatives, for these contested public monuments because they are a part of our history. If these testaments to past events and our past culture are removed or destroyed because they represent an undesirable part of our history, then it is as if we are ignoring or attempting to erase that part of our past. While there are several reasons why that is a horrible idea, Levinson expertly explains, by way of a simile (what if our parents had not met, then we wouldn’t exist), how the events of our past makes us who we (as a country/society) are today.

Overall Levinson’s book was an interesting read and got me to think about public monuments in a way I hadn’t before. The only issue I can take with his writing is that he seems to try to be too politically correct at times. It bothered me that he referred to the Civil War as “the events of 1861-65” (pg. 38) and never as the “Civil War” because (apparently, I’ve never heard about this) there is much debate among scholars as to what the more accurate term for those “events” is. Regardless of that issue though, this book definitely offers an interesting perspective on and new ways to think about public monuments, from their role in society to the role of those who have them commissioned.

Archive Stories

This week’s reading of, Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, edited by Antoinette Burton is a collection of essays about archives and archival research itself across the world. Many of these essays gave a sort of “behind the scenes” look at the research process that these historians undertook, but what was really illuminating was the overarching fact that the country’s national story as perceived, or should I say dictated by the current government is what the archives base their collection on. Durba Ghosh’s essay on her research in India and Great Britain’s archives was very interesting to read in regards to her treatment by not only those working for the archives, but also what she calls the “hangers-on,” who, in their respective countries, either were disdainful of her topic or enthusiastic to help. These essays force the reader to see that an archive is not merely a repository of historical documentation, and also that the documents are held and made available at their own discretion depending on their content and whether or not it agrees with the country’s view of their own history.

Jeff Sahadeo’s essay on his work in the archive at Uzbekistan gave a very real and human look at what the reality of research can include in such countries. Sahadeo’s essay covered everything from gaining access to the archive as a Westerner, to the helpfulness of the employees and the pitiful conditions of the locals. Overall, this collection of essays illustrates the politics of archives and adversely how archives are affected by politics. These essays are very enlightening and break the idea that an archive is just a repository of information at the researcher’s disposal. It would have been nice to have had a few essays from an archivist or another employee of an archive just to get another perspective, other than the researchers. It’s also noteworthy that practically (and maybe it was every single one but I’m not positive)every essay quoted Michel Foucault in some regard to their discussions about the history and theory of archives, which I found slightly amusing (that they all did it) but those sections of the essays were the most tedious to get through. The personal experiences of these historians were very interesting to read and see the similarities in their experiences although they were in different countries and researching different topics.

One final note, I have to mention how Craig Robertson’s article about the history of the passport almost felt like he was whining the whole time about not getting access to the documents still housed in the State Department by James Schwartz. While his experience is a lesson in the reality of not always being able to get access to what you really want/need to complete your research; some of Robertson’s essay felt childish, almost as if his rant (and some parts felt like a rant) about Schwartz’s archive and unpublished manuscript that he couldn’t access was his “payback” to Mr. Schwartz in the event he should read this essay. Maybe it’s me, but parts of his story felt petty and whiney, but overall a valuable lesson in authority and access to documents.

Preservation in Great Britain and the U.S.

Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity, by Diane Barthel examines the differences in historic preservation in Great Britain and the United States through an analysis of controversial issues in the “Preservation Project.” Barthel is a sociologist by trade, but her knowledge in that field does lend itself to her analysis of the historical preservation movement, which is a societal event. Besides the initial difference of the top down approach that Britain uses and the grassroots approach that the U.S. preservation movement employs, Barthel analyzes the issues that concern both organizations and how those concerns highlight the differences between the two countries focus on preservation. One of the topics Barthel examines is the issue of preserving religious structures in a secular society. The preservation of religious structures in the U.S. aims at adaptive reuse; preservationists strive to adapt the structures for another use that is aligned with the proper morals and good intentions that its original purpose stood for. In Britain, due to the overwhelming amount of churches, they have a category known as “redundant churches.” In these instances there is a special agency that determines whether or not these redundant churches are to be preserved or demolished based on their historical significance or architectural quality. The other major issue for religious structures in Britain is the overwhelming amount of visitors to these churches and the minimal/lack of monetary support by the government to help with the maintenance of these historic churches and cathedrals. Some institutions have gone as far as to charge admission to help raise funds to keep up with the cost of maintaining these old relics.

One issue that Barthel addresses is the preservation and presentation of the artifacts of the industrial age. While Barthel presents a good discussion about the problems of education versus entertainment and the impact of the new social history (along with other related concerns) this section of the book felt like more of a discussion pertaining to museum studies than historic preservation. Although museums exist due to the preservation of the objects they exhibit, Barthel’s discussion of the issues of the interpretation of the industrial society appears to have more of a focus on how these issues concern museums rather than their preservation itself, thereby making this chapter feel out of place with the rest of the book.

Barthel’s examination of Staged Symbolic Communities as a representation of utopian society was most illuminating. Her assessment of this phenomenon demonstrates the many issues concerning these places of living history; including their lack of controversy (social consensus, or moral order). In an effort to be family friendly and a popular vacation destination for families these SSCs focus less on the educational quality of what they present and focus more on creating that nostalgic feel of a better, happier time for the visitors that feels more like a real community than their own. (49) Overall, Barthel presents a good overview of the different preservation issues that the U.S. and Britain contend with and it is interesting to see how they are similar, and moreover how they differ from each other. In the instances where both countries face similar concerns, it is interesting to see how differently both sides face those challenges.