John Bodnar’s Remaking America studies the conflict between ‘cultural leaders’ and ‘ordinary people’ that arises from national commemoration. Bodnar presents this as an evolution from before WWII, where pioneerism was celebrated in connection with ethnic groups, to after WWII where patriotism became the new focus. In addition, throughout the book, he addresses the use of the vernacular versus official expressions, ultimately presenting the case that public memory has evolved into a combination of both.
Frederick Douglas’ quote effectively describes what commemorations ‘should’ accomplish, “We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and the future.” (43) In the vernacular expressions, identified with ‘ordinary people,’ public memory represents something more personal and localized, in the cases presented by Bodnar, even ethnic. In areas of America where settlements remained small and rural, such as the Midwest, communities wanted to commemorate events as how they saw themselves fitting into the picture. They “continued to use symbols, such as pioneers as a defense of local and personal concerns and frequently viewed commemorative activities as opportunities for simple entertainment and leisure.” (113) Whereas, official expressions, identified with ‘cultural leaders,’ was all encompassing and needed to resolve how to remember a past that included all of these local groups. They “sought to use patriotism to foster citizen unity and loyalty to existing structures of power.” (113)
Given the delicate task of combining nationalism that respects vernacular expression, it is no wonder emotions run high in these conflicts. Personal memories are put on trial and as we saw in the documentary of the Vietnam Memorial and as Bodnar discusses, some veterans felt that the memorial lacked the “patriotism and glory” (5) they felt ‘should’ be associated with the memorial. It is an ongoing battle of “one set of interests over another.”(9) However, it is a necessary battle so that voices are not forgotten or marginalized. Referring back to Douglas’ quote, if national commemorations have no meaning to the audience viewing them, eventually they will disappear.
Bodnar’s discussion of the significance of the National Park Service and historic sites presents a reasonable resolution in the conflict between vernacular and official. Bodnar addresses the problems with these sites, as we have seen in past readings, that there are interpretative flaws with some of these sites, but I think he gets at the broader point for these sites that we have preserved the past in a way that ‘ordinary people’ on both local and national levels can connect with.
Even though this was a difficult read for me, I thought the discussion was good. It made me think about how each side effectively asserts their power over public memory.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Levinson
Written in Stone by Sanford Levinson takes an interesting look at controversial monuments in the United States as well as abroad. He identifies the dilemma of the structures meaning at the time of installation versus the controversial and often unconstitutional meaning of the structure in the present. As a constitutional lawyer, Levinson argues his point from this perspective, which complicates and often offers no easy resolution to the contested monuments presented in this book.
Since Levinson focuses on the Southern region for this book, he primarily looks at objects created to commemorate the Confederacy. From a constitutional standpoint today, these sites, structures, even the flag and in some cases stamps, have all had to be reconsidered for the message they are sending out that is unconstitutional. Once the issues of legality are established, the debate begins about whether or not it is appropriate for these objects to occupy public spaces and if not, then where are they to be moved to?
Levinson effectively uses the international cases to diffuse the argument that it is not appropriate to destroy the structures. However, he also provides a healthy argument for why moving the structures, for example, to a museum is not necessarily the best option either. Can these politically charged objects ever really be separated from their historical context and only appreciated for their aesthetic properties? Moreover, what space then, public or otherwise is appropriate for historical context to be applied?
The strength of this book is that Levinson promotes a healthy discussion about what to do with these contested objects. He identifies and I would agree with that there is no easy solution of what to do with these objects.
Since Levinson focuses on the Southern region for this book, he primarily looks at objects created to commemorate the Confederacy. From a constitutional standpoint today, these sites, structures, even the flag and in some cases stamps, have all had to be reconsidered for the message they are sending out that is unconstitutional. Once the issues of legality are established, the debate begins about whether or not it is appropriate for these objects to occupy public spaces and if not, then where are they to be moved to?
Levinson effectively uses the international cases to diffuse the argument that it is not appropriate to destroy the structures. However, he also provides a healthy argument for why moving the structures, for example, to a museum is not necessarily the best option either. Can these politically charged objects ever really be separated from their historical context and only appreciated for their aesthetic properties? Moreover, what space then, public or otherwise is appropriate for historical context to be applied?
The strength of this book is that Levinson promotes a healthy discussion about what to do with these contested objects. He identifies and I would agree with that there is no easy solution of what to do with these objects.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
South Beach
Saving South Beach, M. Barron Stofik, is part of a series documenting Florida history. The intention of this volume is to describe the evolution of South Beach. Although this volume could have been condensed and better organized, it’s strength lies in it’s illustration of the historic preservation process.
Through Stofik’s story of how South Beach came to be what it is today, the reader can trace the work involved in the preservation process; the wins and losses and the everyday people that were involved. Saving South Beach also draws attention of how to manipulate the preservation process in order to achieve a particular outcome. Due to South Beach’s high-profile beginnings in the early twentieth-century, some felt it was possible to protect South Beach from “doom” (18) and used historic preservation as the tool. Donovan Rypkema is quoted, “I have never visited a downtown with a successful record of economic revitalization where historic preservation wasn’t a key element of the strategy.” (135) Rypkema’s point identifies the efforts of Barbara and John Capitman and Leonard Horowitz, however, is the South Beach that emerged, the South Beach they envisioned? There is no question that the area was in need of revitalization, but it came at what cost to the residents? This is where I feel that the author does a good job at presenting how politics and corporations capitalized on the historic image that was created and twisted it into something not entirely accurate.
And does it need to be accurate? I feel that the Stofik is arguing for accuracy as she quotes the president of the National Trust, Richard Moe. His definition of a preservationist is “someone who is concerned about the rootlessness and erosion of community that threatens the very foundations of our society, someone who wants to maintain a connection with the past, who feels the need for a tangible link with something real, something solid and meaningful.” (248) Stofik portrays those involved in the early stages of revitalizing South Beach as wanting to preserve the sense of community as well as the Art Deco architecture. However, she also captures the essence of what resulted in Nancy Liebman’s definition of preservation being more about “saving an environment and an atmosphere.” (221)
Through Stofik’s story of how South Beach came to be what it is today, the reader can trace the work involved in the preservation process; the wins and losses and the everyday people that were involved. Saving South Beach also draws attention of how to manipulate the preservation process in order to achieve a particular outcome. Due to South Beach’s high-profile beginnings in the early twentieth-century, some felt it was possible to protect South Beach from “doom” (18) and used historic preservation as the tool. Donovan Rypkema is quoted, “I have never visited a downtown with a successful record of economic revitalization where historic preservation wasn’t a key element of the strategy.” (135) Rypkema’s point identifies the efforts of Barbara and John Capitman and Leonard Horowitz, however, is the South Beach that emerged, the South Beach they envisioned? There is no question that the area was in need of revitalization, but it came at what cost to the residents? This is where I feel that the author does a good job at presenting how politics and corporations capitalized on the historic image that was created and twisted it into something not entirely accurate.
And does it need to be accurate? I feel that the Stofik is arguing for accuracy as she quotes the president of the National Trust, Richard Moe. His definition of a preservationist is “someone who is concerned about the rootlessness and erosion of community that threatens the very foundations of our society, someone who wants to maintain a connection with the past, who feels the need for a tangible link with something real, something solid and meaningful.” (248) Stofik portrays those involved in the early stages of revitalizing South Beach as wanting to preserve the sense of community as well as the Art Deco architecture. However, she also captures the essence of what resulted in Nancy Liebman’s definition of preservation being more about “saving an environment and an atmosphere.” (221)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)