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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bodnar defines "official" cultural expressions as those that promote nationalism at the expense of local/ethnic/vernacular cultural expressions. As you point out, however, official presentations must frequently encompass many different vernaculars. Sometimes the only similarities those vernacular histories share is that they each contribute something unique to American history. Rather than shoehorning each local history into a broader one about patriotism, it might be more interesting to let each speak to a multifaceted America. I'm pretty sure this is the point Bodnar wants to make, but I also found his writing style somewhat taxing.
ReplyDeleteI think I had a different take on his thesis than you two did; I notice the terms "battle" and "shoehorn" in your reflections. I was most influenced by the statement that "Public memory emerges from the intersection of the offical and vernacular cultural expressions." (p. 13) It's a rather more neutral statement, and I think it framed the rest of the book for me. I really found only one example of the official federal voice trying actively to subdue the vernacular, during the Civil War Centennial (during which the local governments sided with the vernacular), and for good reason; being so vastly outnumbered, it would appear that they simply embraced them ten years later for the Bicentennial.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, it would seem that each expression was a mere matter of perspective, and both influenced the commemorations. I think the rising tide of national patriotic themes discussed in the Midwest cases after WWI reflected more a generational loss of ancestral ties with the passage of time, coupled with national experiences that profoundly affected all of us, collectively, than they did of a centralized government trying to exert its will over regional memories.