The articles by David Cohen and Joshua Brown explored ideas about how the internet has influenced history. They touched on principles of how and why to preserve history digitally, the issues with converting to a digital medium and what it means not only to the public, but also to historians.
The overarching benefit of the internet present throughout the articles is that it has a massive capacity to present and collect resources. Upon visiting the website for the 9/11 Digital Archives one can immediately view how this resources is evolving. Since they are launching a new design, they offer a link to the old version. As a former web designer and current historian, I find this fascinating to be able to view how this very significant event is revolutionizing how history and the web interact.
When viewing the older site, you can see how it was an immediate reaction not only to memorialize, but also to collect information about 9/11. Now, it is more organized, has the Library of Congresses support and what made me view it as an archival source rather than just a website was the presence of a ‘Special Collections,’ much like many physical archives have.
My initial concern, as is a common one, is the reliability of the information collected. How can a researcher trust the information being collected is factual? I suppose it is no more or less a risk than reviewing correspondence materials in a physical archive, but it presents a valid concern for researchers. Reliability of websites though is a common issue. Cohen describes that the internet’s “failure to provide reliable clues that help one discern the real from the fake and the good from the bad” is a disadvantage not to be overlooked.
Cohen and Brown also describe the use of history websites and CDs as educational resources in contrast to printed materials. Unfortunately, I do not think it is impossible to comprehend a world without printed books, especially when it comes to educational materials. Younger generations are introduced to the digital world almost immediately, therefore, content producers should be taking this into account as well as older generations needs for printed materials.
The upside to all of this is access though, which I think is the more important issue. Don’t we want more interaction with history? Then we need to train educators how to teach students how to correctly analyze not only physical documents, but online ones as well.
I wonder how many teachers use the link, “Secrets of Great History Teachers,” http://historymatters.gmu.edu/browse/secrets/ .
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Frisch
To complete the reading of Frisch’s Shared Authority, we see his dissection of the use of oral history in various elements of public history. In this analysis, as in many of the readings this semester, we see the power struggles between academic and public history. Oral histories are at the base of this struggle because it is the public’s recorded memory and not the physical documents that historians are traditionally familiar with.
In this reading, oral history is presented as a “source for change” and a “source of resistance to change.” (2) Whenever there is information that invokes change, there will most likely be an opposing party. Most people are uncomfortable with change, ideas, and theories that take them out of their comfort zone. However, Frisch identifies that “the hegemony of scholarly authority…must be challenged and often qualified, but not by rejecting the insights of scholarship by definition.” (xxi) Since history is not stagnant, it is important to recognize and analyze the elements that can help us “learn about the process of change.” (192) In the Hard Times essay Frisch quotes Henry Resnick’s that oral histories ‘put us back in touch with our elemental humanity.’(6)
Humanity is an interesting term here and I think it brings us back to the heart of why oral histories are so important. That human touch; a personal story allows historians to go to a point in time and share an experience with another human being. Even though I can appreciate the feeling of researching historical documents and I do not refute their necessity, speaking with an individual about their personal experience as history brings about another experience all together and it makes history real.
Therefore, it becomes the historian’s obligation to provide context for oral histories so that they are not dismissed as useless documentation. Sorry to be so quote heavy, but I think this excerpt sums up this obligation perfectly so I end presenting it in its entirety.
“We must listen, and we must share the responsibility for historical explication and judgment. We must use our skills, our resources, and our privileges to insure that others hear what is being said by those who have always been articulate, but not usually attended to. Only in this way can the arrogance of the powerful be confronted by the truth of another reality, by those history-makers whose consciousness provides the record of that reality and the measure of its challenging power.” (71)
In this reading, oral history is presented as a “source for change” and a “source of resistance to change.” (2) Whenever there is information that invokes change, there will most likely be an opposing party. Most people are uncomfortable with change, ideas, and theories that take them out of their comfort zone. However, Frisch identifies that “the hegemony of scholarly authority…must be challenged and often qualified, but not by rejecting the insights of scholarship by definition.” (xxi) Since history is not stagnant, it is important to recognize and analyze the elements that can help us “learn about the process of change.” (192) In the Hard Times essay Frisch quotes Henry Resnick’s that oral histories ‘put us back in touch with our elemental humanity.’(6)
Humanity is an interesting term here and I think it brings us back to the heart of why oral histories are so important. That human touch; a personal story allows historians to go to a point in time and share an experience with another human being. Even though I can appreciate the feeling of researching historical documents and I do not refute their necessity, speaking with an individual about their personal experience as history brings about another experience all together and it makes history real.
Therefore, it becomes the historian’s obligation to provide context for oral histories so that they are not dismissed as useless documentation. Sorry to be so quote heavy, but I think this excerpt sums up this obligation perfectly so I end presenting it in its entirety.
“We must listen, and we must share the responsibility for historical explication and judgment. We must use our skills, our resources, and our privileges to insure that others hear what is being said by those who have always been articulate, but not usually attended to. Only in this way can the arrogance of the powerful be confronted by the truth of another reality, by those history-makers whose consciousness provides the record of that reality and the measure of its challenging power.” (71)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)