The readings for this week, A Shared Inquiry into Shared Inquiry, The Presence of the Past, and ”What is Public History?,” centered on history or public history and what they meen to, both, the lay person and the professional. I feel that the summation is public history is history with the audience foremost in the mind and history to the average American is the past that connects to them, their life, and their family.
The Presence of the Past examines history for the average American, in what seems to be a battle between history and the past. In a almost direct rebuke to many conservatives who have bemoaned the lack of historic knowledge in the public, this book reveals that Americans, regardless of age, ethnicity, education, or religion, are deeply involved with and concerned about their past, if not the historic narrative that is force-fed in school. I think the major distinction involves the academics’ and the lay persons’ definition or idea of history. Throughout ones’ academic career history is most often depicted as the changes and activities of nation-states and their interactions with another. However this often means very little to an average person. Whites seem to feel the nation has failed or betrayed them while minorities often feel little to no connection to the nation and its story of “progress” and development. Instead the idea of the past is what connects and motivates Americans in their everyday lives. The actions and events our family has engaged in seem to be the most influential in discovering where we came from, why we are who we are, and where we are going. When one is forced to learn abstract dates and events, students feel stifled and bored, according to the survey. It is the dynamic, experienceable past that affects and influences people in their thoughts about the future and the present. Due to the personal stories and thoughts, this book was very persuasive. The combination of professional analysis, Rosenzweig and Thelen, and the deep thoughts and emotions of a wide range of the American public displayed the importance of history in all our lives, if not the official, nationalistic history that might have been expected.
In A Shared Inquiry into Shared Inquiry Corbett and Miller focused on what public history involves, not an exact definition as is sought in ”What is Public History?” Quite simply, public history is “doing history with the public (Corbett and Miller, p 16)” The idea of a “shared inquiry” is a direct corollary to the findings of The Presence of the Past, without an involvement in the past or the study of their past, people find the results irrelevant, boring, or, even, insulting.
These works share several things, multiple authors with different specializations, large amounts of community involvement, and concern for the status of history in America that led to the credibility and reliability of these works. Even the wide range of input about the definition for public history is more encompassing for reaching out to professionals of all types, the most experienced to the most raw.
History is important to people today, just not the traditional, scholarly history that is so often thought of. People do no see themselves in this national narrative, it is the personal, often local, history that guides people in their hobbies, actions, and plans for the future. A thought in A Shared Inquiry into Shared Inquiry stuck out to me, history should be reflective, reflecting the convictions of the American people. It should not attempt to convince people on what to reflect.