Levinson

With regime change comes monument change. Monuments are public reminders of the ideals and attributes the party in power wishes their citizens to embody. So changing regimes often need to erect new and demolish old forms of public remembrance, in effect, to legitimize their position and to discredit the old. Less often, atrocious events are encapsulated in stone so they might not be repeated. Sanford Levinson details this phenomenon in Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies.
After reading Levinson’s book, the title seemed much more poignant then I realized. Even today to signify something as permanent we say it is “written in stone.” But being written in stone does not always make something immortal. Engraved monuments are defaced, rewritten, and infused with different symbolism. Increasing enfranchisement of minorities and significant numbers of political transitions throughout Eastern Europe fuel this phenomenon. Levinson’s early example of the Liberty Monument in New Orleans is very telling. Erected following the violent ousting of the legal government of “carpetbaggers,” the structure memorializes the deaths of the racist White League involved in the “battle.” Obviously, and sadly, reflecting the majority opinion of the city. Left unmentioned were the police officers trying to do their jobs and the largely black militia members that were slain. During the New Deal, since public memory of the event had diminished, New Orleans proceeded to mount two plaques describing the event. Again, they were depressingly sympathetic to the bigoted and illegal “revolution.” As the black minority gained political and economic power they were able to contest the offensive monument. The plaques, written in stone, were obliterated and the entire monument was moved to a less commemorative location. This episode raises several questions: Should the monument remain as recognition of former regimes? Or remain as a reminder of how far society has progressed in race relations? Or should it be destroyed and removed from public memory? Or, finally, relocated to a museum making it a historical artifact of our nation’s, often troubled, past? These questions seem to probe our social makeup as a nation.
In an attempt to answer these questions Levinson focuses on Europe and the U.S. Radical regime change in Hungary, for example, often equates total destruction of previous commemoration. Shifting political power in a stable country and its relation to public memorials is more difficult to reconcile. The extensive commemoration of the Confederacy in the U. S. South is such a case and detailed thoroughly in the latter half of Written in Stone. Debates over the cause of secession also contrinute. Was it for states rights or for slavery? Many statues and monuments are said to honor the individual bravery of soldiers that fought for the Confederate cause. But do their disreputable actions, killing for the promulgation of a brutal institution, justify such a commemoration? Levinson promotes telling both sides of the story. Offsetting Austin’s commemoration to Jefferson Davis by honoring black peoples’ involvement in the Civil War and their contributions to the state since that time. But, Levinson points out, controversy may erupt over boiling down an entire people’s history to a few painful moments in time.
Unlike most people Levinson seems to encourage little molestation of controversial monuments. Not reinterpreting monuments actually promotes questions about them. One may be inspired to research a subject more if you are not told how to feel about it on a plaque. Many of the examples used portray events that are now reprehensible; it is necessary to remember them as to never repeat them. Leaving dark reminders out in the public prevent them from fading into our collective amnesia.
We reside in a free and democratic society where there are shifts in ideological makeup. Political power has been more equally dispersed, often called political correctness. However it may more appropriately called political awareness. What was once Custer’s Last Stand is now taught as the Battle of Little Bighorn. Was it an attempted massacre or a battle? Only personal reflection and discussion can satisfy this quandary for each of us, as individuals. We are left to realize our own responses to these public icons, while reminded that there can be no public agreement on public images in either a stable polity or a state in upheaval.

The collection of stories found in Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, edited by Antoinette Burton, attempts to peel back some of the fallacies associated with archives and the knowledge contained therein, for both the public and academicians themselves. This sweeping book covers an amazing variety of assumptions and situations involved with record keeping institutions and how their records are used. A commonly understated fact in the historians work is that “…our work is often shaped by archival conditions outside of our control.” (Ghosh p 27) Those that are employed in archives shape history by how much they approve of a project and therefore are willing to invest themselves into assisting the researcher. Durba Ghosh and Craig Robertson both faced archivist disapproval making their research difficult if not impossible, because archives are sanctuaries where only the anointed are allowed to enter. Despite how much we might think to the contrary, archives divulge their knowledge grudgingly, the right credentials, ethnicity, economic background, or even just project can make the difference between success and failure. We must always remember an archive is created for a specific purpose and agenda, just as the documents housed there do. As Ann Curthoys found for colonial advisors’ records in Australia, due to the fact that “…no governor actively sought information in those areas they would rather not know about…” (Curthoys p 364) As difficult as it is to admit, archives influence history by what is deemed worthy of keeping, who is allowed to view the records, and whether or not they are considered “legitimate.”
This anthology really opened my eyes to the influence archives have over history. I feel like I have faced disdain from archivists when attempting to do research as an undergrad. Because of my inexperience and hesitancy to enter this “vault,” having to face two different “gatekeepers” at the Florida State Archives, it seemed the archivist were determined I find my information in the State Library, despite my assurances of having search there initially. Research assistants therefore seem to have an inordinate amount of control over who has access to their records. I was also intrigued by the thought of, what is an archive? Keith Windschuttle’s disregard for oral tradition is amazing, revealing the Western bias for the “power of the written word.” Despite the fact the earliest historians, the founders of our craft, used the medium of orally transmitted information almost exclusively.
While at times seeming a little dense and academician Archive Stories is a breakthrough collection about the cornerstone of the history discipline. Not only are historical texts interpreted from primary sources but primary sources are but an interpretation of the past themselves. The fact some records remain and others don’t is selective process consigning some information to the dustbin of history. Not only that, but the keepers of those records and how the records are kept reveal intrinsic biases in the institutions. I feel this is an important read for the young historian to always question - interpretations, sources, and institutions - and the elastic nature of what we call history.

Historic Preservation

Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity compares the history of and current practices involved with the preservation movement in the United States and Great Britain. Diane Barthel examines the elitist roots of the British movement, aimed at preserving a bucolic past that never was and the American movement which has been more inclusive and starting from the grassroots, however, frequently motivated by profit. She also examines a few different genres of preserved structures and how they are adapted and reused today. One such is Industrial preservation, keeping safe buildings and tools that fueled the Industrial Revolution. This preserves the labor and ingenuity of many people’s ancestors. Industry is also a place to look for social and economic change. This is a difficult tightrope to walk though, industry tended to be foul, dirty, and brutal, things many tourists are not looking for. Another arena of discussion was the push for preserving war related materials and sites. On some levels it is obvious why military sites should be preserved, the sacrifice given by soldiers should be commemorated, even if for no other reason than to convince others to make the same sacrifice when the time comes. But just like industrial sites there are difficult political and social issues involved. Who’s idea of the war is correct? How much of the noise and bloodshed should be revealed? How does one portray pain and death on a massive scale to school children? (some of the most frequent visitors to these sites) Barthel also looked at religious preservation in what is largely a secular world. Surprisingly, many of these movements to preserve churches or other religious structures are done for purely secular means, often in the name of the community and to the objections of the religious. Finally, she examines what she calls Heritage Machines, how history is commodified, distorted, and sold back to the public. This book examines the preservation movement in all of its facets, including what it has been, is, and can aspire to.
I appreciated the fact Barthel examined many of the sides involved in the preservation movement, questioning many of the motivations involved with preserving, for instance how often money motivates preserving or destruction. Also the discussions of authenticity. What makes something authentic? Is it the location of the events? Original structures be damned. The building itself? Who cares if it is thousands of miles from where it should be. Also, how far should re-enactments be taken? If one accurately portrays the past, tourists will most likely be scared away having expected a peaceful, calm, happy past, “Disney-fied” like so many people in the world are. However by not going all the way, re-enactments are lying, not revealing the past as it was. So they are doing a disservice to the history they are bringing to life. Unfortunately, the past has become big business, the almighty dollar rules and accuracy and authenticity will suffer for it.