Well, it's official. I think I've really done it this time. When even the professors hear about the classes you're taking and their response is a slack-jawed stare, it's a definite sign you didnt step in it. You have thrown yourself to the floor and gleefully rolled around in it. The first class this semester the professor spent the first hour explaining in detail how this class was going to be hell. The other two classes... well I don't even want to think about that right now,
On the bright side I quit my job. (I'm saying on the bright side, but honestly that's just to help control my racing heart and rapid breathing that is quickly approaching a full meltdown at merely uttering that statement out loud.)
I have also moved to closer to school. Sort of. I live half in one town, half in another two hours away. With one foot in my old life and one foot in the new, "stressed" doesn't even BEGIN to cover what I'm feeling.
Then there's the legal issues. I'm getting sole custody of my son. (YAY!) However, until that is fully signed and sealed, I'm still here spinning my wheels.
So here I am. A grad student that is overwhelmed by classes the first week. A nomad with no real home. A single mother with no income.
Yeah, I've really gone and done it this time.
Pray for me, cause I'm pretty sure divine intervention is what it's going to take at this point...
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Everyone knows, but no one is talking...
Controversy:
[ˈkäntrəˌvərsē]
NOUN
- disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated
His·to·ry
NOUN
- the study of past events, particularly in human affairs
- the past considered as a whole:
- the whole series of past events connected with someone or something
- an eventful past:
- a past characterized by a particular thing:
- a continuous, typically chronological, record of important or public events or of a particular trend or institution
Truth
[tro͞oTH]
NOUN
- the quality or state of being true
Controversy. History. Truth.
What do these three words have in common? Go on. Take a moment. Look at them. Think about it.
What do they have in common?
Ready for it?
Nothing... And everything.
This week in class we studied the controversy of history and the historians role. I missed it, at first. I thought, these two themes (corporate historians, historical sites and race relations, and digital archives) have nothing in common. We're focusing on three different, but valid points.
Yet, when I mixed up the articles, read them out of "order." It hit me: the controversy of everything. How did I miss that?
History is filled with controversy. Historical decisions such as the Emancipation Proclamation and the ideas behind it, the Black List, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cold War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, 9/11, the Patriot Act, and on and on and on... Controversy. Controversy in the historical decisions and the decision about history, the motivations of the past and the motivations of the present perspective, the factions then and now, the beliefs of both, the culture of all, the representation, the writings, the portrayal, and the remembrance. The collective memory is filled with controversy. It's like the dirty family secret that everyone knows, but no one is talking about.
To help you better understand, let me break it down into the three points that I stumbled through on my way to this obvious realization (I say obvious because this week's reading list was titled "Controversial Decisions.")
First: Corporate Historians. What, you may ask, is a Corporate Historian? That would be an historian or archivist that works for a major company. Such as Coca-Cole, Ford, Proctor & Gamble, etc. Their responsibility is to maintain the records and artifacts for the company, much the same as a Public Historian. However, that is where the similarities end. The Corporate Historian's primary loyalty must lie with the company. To do any differently would be to figuratively slit their own throat. They are moderated through the company's legal and PR on what they can publish regarding the records, and everything is viewed through the medium of "how does this make the company look?" It is for these reasons that Corporate Historians have been viewed as not "true" historians. I think the controversy here is fairly obvious. Can an honest historical record be made when run through such filters as enacted by a major company? If the truth makes the company look "bad," then would the truth be published? Can what historians employed by or contracted to major companies produce be trusted?
Second: Digital Archives. We historians have a passion for the old and the dusty. The dirtier and the more obscure, the more our nerdy little hearts just pitter-patter. However, with digital archives there is no physical record. No dusty box. No molded paper. While there is a massive opportunity here to collect more of the average person's thoughts and words on significant historical events and everyday lives, there is the question of how to sort it. What is important enough to save? How do you organize it? Where do you keep it? How do you access it? How do you search it? How do you verify it? The controversy here is the material itself. It is no longer physical, it is this thing we see, we read. But we cannot touch, we cannot feel it in our hands. How do we lovers of all things old cope with and capitalize on this foreign thing?
Third: Race relations. The slaves and the servants, the Japanese and internment camps, the Chinese and the railroads, the Irish and the mines, the natives and the reservations. How do we incorporate these historical controversies into memorials and historical sites today? We are comfortable with challenging our idealistic view of the past as long as it is done in small doses. Little teaspoons covered with sugar that we can choke down and move on from. However, how and when do you set fire to a powder keg? We all know these events are out there, so how do we engage, in an honest representation, not the sugar coated views and not in the over-played victims, but in the truth of the events that took place. How do we engage the descendants, the margins in the history that is theirs, that has been downplayed or left on the edges? Not in comfortable little spoonful's but in all its warped and disfigured glory. How do we create an honest record and bring history to them?
If you have an answer for these questions, you're a much better historian than I.
I fear I will spend the rest of my career attempting to answer these.
I look forward to the challenge.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
History Outdoors
This week we covered quite a bit of material. Being as there were so many individual pieces, instead of summarizing them one by one, I had thought to discuss one of the main themes found in the week's readings. While there were multiple different points, and furthermore themes, the one I want to focus this post is on the changes that have taken place in historians and their role in historical sites. One of the terms that consistently used by multiple authors was the term "amalgamation." The amalgamation of historians, the amalgamation of responsibilities. So just to make sure I understood exactly what they were referring to, I looked up the definition. Amalgamate: to mix or merge so as to make a combination; blend; unite; combine.
That is the very theme I want to focus on: merging. The view of historians used to picture stodgy old men, in tweed coats with elbow patches, surrounded by even older, dusty books, wire rimmed glasses perched on the tips of their noses, speaking of people who had died long before the ancient fellow was even born.
Yet, that isn't the case. Historians initially flooded into schools and then out into the real world looking for jobs. It was through this need for more employment that they turned to museums as curators and historians. Again, the call for historians shifted and other considerations had to be made. Here is where the real blending happened. What is considered history? What is considered a historic site? Is it a building? A structure made of natural stones laid out into a medicine wheel? ( google it, it's pretty cool) Monument constructed by modern artists to memorialize terrible tragedies or attacks on a nation? Is it an elaborate site or a small town house museum? What constitutes history and the historians role? The theme of this week: all of it. A historian is the one who works with preserving and maintain the medicine wheel. A historian is the one who supervises the exhibits at a national park and the daily maintenance. There was a shift in roles and responsibilities. A blending of both titles and expectations. History is no longer in the hallowed halls of long established university; history is in the hands of that universities students as the dig through a field learning the nuances of archaeology. History is no longer the curator of a museum, surrounded by glass cases and detailed replicas; history is in the open places of costumed individuals leading a tour of a plantation in "1795." History is no longer trapped behind doors, in the covers of books, in classical sculptures and memorials. It is reflections pools, fountains, archives, old houses. It is found in the National Park Service and in private companies. There was a massive blending, one that is still taking place. Roles and titles are no longer set in stone, they have become fluid. History has been taken from it's glass case and historians removed their classic halls. History has now come outdoors.
That is the very theme I want to focus on: merging. The view of historians used to picture stodgy old men, in tweed coats with elbow patches, surrounded by even older, dusty books, wire rimmed glasses perched on the tips of their noses, speaking of people who had died long before the ancient fellow was even born.
Yet, that isn't the case. Historians initially flooded into schools and then out into the real world looking for jobs. It was through this need for more employment that they turned to museums as curators and historians. Again, the call for historians shifted and other considerations had to be made. Here is where the real blending happened. What is considered history? What is considered a historic site? Is it a building? A structure made of natural stones laid out into a medicine wheel? ( google it, it's pretty cool) Monument constructed by modern artists to memorialize terrible tragedies or attacks on a nation? Is it an elaborate site or a small town house museum? What constitutes history and the historians role? The theme of this week: all of it. A historian is the one who works with preserving and maintain the medicine wheel. A historian is the one who supervises the exhibits at a national park and the daily maintenance. There was a shift in roles and responsibilities. A blending of both titles and expectations. History is no longer in the hallowed halls of long established university; history is in the hands of that universities students as the dig through a field learning the nuances of archaeology. History is no longer the curator of a museum, surrounded by glass cases and detailed replicas; history is in the open places of costumed individuals leading a tour of a plantation in "1795." History is no longer trapped behind doors, in the covers of books, in classical sculptures and memorials. It is reflections pools, fountains, archives, old houses. It is found in the National Park Service and in private companies. There was a massive blending, one that is still taking place. Roles and titles are no longer set in stone, they have become fluid. History has been taken from it's glass case and historians removed their classic halls. History has now come outdoors.
Monday, November 9, 2015
What am I doing here?
This week we were charged with reading two articles and a book (which, between both jobs, school, and my child, I never thought would happen. The book has gone everywhere with me so I could snag reading time whenever. It kinda looks like it went through a war zone. It was rented. I don't think I'll be getting my money back for it. Poor little soldier. Although it means I pretty much haven't slept in a week, I managed to make it through the whole thing and stay up on my schoolwork... Sorta. I'm not sure if I actually just finished typing my paper or just randomly banged at keys until five pages were filled. Guess we'll both find out tomorrow.)
So who's the first vict- I mean author. Sorry, wrong job.
The Critical Museum Visitor by Margaret Lindauer
This excerpt is where the title of this oh-so-fantastic blog post comes from. ( Have I mentioned I'm running on straight caffeine and sheer will? Aaaand it's only Monday night. I assume I will eventually crash out at some point, but that night is not tonight my friend... *SOB* That night is not tonight!)
Anyhow, where was I going with this prior to my completely irrelevant and slightly ADD meltdown? Oh, yeah, museums.
Actually, in all seriousness, I really like this article. Lindauer brought up a great perspective of instead of just visiting a museum, experience it. Pick it apart, take a critical eye to the displays, the interpretative panels, the various offerings. I really liked that. It seems so common sense, and yet when we visit museums, rarely does this thought cross our minds. We get so trapped in the way that we naturally look at the world and the inhabitants in it, that we forget, there are so many other views out there. So many basic things can become profound if your perspective is changed even slightly. I'm waxing poetic... Time to move on.
"Genealogy in the 'Information Age': History's New Frontier? by Elizabeth Shown Mills is another interesting piece. Her history of genealogical study - or generational history (I like that term)- gives a background for the development of the field. She criticizes those who criticize the field of genealogy, which I give her credit for. She cites sources to support her claim that genealogy is a viable field of study and can aid in bridging the gap between the general public and archivists. Not to mention, a relevant source of revenue.
Finally we reach G. Ellis Burcaw's Introduction to Museum Work.
This little book was surprisingly interesting. No offense to the author, but I was expecting to be bored. I'm not going to say that every page was positively scintillating, but interesting, nevertheless. For those of us that have never had any type a of museum course (i.e. me) it gave an introductory knowledge of the behind the scenes of gaining and maintaining a collection, along with how to best interpret that collection and involve the public. I would definitely keep it for reference later on. (Good thing, since I don't think the bookstore will take it back. Wonder if I can convince them that sucker was stuck to it when I got it? Yeah, probably not. I'm a terrible liar. I would likely come up with some tale about dragons and unicorns, maybe a fairy. Then not only would I be stuck with a candy coated book, but I would get the joy of a drug test and psych eval to boot!)
Anyhow, all things considered, as I say with most readings in this class, I actually liked the readings this week. Gaining new information can never be a bad thing. The more you know, the better prepared you are.
See below for the citation stuffs.
Burcaw, George Ellis. Introduction to Museum Work. Third ed. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 1997.
Lindauer, Margaret. "The Critical Museum Visitor." 203-225.
Mills, Elizabeth Shown. "Genealogy in the "Information Age": History's New Frontier?" National Genealogical Society Quarterly, no. 91 (December 2003): 260-77.
So who's the first vict- I mean author. Sorry, wrong job.
The Critical Museum Visitor by Margaret Lindauer
This excerpt is where the title of this oh-so-fantastic blog post comes from. ( Have I mentioned I'm running on straight caffeine and sheer will? Aaaand it's only Monday night. I assume I will eventually crash out at some point, but that night is not tonight my friend... *SOB* That night is not tonight!)
Anyhow, where was I going with this prior to my completely irrelevant and slightly ADD meltdown? Oh, yeah, museums.
Actually, in all seriousness, I really like this article. Lindauer brought up a great perspective of instead of just visiting a museum, experience it. Pick it apart, take a critical eye to the displays, the interpretative panels, the various offerings. I really liked that. It seems so common sense, and yet when we visit museums, rarely does this thought cross our minds. We get so trapped in the way that we naturally look at the world and the inhabitants in it, that we forget, there are so many other views out there. So many basic things can become profound if your perspective is changed even slightly. I'm waxing poetic... Time to move on.
"Genealogy in the 'Information Age': History's New Frontier? by Elizabeth Shown Mills is another interesting piece. Her history of genealogical study - or generational history (I like that term)- gives a background for the development of the field. She criticizes those who criticize the field of genealogy, which I give her credit for. She cites sources to support her claim that genealogy is a viable field of study and can aid in bridging the gap between the general public and archivists. Not to mention, a relevant source of revenue.
Finally we reach G. Ellis Burcaw's Introduction to Museum Work.
This little book was surprisingly interesting. No offense to the author, but I was expecting to be bored. I'm not going to say that every page was positively scintillating, but interesting, nevertheless. For those of us that have never had any type a of museum course (i.e. me) it gave an introductory knowledge of the behind the scenes of gaining and maintaining a collection, along with how to best interpret that collection and involve the public. I would definitely keep it for reference later on. (Good thing, since I don't think the bookstore will take it back. Wonder if I can convince them that sucker was stuck to it when I got it? Yeah, probably not. I'm a terrible liar. I would likely come up with some tale about dragons and unicorns, maybe a fairy. Then not only would I be stuck with a candy coated book, but I would get the joy of a drug test and psych eval to boot!)
Anyhow, all things considered, as I say with most readings in this class, I actually liked the readings this week. Gaining new information can never be a bad thing. The more you know, the better prepared you are.
See below for the citation stuffs.
Burcaw, George Ellis. Introduction to Museum Work. Third ed. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 1997.
Lindauer, Margaret. "The Critical Museum Visitor." 203-225.
Mills, Elizabeth Shown. "Genealogy in the "Information Age": History's New Frontier?" National Genealogical Society Quarterly, no. 91 (December 2003): 260-77.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Bang! You're alive
(Yes, that's a Flatt and Scruggs reference. Don't get the relation to this post? Look it up, you will.)
This week we were tasked with watching a feature film based on historical events and basically tearing it apart for its inaccuracies. I wish I had chosen something else, because mine ended up really annoying me. Like really annoying me.
I reviewed the movie/mini-series Bonnie & Clyde (2013.) I then wrote a 5 page paper on the problems with the movie. It barely scratched the surface. Let me take what the five pager paper said and tell it to you in one sentence: nothing about the movie is accurate. There. Done. Still annoyed.
Moving on. Let's discuss this week's reading shall we? Some of it was interesting, some was different, and some was just out and out boring. I won't point fingers, though. We'll just discuss them all.
There was a reference piece for definitions from the Alamo's website. I probably should have read this first, but it was on the bottom of my stack and I didn't see it until I was halfway done. Helpful, though. It now lives on the cork board in my office.
After this is a glossary of terms for the readings to help explain terms like red shirt and fourth wall (completely new concepts to me.)
First up: The Significance of Historical Performance. The author of this piece (a portion of a whole book, see citation) writes primarily in the first person, which I really enjoyed. It makes it much easier to relate to. Throughout, she also give little pieces of wisdom and anecdotes in blocks labeled "A Trail Story." This adds to the information she is giving in real life examples and experiences.
Altogether, her goal is to convey the importance of being a Historical Performer and the different types of performers out there. Interpreters, re-enactors, look-alikes, musical monologues, chautauquans (completely new term for me and something my nerd-self now aspires to be,) she covers them all in detail and in relation to one another. It was a very interesting and helpful read as it introduced to a field of history I knew very little about and didn't understand.
Following that was Some Thoughts on First Person Interpretation of Historical Persona. It starts off with a small introduction as a "how to" for people who want to become "time travelers." Of course, I was immediately enthralled with that sentence. The introduction was right, it is a how to and a helpful one, at that. Advice on accents, dress, research, representation, bio, and language (I fail here, because I don't think it matters how hard I try I cannot wipe either "sweet" or "dig it" from my vocabulary.) A touch on all different aspects of being a successful interpreter.
Thus we reach Living History. This article is an attempt to explain the purpose of historical simulation. The author gives specific examples and interesting photographs of various living history sites and rendezvous. The author argues that living history helps to place the past in context and in visual and physical manner that literally brings it to life. It is one thing to read and imagine, but another entirely to touch, taste, and feel. It becomes less fact and more reality in these locations, better engaging the public and the historian.
The Ultimate Character Development list. (We're getting to the end, I swear!) This is literally a step by step questionnaire to help the interpreter develop their character from personal belongings to personality. Domestic skills, trades, talents, culture, health, social skills, it asks questions of all of it. While it doesn't tell you the answer, it is a nice test of yourself to see if you're prepared or where you're lacking. Very useful. I'm the type of person that like to be over prepared as opposed to under prepared, so this list is absolutely perfect for my personality type. Though anyone who is considering any sort of living history should go through it.
Ultimately, the materials covered this week were to help us gain a better understanding of both living history and its role in the field of historical study. It has always been a subject that was sort of on the peripheral for me. I knew it was there, I thought it was interesting to see, but I never really pulled it close and looked at it before. It turns out, I'm greatly intrigued by it. I am also impressed by its previously unknown diversity. I think it is something I would like to explore further. I can certainly see how it can be an important tool in relaying information and engaging and educating the public about certain periods or events.
Anderson, Jay. "Living History." American Quarterly, no. Fall (1982): 3-12.
Bonnie & Clyde. Directed by Bruce Beresford. Performed by Emile Hirsch and Holliday Grainger. United States: Sony Pictures, 2013. Netflix.
This week we were tasked with watching a feature film based on historical events and basically tearing it apart for its inaccuracies. I wish I had chosen something else, because mine ended up really annoying me. Like really annoying me.
I reviewed the movie/mini-series Bonnie & Clyde (2013.) I then wrote a 5 page paper on the problems with the movie. It barely scratched the surface. Let me take what the five pager paper said and tell it to you in one sentence: nothing about the movie is accurate. There. Done. Still annoyed.
Moving on. Let's discuss this week's reading shall we? Some of it was interesting, some was different, and some was just out and out boring. I won't point fingers, though. We'll just discuss them all.
There was a reference piece for definitions from the Alamo's website. I probably should have read this first, but it was on the bottom of my stack and I didn't see it until I was halfway done. Helpful, though. It now lives on the cork board in my office.
After this is a glossary of terms for the readings to help explain terms like red shirt and fourth wall (completely new concepts to me.)
First up: The Significance of Historical Performance. The author of this piece (a portion of a whole book, see citation) writes primarily in the first person, which I really enjoyed. It makes it much easier to relate to. Throughout, she also give little pieces of wisdom and anecdotes in blocks labeled "A Trail Story." This adds to the information she is giving in real life examples and experiences.
Altogether, her goal is to convey the importance of being a Historical Performer and the different types of performers out there. Interpreters, re-enactors, look-alikes, musical monologues, chautauquans (completely new term for me and something my nerd-self now aspires to be,) she covers them all in detail and in relation to one another. It was a very interesting and helpful read as it introduced to a field of history I knew very little about and didn't understand.
Following that was Some Thoughts on First Person Interpretation of Historical Persona. It starts off with a small introduction as a "how to" for people who want to become "time travelers." Of course, I was immediately enthralled with that sentence. The introduction was right, it is a how to and a helpful one, at that. Advice on accents, dress, research, representation, bio, and language (I fail here, because I don't think it matters how hard I try I cannot wipe either "sweet" or "dig it" from my vocabulary.) A touch on all different aspects of being a successful interpreter.
Thus we reach Living History. This article is an attempt to explain the purpose of historical simulation. The author gives specific examples and interesting photographs of various living history sites and rendezvous. The author argues that living history helps to place the past in context and in visual and physical manner that literally brings it to life. It is one thing to read and imagine, but another entirely to touch, taste, and feel. It becomes less fact and more reality in these locations, better engaging the public and the historian.
The Ultimate Character Development list. (We're getting to the end, I swear!) This is literally a step by step questionnaire to help the interpreter develop their character from personal belongings to personality. Domestic skills, trades, talents, culture, health, social skills, it asks questions of all of it. While it doesn't tell you the answer, it is a nice test of yourself to see if you're prepared or where you're lacking. Very useful. I'm the type of person that like to be over prepared as opposed to under prepared, so this list is absolutely perfect for my personality type. Though anyone who is considering any sort of living history should go through it.
Ultimately, the materials covered this week were to help us gain a better understanding of both living history and its role in the field of historical study. It has always been a subject that was sort of on the peripheral for me. I knew it was there, I thought it was interesting to see, but I never really pulled it close and looked at it before. It turns out, I'm greatly intrigued by it. I am also impressed by its previously unknown diversity. I think it is something I would like to explore further. I can certainly see how it can be an important tool in relaying information and engaging and educating the public about certain periods or events.
Bibliography:
Anderson, Jay. "Living History." American Quarterly, no. Fall (1982): 3-12.
Bonnie & Clyde. Directed by Bruce Beresford. Performed by Emile Hirsch and Holliday Grainger. United States: Sony Pictures, 2013. Netflix.
Roth, Stacy F. "Glossary: First Person Interpretation." In Past Into Present: Effective Techniques for First-Person Historical Interpretation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
Salicco, John. "Some Thoughts on First Person Interpretation of Historical Persona." There Was a Time... LLC, no. MMVI. Accessed October 22, 2015. http://therewasatime.net/Seminar_series.htm.
Thierer, Joyce M. "The Significance of Historical Performance." In Telling History: A Manual for Performers and Presenters of First-person Narratives, 1-33. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2010
Monday, October 12, 2015
Their History, My History, and the History in Between
(So am I the only one who thinks reading the intro to the text over half-way through class is odd? No? Just me? Ok, then.)
So this week's readings covered both challenges of the field and becoming a professional historian.
First is the intro to Gardener and LaPaglia's Public History: Essays from the Field. I actually already read this when I first got the book at the beginning of classes... But I read it again for a refresher. It summarizes the organization of the book and their overall hopes for its influence in the field. I feel their hopes were well achieved.
Second is Patricia Mooney-Melvin's essay Professional Historians and the Challenge of Redefinition. This article was both interesting and helpful in giving a cursory background of the development of the field and also where the field was going at the time it was written. Furthermore, she clarifies what was coming to be expected of historians in engaging the public. She champions a way to strictly define historian in the belief that it will better help with the public image and involvement. However, her summary is based upon information that has quickly become outdated. While helpful and interesting, it may not be as valid or accurate as it once was.
Third and final was Constance B. Schulz's Becoming a Public Historian. Schulz gives a short history of the development of historical organizations such as the AHA, AASLH, NTHP, etc. She also reviews the requirements for professionals entering the field and the expectations of them. Training, education, and experience are all main focal points for her "How to" on becoming a historian. My concerns with reading it at this point are that it is again quite outdated. One of Schulz's closing concerns is how technology is going to influence the "modern" historian and their field. While the concern of a lack of educated interpretation of primary sources copied and presented to the masses is valid, at this point, I think we need to address how we handle it. For Schulz it was a future concern to start getting ready for. This generation of professionals must face it as an active problem. The internet and technology are here. Now what are we going to do with them?
So this week's readings covered both challenges of the field and becoming a professional historian.
First is the intro to Gardener and LaPaglia's Public History: Essays from the Field. I actually already read this when I first got the book at the beginning of classes... But I read it again for a refresher. It summarizes the organization of the book and their overall hopes for its influence in the field. I feel their hopes were well achieved.
Second is Patricia Mooney-Melvin's essay Professional Historians and the Challenge of Redefinition. This article was both interesting and helpful in giving a cursory background of the development of the field and also where the field was going at the time it was written. Furthermore, she clarifies what was coming to be expected of historians in engaging the public. She champions a way to strictly define historian in the belief that it will better help with the public image and involvement. However, her summary is based upon information that has quickly become outdated. While helpful and interesting, it may not be as valid or accurate as it once was.
Third and final was Constance B. Schulz's Becoming a Public Historian. Schulz gives a short history of the development of historical organizations such as the AHA, AASLH, NTHP, etc. She also reviews the requirements for professionals entering the field and the expectations of them. Training, education, and experience are all main focal points for her "How to" on becoming a historian. My concerns with reading it at this point are that it is again quite outdated. One of Schulz's closing concerns is how technology is going to influence the "modern" historian and their field. While the concern of a lack of educated interpretation of primary sources copied and presented to the masses is valid, at this point, I think we need to address how we handle it. For Schulz it was a future concern to start getting ready for. This generation of professionals must face it as an active problem. The internet and technology are here. Now what are we going to do with them?
Public History:
Essays from the Field, edited by James B. Gardner and Peter S. LaPaglia- “Introduction.”
--“Professional Historians and the Challenge of
Redefinition,” by Patricia
Monney- Melvin,pp.
5-21.
--“Becoming A Public Historian,” by Constance B. Schulz,
pp. 23-40.
Words from Bogey
If you will remember, we were tasked in my Intro to PH class with completing an oral history assignment on a subject of our choosing with some sort of state or national relevance. I chose to interview my grandmother.
Granny was raised literally in the woods. Her father worked independently logging for individuals and companies in the post-depression era. When Granny says she grew up dirt floor poor, she means it. They were living high if they had a floor, most of the time they were lucky if they had walls and a roof. Her family were just one of many that followed the logging. A culture and mindset specific to the transient lifestyle developed. This period in Mid-western history was short lived, but significant in the development of many rural cultures in Missouri, Arkansas, and Illinois. And it has rarely been explored. My intent with the interview was to explore, on a micro level, that history.
Ultimately, the purpose of this particular post is a self review of what I would do differently the next time around.
First off, I wish I had prepped my subject better. I had explained, multiple different times, what we would be doing, but it quickly became apparent I didn't explain on a level my subject could understand. That was my failure, not theirs, and led to a bit of a kerfuffle starting the interview.
I also wish that I had explored a few more specific details to the area and time-period we discussed. I had, of course, done my research, but during the interview a point would come up and I would think," Durn! Why didn't I research that?" Eventually, I went and completed a second interview to flesh out these queries (separate from the interview submitted for class, of course.)
And finally, I wish I had put my phone on airplane mode. I used a recording app on my phone that I adore. I use it for recording all of my songs because it picks up vocals great, without any additional vibrations, it balances itself, and you hardly ever have to worry about your subject being to quiet or too loud as the app auto adjusts. What is does not do, however, is block calls. In the middle of the second interview my sister called, which killed the app and I lost about three minutes of good material before I realized the error. We were able to pick up where we cut off, but it was highly irksome.
Granny was raised literally in the woods. Her father worked independently logging for individuals and companies in the post-depression era. When Granny says she grew up dirt floor poor, she means it. They were living high if they had a floor, most of the time they were lucky if they had walls and a roof. Her family were just one of many that followed the logging. A culture and mindset specific to the transient lifestyle developed. This period in Mid-western history was short lived, but significant in the development of many rural cultures in Missouri, Arkansas, and Illinois. And it has rarely been explored. My intent with the interview was to explore, on a micro level, that history.
Ultimately, the purpose of this particular post is a self review of what I would do differently the next time around.
First off, I wish I had prepped my subject better. I had explained, multiple different times, what we would be doing, but it quickly became apparent I didn't explain on a level my subject could understand. That was my failure, not theirs, and led to a bit of a kerfuffle starting the interview.
I also wish that I had explored a few more specific details to the area and time-period we discussed. I had, of course, done my research, but during the interview a point would come up and I would think," Durn! Why didn't I research that?" Eventually, I went and completed a second interview to flesh out these queries (separate from the interview submitted for class, of course.)
And finally, I wish I had put my phone on airplane mode. I used a recording app on my phone that I adore. I use it for recording all of my songs because it picks up vocals great, without any additional vibrations, it balances itself, and you hardly ever have to worry about your subject being to quiet or too loud as the app auto adjusts. What is does not do, however, is block calls. In the middle of the second interview my sister called, which killed the app and I lost about three minutes of good material before I realized the error. We were able to pick up where we cut off, but it was highly irksome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)