Analysis: Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies

Sanford Levinson portrays the importance of public monuments in a wide range of different societies. This book centers on the purpose of monuments - whether they have ideological purposes, political purposes, or are meant to label something as important to our national or collective memory. By commemorating or memorializing something we are, in effect, legitimizing their memory.

Levinson discusses the importance of public spaces, not limiting himself to statues or memorials, but also discussing flags, stamps, street names, holidays, and so on. Nor did Levinson limit himself to the United States. He put monuments into a global context – looking at Hungary, Zimbabwe, St. Petersburg (or Leningrad), Moscow, and so on. I think this really added to Levinson’s analysis of how we commemorate our past – exploring a wide variety of aspects regarding commemoration and memorial.

More than that, this book is also raising the question of what we do with these monuments in societies that are constantly changing - different nationalities are gaining greater political hold, or changes within a multicultural society, or the country faces regime changes. The question is, do we leave these monuments of the past in what should be neutral public spaces, or do we adjust them to fit the current political state, do we remove them from the public’s view, transfer them to museums (where the statute is safely separated from the present and placed in the past) or in some cases, do we destroy them?

I think Levinson’s discussion of what to do with these monuments is by far the most interesting. He gives several options at the conclusion of his essay, nine in fact. And I have to say, the idea of a “managed contention site” caught my attention. If public history sites, such as museums, are taking on the mission to become forums and sites to initiate social dialogue, then these museums are great places to house these monuments and take on the role of these “managed contention sites.” Let’s start a discussion on racism, or the role of slavery in the South. I cannot think of a better place to discuss this then a history museum. Why not put some of these controversial monuments there?

In my opinion, these statues, or monuments, represent our history. Often times, they represent an unfortunate time in our history – perhaps they highlight ideals that we no longer hold belief in. However, I agree with Levinson (who agreed with the following statement): “You have to tell history, warts and all” (Levinson, 103). These monuments represent what our country once deemed worthy of our remembrance. Maybe they do not belong outside capitol buildings, or on major thoroughfares, but they absolutely belong.

(On a side note, I thought Levinson’s occupation as a constitutional lawyer added a really interesting dimension to his discussion on the rights to display the confederate flag above capitol buildings versus the rights of a private citizen to display the confederate flag, or confederate battle flag. Although, I must admit, his discussion of the confederate flag seemed a bit tedious at times.)

Analysis - Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History

I really enjoyed reading this compilation of articles regarding the archive experiences of several different people, including professional historians. At first it came as sort of a surprise to think of an archive (an institution meant to make history accessible) as limiting history. To be honest, it really forced me to think about the archive as an interpreter of history. If an archivist, or the powers that be, do not deem (or in this case, interpret) a document as having archival or enduring value they do not accession or acquire it. And therefore, it is not preserved in the archive or made available to the public. So, in a way, the archive interprets what is of historical importance. The archive is limited by what an archivist deems to be of enduring value and of historical import or significance.

The American Association of Museums believes an archive is a museum. And like other museums, the archive can misinterpret and misrepresent history. The archive can have its own agenda; can be manipulated by political pressure, as well as a slew of other things. I was a bit shocked by this. I was certainly shocked to read about the State Archives of South Africa. An archive is meant to preserve records, right? Not destroy them. Talk about misrepresenting history.

One important theme I noticed throughout the articles was the ability of the archive to present a national narrative, national identity, or a collective history. Archives project a national identity, what the country views as their true, shared story. And in a way, it seems as though the archive is capable of controlling what the public is exposed to, which narrative they will portray, and even who has access to it. Just on a small sidenote, it broke my heart to read the difficulty one person had trying to see a collection of information regarding passports. I thought that an archive existed to make that sort of knowledge accessible and available. Guess I was wrong?

I really enjoyed the articles dealing with archives in an entirely different sense than strictly a repository of documents. The archive can be so much more: a person as their own archive of memories, or a novel, or even the world wide web (heaven help us). By doing this it is almost asking what is history, what do we consider to be history?

I think Burton did an excellent job of taking these different articles, all about similar yet very different archive experiences or stories, and putting them together in a clear discussion about the variety, defense, and treatment of historical knowledge. I really find it hard to think negatively of a collection that got me to think more than I ever thought I would about archives, but I did have one problem with the collection. I would have LOVED to see an article by an archivist, or someone directly involved with an archive. For some reason I think that would have been a great archive story to have in addition to all these other great stories.

Analysis - Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity

This book examines the progression of historic preservation in both the United States and Britain. Through a comparison of the preservation in both countries Barthel addresses the issues and development regarding preservation in these two countries.

The book outlines the motivation for preservation, a brief history of the progression of preservation in the US and Britain, as well as some of the differences between the two countries. Barthel also examines the different interpretations of history and who has been doing the interpreting and preserving (such as the major capitalists and industrialists, women, or concerned community members, the bottom-up approach of the US and the top-down approach in Britain). She also discusses the ideologies behind preservation, the preservation efforts in regards to memorializing wars, and the role historic preservation plays in consumer-driven countries, globalized societies, as well as in societies that have a growing leisure role. Another issue discussed is the authenticity of interpretations, and the balance between entertainment and education. It is clear that Barthel covers several facets of the preservation movement as well as several of the issues they face.

One of the more important aspects of historic preservation that Barthel stresses (and one that I found particularly interesting) is the role it plays in society, the role society plays in preservation and how this affects society's collective memory. Barthel argues that historic preservation is a means by which a society can come together, embrace their diversity and plurality, and yet, through preservation, attempt to create a collective memory and establish their own historical identity. She emphasizes everyone's involvement in creating and establishing our own interpretation of history, and it seems that this idea is repeated throughout her book. Everyone, in her opinion, has a say in this "tangible" history.

Overall I thought Barthel did a good job of presenting a wide range of issues. However, one problem I had with this book was how outdated it seemed at times. In terms of how this book could be improved, I would suggest adding an afterword. I noticed that the book was published in 1996, and since then there have been some pretty significant changes in the field of historic preservation. For instance, the chapter discussing utopia and the perfect communities that manifest themselves in living history sites (or as Barthel calls it "staged symbolic communities") mentioned Colonial Williamsburg and the lack of conflict. Since this book was published there has been a significant effort to include a slave narrative into the living history interpretation. For example, the mid 1990s saw an introduction of a controversial slave market in Colonial Williamsburg. This is just one instance where these historic sites and communities have made an effort to incorporate more historically accurate events and happenings in their exhibitions and interpretations.