Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Week 7 post

The articles this week discuss the history of public presentation in the California region as well as the impact of the Antiquities Act on public history. The two Glassburg chapters counters the historic preservation on the opposing sides of the United States, the Northeast region and the California region, to discuss the differences and uniqueness of each region’s sense of heritage and how that has changed over the years. The article of “Rethinking New England Town Character” challenges the thought that the colonial view of the historic district revolves around the town’s center and that all experiences of a New England town were mostly similar. Through varies examples, Glassburg shows that each community values the town, not on the classic historic dimensions of the town, but also in the unique places of the town that hold traditional value because of memories of either family or culture. The second article focuses on the development of local history in California that began with white heritage groups glorifying the 1849 Gold mining communities. Glassburg later shows how as minorities gain power and support in the government’s perspective, representation of other groups are included in California’s history presentation, therefore showing the diversity of the region. The last article focuses on the development of the Antiquities Act and how it gave power to the President to set aside land of historical significance and gave governmental agencies power to run and develop the site. The Act allows for historical and natural parks to develop and allows for the public to learn about history in a new form through visiting the places that history actually happened. 

2 comments:

  1. I agree wit you. I also think the Glassberg readings demonstrated how local history is driven by memory. Not simply memory, but each individual's memory. He did this through th public meetings and with the use of photographs. It is clear that we value place because of our sense of memory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You bring out explicitly what I seemed to dance around in my post. My question is how might this create problems for historical projects? Especially in community where certain people were forced out (either explicitly or through urban renewal), is their history simply left out of the story? It seems that way.

    ReplyDelete