In the chapter “Watching The Civil War” by Glassberg, he discusses the validity and effectiveness of Burn’s documentary series on PBS The Civil War. In terms of effectiveness, Glassburg claims that Burn’s reaches a vast amount of people including “during the week of its initial broadcast –nearly one-sixth of the total United States television audience- saw at least one segment of the film.”(Glassburg 92, 2001) Therefore, because of the popularity of television, Burn’s was able to reach a wider audience than formal types of public history presentations in order to educate the population on topics such as the American Civil War. However, Glassburg explores the historical accuracy of the documentary by questioning if it reached all types of audiences and also academic historians criticize the film for its lack of focus on specific social issues such as women’s roles.
Levinson focuses his book, Written in Stone, on public monuments and discusses the roles these statues play in connecting to certain groups in the society. I found his topic on Eastern Europe very interesting and how the communities tore down Lenin statues after the communist regime change in the 1950s-1960s and then again tore down Stalin statues in the 1990s. Thereby, erasing the history of communism before that time period; I found that Levinson argued for keeping the statues of controversy and of an old regime, rather than tearing them down and dismissing that part of history. Levinson makes a point that these monuments could be placed in museums, especially history museums, where they could be appreciated by that audience. Then the city or state would not have to display the unwanted monuments and make contentious stands. I found the author’s points tended to sway back and forth depending on the topic, because he would go around important issues, such as communism and southern heritage in the US South, and not take a definite stand about his opinion towards monuments. The main theme I found from this book relays the message that monuments speak for a community, and that voice is frozen in time when the monument is created. Perhaps to better relay the message that history is a progressive moment, signs could change to dictate the changing opinions of that community.
I like how you described monuments as being a voice frozen in time. Professor Koslow also addressed this idea in class. My favorite aspect of history is the re-examining of issues and the ability historians and people have in analyzing events and developing differing perspectives on similar events. When looking at monuments, this is not the case. Monuments are not always accurate or wonderfully representative ways of presenting history. They speak more of the politics and community that influenced their creation. In the examples Levinson presented in his book of different museums, the monuments all reflected political and social issues. Interestingly, Maya Lin attempted to create a monument void of politics and controversy by focusing on the people who lost their lives in Vietnam. After watching the documentary and reading Levinson, I wonder if it is truly possible for a monument to be void of controversy (in terms of social and political contexts) and politics.
ReplyDeleteNo, a monument cannot be void of controversy. Because it is a snapshot of the political and social feelings from the period of creation reflecting back on another period there will always be conflicting points of view. What's wonderful about living in a country with rights of speech is that we can voice all of those feelings. In a museum unwanted figures could create an arena in which their history may be appreciated, but as Lauren said, Levinson was not likely to provide an opinion one way or another.
ReplyDelete