I enjoy the occasional visit to “Walking in the Berkshires” and, while I haven’t visited the blog much recently, I spent a little while the other day catching-up on a few posts made over the past few months. I found the post focused on the controversy surrounding South Carolina’s Secession Ordinance Monument quite enlightening. When reading the following, however, I was wondering if what Tim says might also apply to the way we create monuments of months (and, for that matter, days).
Memorials are for the benefit of the living. The problem with the words we etch in stone, as with all symbols, signs and signifiers, is that they really are artifacts of the present. They say more about what some of us want remembered than the people and events themselves. When these involve monuments intended for public viewing, they are by their very nature meant to inform public understanding and shape collective memory. They help some of us bond with each other and identify with the past, and may alienate others (whether by intention or inadvertently).
He writes more, which I find equally as true in regard to monuments, but the paragraph above just really struck me for reasons obviously related to the month we are now experiencing in Virginia.
Now, I know that, unlike stone monuments, “history months” are not permanent. They are… or can be… much more easily dismantled over generations. Whether or not these months or days are “dismantled” depends on the succeeding generation and if they find something more important to honor within a month… or even a day… that trumps that held as important in a previous generation.
Yet, just as in the case of monuments, are these days and months any different in that they are for the benefit of the living? Just as the words etched in stone, the words that are carved-out of a small amount of time are also artifacts of the present. Just as with monuments, words presented within a particular month are “meant to inform public understanding and shape collective memory” [my emphasis]. Just as in the case with monuments, a designated month or say is to “help some of us bond with each other and identify with the past, and may alienate others (whether by intention or inadvertently).” And, again… “They say more about what some of us want remembered than the people and events themselves.”
Just some passing thoughts.
John Miller
April 22, 2010
Robert, I totally agree with you on this one. After reading your blog postings as well as emailing you back and forth the other week, my brain has not stopped rethinking these very issues that I generally teach the public. You have got me thinking about these issues and how I can get these issues across to the general public to make them see that there are always two sides of the story. Should I interpret it this way or should I interpret it another way to get my main point across? As a professional writer and Historical Living Historian, I want to get as close to the mind set of both the average Union and Confederate soldier as I can when educating the public and after reading your blog postings, I have some ideas as to where I should begin as well as how to get the public to rethink it’s opinions on a wide variety of issues regarding Civil War history. History vs. Heritage. What you thought you knew to what you didn’t know. Educating yourself before educating the public. The truth is always an on going project. This person might interpret it this way, while another interprets it another way. This is one reason why I love me position and my job. Have a good one Robert!
Robert Moore
April 22, 2010
Thanks for commenting, John. Living historians and historically-focused writers are in a unique position to shape the collective memory of those that they engage (and also those who these same people engage). This is something that I plan on touching-on in the near future in another post, but it strikes me how we need to take special care in the manner we approach things. As opposed to driving other people to think as WE DO, how do we drive people to think on their own, critically, and with an open mind? How can we detach them from the present in order to put them closer to the mindset of the past? Just a couple of questions that come to mind…
John Miller
April 22, 2010
Robert, I don’t think we’ll ever come close to the mindset of the 1860′s. I wish we could! You raise of very good questions and I don’t think there will ever be a program nor a class that will allow us educators and historic interpreters to get that close. Most people that I deal with already has their mind made up. You might be able to slip a few words that will cause them to rethink an issue for one minute, but when they leave our battlefield, they pretty much have their minds set. Too many years of under education in our schools that allow kids to think like minded rather than on their own. You hear it from every child. The problem now lies with in the educational system as well as the parents. I hear it in modern polotics, teach your parents well as the child knows better than them. I would be interested in seeing what you can come up with. Keep me in the loop.
Robert Moore
April 22, 2010
Oh, I agree, but we have to try and convince folks (without sounding like we are trying to be convincing) that they have to try and detach themselves, as much as possible, from the contemporary mindset in order to come closer to grasping the reality of life as it was back then. I’m not sure if that isn’t possible. That’s probably why I’m looking more toward a PhD in Instructional Design and Technology rather than History. I think there are some unique challenges, but I think the technology offers some rather dynamic features that will give us an opportunity to tap into a new means of education. Personally, I’m looking at tying game design theories together more with the education process, but not necessarily creating “games” as we know them.
You mention something else that continues to bring the words of my CW prof at William & Mary to mind… about the need to un-teach the history kids are taught over so many years in order to move to the next phase of understanding.