Things that irritate me about other people

So this may seem like a strange title for a blog post for a class but this weeks readings and the video last week irritated me to no end and I feel I need to say something. So first off, the book readings were not so bad it is just the lack of excitement for the idea of historic preservation the authors have make spreading their works so much harder. I know textbooks, especially history ones, are bland and boring but I feel like when you aver writing about what makes you get out of bed every morning (Gardner and LaPaglia), there should be some excitement in your voice. I know we talked about how a lot of historians and archivists are super introverts but still how can a person wake up every morning, do the same thing for hours and not be excited about it? 

Oddly enough I actually found the Wallace book more interesting because it actually gave some history behind the preservation movement but that was still a little too much information to get a relatively simple point across. Maybe this kind of learning isn't really me, I would rather hear a little bit about the history of preservation and spend more time getting to know actually people who life the preservation and restoration lifestyle like the owners of the Harrington Hotel. Real world application seems more interesting to me than just reading about it in a book. 

I was also super annoyed while reading the response letter to Dr. Cebula. Talk about  super defensive and close minded about how history should be presented to the public. I understand having a stake in your organization but there maybe a time when you need to ate a step back and re-evaluate yourself. I don't really think the author of the letter really understand the importance of teaching "our generation". She claims that people in our generation aren't taught anything and I kind of see her point that there is a lack of interest from people of my generation but don't feed into the idea that we are going to be a stupid generation. This museum should be another resource for learning for students and the general public not just a superficial place for kids to go hear ghost stories and origins of sayings, which seem to be misguided anyway. 

Another thing I don't really think the author realizes, is that she needs to present history in a way that is as true as possible. Leaving out mention of slaves in a house that was run by slaves is a misrepresentation of the history they are getting paid to present. Being a true historian means presenting the good and the bad even if it makes people uneasy. Face it, history is not always butterflies and rainbows and everything should be presented the way it happened or to the best of the presenters ability. 

I guess I have the same irritation with the lady historian in the movie we watched in class. The movie was titled the Last Conquistador which followed the controversy of a statue being erected in honor conquistador Juan de Onate in El Paso, Texas. The historian that is presented in the documentary seems to only really care about what presenting the history that helps her cause. She completely disregards the enter history if Onate, the Spanish conquistador that slaughtered hundreds of natives in order to form him settlement in Texas. Again, I understand having a passion for your heritage and organization, but discounting large parts of history to make your point make sense is stupid and wrong. 

First of all, there was a lot more reading than I had anticipated and one of my books still hasn't come yet so I will comment about it in class when I rent the book from the library or get it in the mail. Anyway, back to my analysis. The readings I found most interesting were the articles in the Public History book written by James Gardner and Peter LaPaglia. The essays they presented in the 1st section were really eye opening and gave me a good perspective on how and why public history was started. I had to laugh a little bit when thinking about the amount of background history both authors used to describe how public history took hold on our society. I did also find it ironic that both Schulz and Mooney-Melvin inferred that the academic world isn't as important or as supportive of public history as they could be but we are reading this in an academic setting. 

I also really liked reading the selling off of the Philadelphia museum's artifacts. I don't really know how I would feel if my family had donated something to a museum and the. I heard they sold it. I'm Farley certain I'd be really upset and feel kind of entitled to some kind of money which would be counter productive to the aims of selling the artifacts. I do understand why they sold the artifacts but still. The museum community does need to make universal rules on artifact selling but even then it still seems kind of weird. 

I was really confused what I was supposed to be looking at with the other web link. I poked around a little bit but I had no idea what I was looking for. After a little bit, I figured out it was a nomination site for the best historical website based on different criteria but I think if we had been given more information as what we should've been looking for it would've been more relevant to our class discussion of public history. 

The Importance of Public History

So this week's readings were long, even if they were cut down, but still provided me with a lot of history I did not know occurred because no one ever talks about it. In the beginning of the Wallace readings, the author talks about the jailing of hundreds do El Salvadorian immigrants. I had no idea this had actually happened and I thought it was an interesting fact of history our regular textbooks leave out. I also had no idea that there was a museum in the Statue of Liberty, probably because I've never been to New York but it is interesting to know there are museums in the oddest places. Having so many different kinds do museums was fun to read about also. I think people go to museums that apply most to their interests and lives. The Museum of History and Industry (MOHIA) in Seattle for example may not be everyone's cup of tea because a lot of what they display has to do with Seattle's industrial background but other people may not like the Pacific Science because it is too science based. Having different types of museums to appeal to different interests/aspects of history is great for society and the everyday person. 

When I was looking at the Ellis island website, I watched a video about a women who retraced her mother's footsteps through Ellis Island back in 1902 and I think this should really be what Public History is about, helping connect people with the history of their past. I think the most interesting history for most people outside of the history field, is where they come from. That may be why sites like ancestory.com are so successful, because people want to know where they come from. 

The Disney's America website actually pretty fun to look at. First of all, I love Disney and actually enjoyed learning the history and geography of Disney in another class I took so this was really cool to see. It was also fun to see the progression of what attractions from the old theme park made it to the the current theme parks. It makes me laugh thinking about which attractions I've been on and how they were actually planned to be in this historical theme park. I did laugh when I got to the bottom and one of the references and it was Wikipedia.... Awkward.