This week’s readings are a continuation of the historical preservation discussion. The readings present different approaches to historical preservation. Glassberg discuss a more private or local approach, whereas Waldbauer discuss a large governmental approach.
Glassberg argues for local historical preservations with case study examples. He deemed historical preservation to be driven by memory, which is a reoccurring theme throughout the book, Sense of History. For the Massachusetts case study, the residents prove Glassberg’s theory of history being driven by memory when discussing place of personal significance. Due to the fact that history is memory driven, the story can change from generation to generations and even from person to person. The case study on California was more about preserving the stories of miners and lands of elder family members. The residents validated their thoughts and memories through images of the past.
Waldbauer discusses the national approach used by federal government for lands, districts, etc of national significance, with a discussion of the federal preservation movement. This movement merges culture and nature preserving land of significance. After scientific validation, the land would be preserved. There are many different sites being preserved by the federal government. The article also focuses on Antiquities Act of 1906, which grants the US President “authority to protect areas of public land by designating national monuments” (Waldbauer and Hutt, 2006, p. 42). Unlike the local approach, the governmental approach is supported by laws.
The readings present persuasive arguments for ways to approach historical preservation; local versus national. In my opinion, both approaches are valid and very much need. Local museums and private historical societies can provide attention to local history. They are able to see what is important to their town and share that with residents and tourists. This grants local towns a sense of history and pride driven by memory. On the other hand, the larger form of historical preservation (federal government) is greatly needed. A country should know of historical grounds. This will provide a larger sense of history and pride driven more for remembrance.
Your assessment of the two approaches to historical preservation is correct, in my opinion. Since the two approaches address different sites, they are necessary in preserving a variety of areas. The federal government's responsibility of preserving federal lands, monuments, and reservations would be too great a task for local, state, or private organizations to manage. Similarly, the need for memory in local preservation of historically significant structures would not be effectively carried out by the federal government. The knowledge that local individuals, groups, and governments have on their history provides an invaluable resource in preserving significant sites.
ReplyDeleteYes, these are 2 different approaches: one local and the other national. Yet, they are both necessary for historic preservation at all levels. Like the video in class mentioned today, although many sites make it on local registers and even the National Register of Historic Places, the properties must first be nominated, and this is typically done by private citizens and grassroots historic preservation projects. Thus, both levels are necessary in order for the current system to function - the locals identify and nominate significant historical sites, and the federal government provides a system of organization and protection for the purposes of preservation.
ReplyDeleteIf we could meld the two approaches by having the local memories support and mediate the major national historic stories, we might have something. Once again we're looking at inclusion versus exclusion and who gets to tell the story. Do we assign the choice to an agency? To academia? To the locals? I don't really think there is an answer to the dilemma. In the end maybe the best we can do is keep fighting the fight to educate the public to look deeper than the obvious and to consciously try to include all voices.
ReplyDelete