History in its Natural Environment

As public historians, we aim to connect the public to history using methods that are relevant and accessible in the public realm. We must balance our academic desire for historical accuracy with the public’s interest in heritage and the popular power of nostalgia. In class, we have often discussed the popularity (and pitfalls) of “living history” and the public desire to interact with the past. Landscapes offer a unique and somewhat literal version of “living history,” because they can represent natural, cultural, and material history. As the Glassberg article says, “Landscape is history made visible.” Whether viewing the Grand Canyon or the site of JFK’s assassination, landscapes allow people to “see” the past through knowing they are in a place of historical significance.

The public’s interest in history is frequently driven by the urge to know “what it was really like.” Driven by nostalgia (often second-hand), people want an experience with places and events significant in history; to physically be in a place where something important happened. This desire has fueled the historical tourism industry and has led to the mass popularity of sites such as Colonial Williamsburg. It has also encouraged droves of tourists to visit battlefields, assassination sites, and the homes of important people. Much like our contemporary obsession with celebrities and tabloids, people want to know what life is/was really like in other times, situations, and places. Landscapes allow us to vividly imagine this and therefore produce a unique connection to the past.

How humans have interacted with the natural landscape represents our cultural and practical past; things of beauty and status or things of function. We leave permanent structures when something is important enough to remember. Monuments, cemeteries, castles, railroads; all of these things tell us something about the human past. How we have perceived the environment around us and given it meaning offers insight into the past, and often determines how a particular environment will be used in the future. As much as we like change, we don’t like our change to deviate too much from what has been done before. We are all for all those new condos going up in downtown Toronto, but utterly against the ones that are proposed in cottage country. Humans react very strongly to their surroundings and are very easily offended by attempts to alter a place’s natural state, whether real or imagined.

Whether we intend to or not, we have already classified our environment to serve specific purposes. We want to live in our constructed worlds, but have an innate desire to observe a world without us, as if this is a whole new dimension of “seeing” history. We are dedicated to preservation and conservation, as exemplified by the various National Parks in Canada and the US. These systems came about (not coincidentally) when modern progress and change was first appearing on the North American scene. By preserving nature in its “pure, untouched by man” state, we reveal several key characteristics of our culture and society; the depth of respect we have for our environment and landscapes; the belief that preservation and conservation will redeem us of our past offences against it; our desire to maintain a constant in a rapidly changing environment; our continued idealization of nature as a place of refuge and purity; and the comfort we find in knowing that there is something greater and more powerful in the world than we are.

Bottom's Got a Brand New Bag

In the 1970s, there was the "social history revolution." Now, there is immense focus on the internet, and how it has ushered in another major movement in the world of history. The concept of history "from the bottom up" that was popularized in the 70s has taken on whole new meaning with the opportunities provided by the internet. Social history intends to offer the many perspectives on the past that have traditionally been marginalized or ignored.

In response to the popularization of history/heritage, museums, heritage sites, and history professionals have been scrambling to offer a usable past that is appealing and approachable to an increasingly interested public. Historians - academic and public - have shown mounting interest in presenting the past of regular people, and improving the accessibility and relevance of history by offering perspectives that the public audience can relate to. Storage rooms and archives are being re-examined to uncover 'new' history to present the public with an idea of what "real life" was like from the perspective of "real people."

With the introduction of the internet, history "from the bottom up" has its strongest advocate ever, and professional historians face some serious competition from the very audience they're trying so hard to attract. Never has the "average joe" had more power and influence in the field of history than now. The accessibility of the internet cannot be matched, nor can its audience be limited. In addition to granting people the capability to learn at their own pace according to the exact specifications of their interest, the internet also allows anybody to record, synthesize, and present the past of whatever and whomever they choose. Networks like facebook and twitter, blogs, and websites' user comment pages permit people to create totally unregulated archives of everyday life. Rather than having professionals decide how history "from the bottom up" is remembered, presented, and preserved, the internet has tossed the rulebook and given the public ownership and authority over their past.

The public has made clear its desire for "authenticity," real or imagined, when it interacts with the past. In the 21st century, the internet has given new (and more literal) meaning to these theoretical terms that surround the concept of social history (the internet is certainly full of content that constitutes the epitome of "bottom"). I wonder if the history revolutionaries of the 1970s ever imagined this dimension of history "from the bottom up" when they coined the term and if it would be seen as the ultimate fruit of the their intentions or as their most outrageous threat?

In the business of history

Perhaps the largest challenge that faces the public historian is that we have to strive to maintain historical integrity, while catering to the demands of popular history and promoting a very often, selective past. We are trained to drag our heels on issues of historical accuracy and academic integrity. However, in the real world - well one in which we'd like to be employed anyway - we cannot ignore the fact that history is also a business. Rarely does integrity trump success and profit when it comes to any business venture, and the business of history is no different.

Historians who are willing to bend the rules of the Ivory Tower actually have many employment opportunities available to them. After all, history is everywhere, and everyone and everything has one. The tricky part is, that nobody wants to record a history they'd prefer not to remember. History is revised throughout the world. It's as extreme as denying events like the Holocaust and the Cultural Revolution even happened, to as minor as a corporation or business choosing to omit a controversial piece of its past from presentations of its history. The latter revision is one public historians must struggle with all the time, and decide what they can and cannot expose within the parameters of a project or job.

History is a very powerful and persuasive tool. As Aunt May so wisely said to Peter Parker, "with great power, comes great responsibility." What is a historian supposed to do when you discover a fascinating perspective into the past of an institution, but you are forbidden by said institution to use this information? First, you will get angry and annoyed. You spent time and effort researching and preparing the information, and you think that to leave it out would be lying about the past to serve a selfish interest in the present. However, you've been hired by a client to represent their interests, so is the customer always right?

As a public historian, you have a responsibility to history and to your employer. Your job is to act as the bridge between history and the public realm. Although you'll have to make sacrifices sometimes, you can feel good that through your efforts, you've at least ensured that more knowledge has been put out in the world, which is never a bad thing. The best you can hope for is to find a place of compromise within yourself that allows you to accept that throughout your career, you will have to constantly adapt in order to balance two completely opposing objectives. But that's exactly what it takes to succeed in the business of history.

The Rhetoric of Hope

History surrounds President Barack Obama. From blackberry to basketball games, it seems everything this man does is of historic proportions. As the first black president, he personifies both America’s greatest achievements and its most infamous flaw. His “audacity to hope” represents all that is good about America and speaks to a glorified past and a promising future.

Shiny and new President Obama has aptly recognized history as a powerful and persuasive instrument of leadership. Patriotism is palpable in America. Americans are fervently proud of their past and exhibit a deep trust in their history. From every ostentatious Fourth of July celebration to every movie where a tattered American flag is the only thing left standing, America is determined to promote its history in the present. However mythologized it may be, its strength as a source of unity, pride, and hope is undisputable. Facing the peril – economic and ideological - of a deep recession, Obama has very wisely turned to history to guide the spirit of the American people through hard times.

Obama’s campaign, election, and evidently, his presidency are all about the utterly compelling, yet totally intangible hope. With its international reputation soiled, its home-fires running out fuel, and the economy up the creek, Americans need something to believe in. Delivered by a vibrant and talented orator who leaves audiences starry-eyed and full of it, hope can’t lose. Obama has an economic crisis and a war on his presidential plate, and America has an itch only a “great man” can scratch.

Hardly a trailblazer, Obama is drawing on the same rhetoric of hope that the beloved FDR used to pull America through the Depression and the Second World War, and is channeling the New Deal to justify his controversial Stimulus Package. He is proactively using history as a salve for present fears, and as reassurance in the company of uncertainty. He has reminded the people of the nation’s historical highs and lows, and of America’s courage and survival through them. With a dash of modern celebrity, Obama is poised to rally the American people, ideal guns a’blazin’ and charge into a future where America can be good again.

Above the people, and of the people, President Obama has indeed, learned from the past.

Everything Old is New Again

With all the hype surrounding technology and the things it allows us to do, there is a tendency to assume that everything it permits us to do is brand new, never been seen before, and deserving of awe and/or praise and/or fear. However, little that we see online is as groundbreaking as it seems. Certainly, the technology is new, but much of what we do with computers is nothing more than teaching an old pony a new way to do the same tricks. The Google library, crowdsourcing, and photoshop are innovative concepts, but none of them are based on new ideas. Reading more about digital history has shown that while the internet and technology offer endless possibilities for the collection, distribution, and creation of information, all of these things were being done well before computers even existed. We're so accustomed to the convenience of computers, yet we remain romanced by each new feature and capability, and sometimes forget that before computers existed people did write, they did capture images and share them, they did read and assemble libraries, and they did assemble in groups to share knowledge and find answers. Understanding technology from the perspective that it offers us new ways to do old things, makes every new advance easier to comprehend and accept.

Technology's capabilities concerning the manipulation of images receives constant attention, simultaneously as one of technology's most valuable assets and greatest evils. I think this has to do with the impact images have upon human beings, and the idea that "seeing is believing." Images are powerful and convincing, and strike the senses in such a way that it is difficult to resist their message. We are accustomed to questioning the written word, or doubting what someone tells us, but our brains are wired to believe that what we see is real. Herein lies the power of images, and the foundation to an entire industry of print media. Tabloids present us with stories that aren't true based on doctored photos, magazine covers feature digitally enhanced and altered photos of models and celebrities, and governments and news organizations present us with photos that communicate the desired message more often than the truth. We know we should doubt them, but it's easier said then done.

Since technology allows us to manipulate images, we must now assume that because people lie, images can lie too. Photo Tampering Throughout History by Hany Farid shows us that both people and photos have been lying for a long time. Doctored images are not a product of computer technology, but of human nature. In many ways, it's no different then cavemen discovering fire, or that spears made hunting a lot easier - computers are just another tool that humans have adopted to make things we were going to do anyway, easier and more efficient. Looking at it this way, we can humanize technology, and subsequently, become more comfortable with it.

PVR, Savior of TVKind

In the life of a grad student, there is little to no time for things like sleep or a social life. When I do get a moment or two to attempt relaxation, I turn to my faithful friend tv for a little escape from reality. A very demanding work load, limited time, and the fact that I am a total tv junkie have the potential to create another source of anxiety in my life, which is one I just couldn't handle: missing my favourite shows. Enter the PVR, which may have edged the ipod out of the top spot of technology that has made the biggest difference in my life. Especially now, when my life is pretty isolated and demanding, I actually can't imagine what I would do without it. Particularly on Monday nights, where the tv networks are clearly trying to drive viewers insane by putting Chuck, Gossip Girl, House, Heroes, 24, Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother on AT THE SAME TIME! How can they possibly expect avid tv fans to cope?! To make me choose between Chuck and House or Jack and Sylar? Seriously? As if school wasn't enough to drive me mad, this would surely be the reason if it weren't for my PVR knight in shining armor. Not only does it make it possible to watch everything you want (conflicting schedules be damned!), you can watch it at whatever time works for you, rather than the time chosen by a network. Best of all, you will never have to watch a single commercial ever again.

I find technologies like the PVR particularly notable, because they impact the lives of regular people doing regular people things, and make SUCH a difference in the average everyday busy life. The PVR has revolutionized the way people watch tv, and has effected the traditional structure of the television industry. Commercials can't force themselves on people the way they used to, and networks can't dictate when people sit down to tune in. It's made for a Nielson nightmare, as they struggle to determine ratings and the resulting fate of new shows, but aren't able to factor in the many viewers who watch faithfully via their PVRs. The industry has already taken a huge hit from the internet, which allows people the same convenience of watching at their leisure, commercial-free, and without paying a pesky cable bill. The rising popularity of HD tvs has certainly brought people back to cable, but the PVR has allowed for it to be on their terms, not those of the network. While we still have to pay our monthly dues to the cable company, PVRs do allows the public to assume power over how they watch and when they watch it. Technologies like this have led to an interesting trend in entertainment, where the consumer is in control, and the industry must acquiesce to "on demand" or risk losing their business.

I have to sign off and do some readings, but when I'm done, Fringe and the Mentalist will be waiting....

Digital Frustration

"Ah, the wonders of technology." Considering how totally reliant and trusting we are of computers to perform our most critical tasks, and store our most important information, we continue to be entirely conscious of its inevitability to screw up (and screw us). I've recently encountered several particularly infuriating issues with Microsoft Word, which continue to haunt me as I struggle to find enough time in the day to get all my work done, while still permitting time to eat and sleep.

Before I started school, I bought a brand new macbook, and outfitted it with the pleasure to use and thus far, consistently reliable iWork (mac's Office equivalent, at a reasonable $79). I also purchased MS Office 2008 for Mac (purely out of necessity, and for a bank-breaking $200), aware that I would need it to avoid compatibility issues while doing group work at school. Excellent, now I have no money, and for the duration of the school year, my assignments are left in the slippery hands of Microsoft.

Office 2008 is a much improved version, and offers a much sleeker, appealing look (oddly similar to that which Mac has been using for years), and easier to use and access features. Doc files are upgraded to docx files, and when working in Word 08 format, it's been nothing but bunnies and rainbows. However, when I receive a document from someone using an older version of word, and have to work with it, the bunnies are boiled and the rainbows are replaced by ominous clouds, symbolic of my impending doom. Mix in the volume of group work we have to do, and short of a little Chinese water torture, it's been the best time ever.

Word 2008 does all these impressive and smart things, but stubborn older versions of word render their documents totally immune to the aforementioned features. Instead, you end up dealing with fantastic phantom commands, where every click is a surprise - thought you were placing that photo on page 3, did ya? Enjoy, as it surprises you with appearing on an entirely different page, upside down and backwards! Oh, you wanted to edit documents with track changes on? That's a great idea, but don't even think about trying to paste those changes, because the magical word troll will arbitrarily decide to keep only a select few of your comments/changes! And imagine the fun, when you have to retype 30 pages of text, because it won't justify properly, and there exists no known workaround!

So, are old versions of word jealous of the newer one, as siblings are of a new baby, so choose to spite it with a little teenage rebellion? Or is this just another insidious plan by Microsoft to make all the different versions just compatible enough that users have to deal with all these frustrating and inexplicable issues, which will ultimately result in an enraged trip to the store to purchase the newest version of Word just to avoid having to deal with this? Of course not, because Microsoft would never base its entire business upon the concept of forced monopoly, and then charge a ridiculously high price for its products, knowing that as much as consumers will be annoyed, they have no choice but to buy it anyway.

In conclusion of this much needed rant, I find myself wondering how Bill Gates feels when he has a major assignment due and Word doesn't work properly? Oh, right - he probably uses iWork for those ones.

PIN Messages are Red, Emails are Blue

While technology hasn't altered what things we deem necessary to communicate on a daily basis, it has altered our approach to preservation. We frequently go through our inboxes and delete emails, keeping only that which is really important or "worth saving." And very often, even all "important" email has an expiration date on its importance. When it comes to paper however, we seem to have a much harder time letting go. The human as pack rat urge seems to sneak in wherever paper is concerned. While we easily delete that "happy birthday" email, God forbid we throw out that birthday card. It seems that we feel things written on paper have more meaning, and associate more emotionally with them. I think this is because we can have a physical connection with paper, which makes for a more intimate experience. I also think that particularly now, when the bulk of communication is digital, we find greater meaning in paper communication because of the effort and care someone must have taken to actually bother to buy a card, pick up a pen, write something down, go to the trouble to mail it, buy stamps, etc. In the digital age, there is somehow something extra special and evocative about paper communication. It's exciting when someone goes to all that effort to communicate with you - the fact that they were willing to forgo convenience for you, means they must really care.

It leads to a particularly amusing perspective on modern romance and affection. Gone are the days of chivalry - love letters have been replaced by emails, and courtship is most easily done via text message, which allows us to avoid all those pesky obligations like showering, getting dressed up, and making eye contact. As a result, we react very strongly to getting an actual letter, card, or even a phone call - anything that requires more time and effort than typing a few characters while Lost is on commercial. In the digital age, it seems we have come to define romance and ultimate sacrifice as convenience.

Same old, yet new thing

A couple of weeks ago, our class went through 57 boxes of archives from the former London Asylum for the Insane to gather more research material for our project. Going through numerous boxes full of letters and communications, it made me think how little human behaviour has changed, even as we muddle through the digital age. There were lots of really interesting documents, but there were also many that reflected the ordinary, and even mundane activities of everyday life. Going through some of these physical boxes was pretty much the paper equivalent of going through someone's email inbox. Sure, there's the occasional juicy and interesting bit, but there's also a whole lot of stuff, that while relevant at the time, is not at all worth saving, and is of no interest or use to anyone in the future (ie. "Hey, Did you get my email about the meeting today?" or "Do you want to meet for lunch tomorrow?"). I was struck by how little the communication itself has changed, and that the only real difference is that technology has provided us with more accessible, fast, and convenient methods with which to communicate.

An apple a day.....

Does not keep the doctor away in the case of Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computers. After announcing last week that he was suffering from a hormone deficiency, for which he had begun a simple treatment, Steve Jobs elaborated today to say that his health issues were more complex than he originally thought, and as a result, he would be taking a leave of absence. As a result, Apple's stock took a nose-dive and all kinds of panicked questions are being raised about Apple products. Steve Jobs has been an integral part of everything Apple; from the creative process, to marketing initiatives, Jobs has allowed brilliant and innovative ideas to shape Apple into one of the most recognizable and successful companies around. To steal a term from the always clever Apple, Steve Jobs' concept has been "genius" at creating really cool stuff, and then presenting it in the coolest way. I truly believe that Bill Gates lies awake at night - using million dollar bills to wipe his tears away - so frustrated that no matter what he does, Microsoft is never as cool as Apple. They may offer comparable products, but Apple always seems to do it better. Where Microsoft is all about business, function, and aggressive and pervasive marketing campaigns in pursuit of world domination, Apple just chills out, looking cool, working really well, drawing people in because everyone wants to hang out with cool kid.

Based on the reaction of the media and stock market to Steve Jobs' illness, it seems they're not so sure they want to go to the party anymore if Apple's not there. Steve Jobs is so synonymous with his company, that apparently, his illness automatically spreasd to all Apple products and decreases their value. I find it interesting that despite the quality, success, and popularity of Apple technology, faith in the company seems to rest so heavily on a single human being. I wonder if there'd be the same reaction to Microsoft if Bill Gates fell ill? The market response to Steve Jobs' illness implies that without him at the helm, Apple isn't worth as much, and that there's a legitimate fear that the product and brand will decrease in quality in his absence. Does this mean macbook's will be cheaper? Will iPods now only come in black and gray? I think it's interesting because it just goes to show that for all the buzz about technology and our faith in the various technologies we use each day, people still place the bulk of their trust in people. At least, that's what iThink.

Hypertext - "Follow your nose!"

Rarely is the human thought process completely linear. Let's take class discussion as an example; when a question or topic is proposed, someone will respond to the question and in their response, will raise something that evokes a response from someone else, and so on. Oftentimes, the "links" to further discussion have nothing to do with the initial question or the specific answer to it, and we end up talking about something that has nothing to do with the question or topic that got it all started. It's the nature of discussion and the result of putting a bunch of individuals together, who by nature, will have different thought processes. In many ways, it is this type of real world human interaction that hypertext mimics in the virtual world. For this reason, I think it's an incredible feature to include in the design and creation of websites, because it allows any visitor to follow their own train of thought through the world wide web. We may all share a common interest, and thus begin in the same place. However, as interests and thoughts diverge from person to person, hypertext allows us to take up the wisdom of Toucan Sam and "follow your nose" to whatever it is your individual interest is looking for.

Hypertext imitates the way people learn, and is therefore very effective, as well as convenient. Traditionally, people would go grab a book from the library, read it, and what interested them most would lead to further reading and learning. Two people might read the same book, but the thing from that book that inspires further reading may be entirely different. If the book was about Africa, one person might want to learn more about lions, while another may wish to study the Apartheide. Hypertext in a website about Africa would permit each of these people to learn more about their respective areas of interest, through a simple click. The other advantage to hypertext is that it might get people to read and learn about things they otherwise would have ignored or been unaware of. Who knows, the lion enthusiast could end up clicking their way into human rights advocacy.