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.