All Time is Now: Making History in a Digital World

Blink, and...damn it, already missed it.

2012-01-03T11:05:00.000-08:00

I think it's quite fitting that my first post in (yeesh, I can barely believe it) over two years was compelled into being by thoughts on the much buzzed about fantastical, fearsome, and forboding entity that is "change." The year has changed, cellphones have changed, reading has changed, my facebook page has changed, and yet much to the disappointment of technodoomsdayers, the world continues to go on.

I got thinking about this as I was surveying the job market as reference for what courses and skills I might need to take or develop in order to keep myself on the move career-wise (and God-willing, city-wise). Obviously, these focus almost entirely on maintaining, or in some cases, catching-up on, my digital literacy. What strikes me the most about this utterly expected finding is that less than three years ago, I was enrolled in an MA programme that taught me the ways of the digital world and introduced the most cutting-edge of concepts concerning the capabilities of technology for the future. And now, less than three years later, none of that is relevant.

Now, it is the future. Now, much like I remember that thrilling day in 1996 when I opened netscape navigator on my original iMac and experienced the internet for the first time, I now remember that day in class where I could not believe the newest capabilities of Web 2.0. Now, accustomed to the expected luxury of all these things, I ironically ask Siri why the internet on my blackberry is so crappy, become enraged by less-than-optimal internet service, and wonder sincerely how and why people continue to live without PVRs and highspeed. And yet now, I realize that despite being on top of all these trends in terms of being a user, and despite all my education, in the time I've spent getting to know blackberry, iphone, twitter, and Chrome, technology has already moved on. In fact, we are living in a world changed so quickly by it, few really have the chance to see it happening (except of course the Jobses of the world who kept the change coming and will thus be remembered for changing the course of human history - ya, no big deal).

So 2012 begins with me in a place where web word "search" is completely appropo. Search for new opportunities, seach for an escape from Capcity lock-up, and search for courses to keep myself current, because when it comes to being up-to-date, the user is just as important as the technology.

History in its Natural Environment

2009-04-01T19:02:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-25T20:17:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-21T13:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-06T08:05:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-04T07:40:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-03T16:25:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-01T16:43:00.000-08:00

"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

2009-01-24T20:30:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-24T19:48:00.000-08:00

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.....

2009-01-14T18:31:00.000-08:00

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!"

2009-01-07T15:18:00.000-08:00

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.

"Connecting" to the Past

2008-11-25T23:02:00.000-08:00

I'm currently working on transcribing and editing the diary of a First World War soldier. The entire process has been fascinating and a poignant experience of how the past can be so easily brought to life in the present. This is my first experience approaching a research project using digital resources to assist in the completion of my work, and it has yielded some pretty exciting results. I am working from the scanned images of a primary document, which allows me greater freedom with the document - I'm not confined to an archive and can use a pen if I want to! - without losing the critical feeling and experience of working with a genuine artifact. In addition to ensuring this wonderful document is preserved in the event something happens to the original, having the diary digitized also means I have been able to make my own copy.

Now that I've moved on to the editing (which includes adding footnotes and creating a glossary to establish context/location and explain some of the slang/terminology used by soldiers in the War), the internet has proven to be an invaluable resource. There are innumerable articles, books, and collections online that have made the answers and information I'm looking for available with ease and without cost. I've been able to cross-reference the information I've found in books with what I've found online to gain a more accurate perspective of this man's experience, and what of his story I need to help tell to make it relevant and understandable to a present-day reader.

I've also been able to find more out about who this man was because of the incredible volume of open source primary documents available online. At Library and Archives Canada, I was able to view and print his Attestation papers, which document the details of his enlistment and offer amazing insight into his personal situation as well as the tenure of the times. The most exciting thing however, happened a couple of weeks ago when I was reading an entry in his diary where he talks about being awarded a medal for what he did at Passchendaele. Ever the modest soldier, he doesn't provide any details about what he did in battle to receive this decoration, but this only incensed my curiousity. I googled his name and the type of medal he won and found myself at the Library and Archives UK site, where I was given the option of viewing the original record of his medal win for £2. After being tempted by this jackpot information find, it took little convincing to enter in my visa number. Within 30 seconds, I received an email thanking me for my support and containing the link to access my document for 52 days with the ability to print it out.

Being able to see these original documents without having to leave the house or the country for that matter, is such an amazing thing. The technology available today can so effectively be used to complement or dare I say supplement, traditional methods of research. It gives historians access to things that would otherwise be unreachable and thus lost as sources for our work. To experience all these different research methods come together has been, for lack of a better word, really cool. Digitization has made possible a final product that would otherwise have been impossible for me to create. Through the internet, the present has actually become one of history's greatest allies.

Seeking the Truth and finding it in the most unexpected places

2008-11-19T15:02:00.000-08:00

Today a colleague and I made the trip to Chatham to visit the Black Heritage Room, a small museum that explores black heritage and history in Chatham. Waking up before the sun and making the drive along the 401 to the small Southwestern Ontario town, we weren't sure (other than Tim Horton's and McDonald's) what the visit would entail. What we found was an impressive small museum built of love, dedication, and hard work. As part of our visit, we were lucky enough to meet and interview self-made historian Gwen Robinson, a woman whose contribution to history is both incredible and noteworthy. Sparked by an interest in her family history and her son's request for assistance on a research paper, Gwen started researching and has never looked back. She is a living example of public history in practice, and the power and accomplishment that can be achieved through a passion for the past. Speaking with her and hearing the stories she has to tell makes it clear that she is a treasure to her community and to the field of history.

Frustrated that black history in Chatham was without a voice, a victim of selective history and the colour barrier, Gwen has dedicated the last 40 years to changing the face of history in Chatham. Her book, Seeking the Truth: A Story of Chatham's Black Community is a commendable achievement and the first book to tell this story. She has brought to life a history that might otherwise have been forgotten, and created the opportunity for people to understand and learn about a fascinating part of Canadian black history. I hesitate to call Gwen an amateur historian after hearing her speak and seeing shelf after shelf full of her research, but for the sake of this post, I will stick to the term, because I want to highlight the possibilities in history that are available to everyone.

Public history and particularly digital history, place a lot of emphasis on accessibility, and Gwen's achievements prove just how close to history the public can become. History of all kinds is out there waiting to be found. With interest, passion, and a dedication to "seeking the truth," anyone is capable of finding it.

If it's inspiration you're looking for, go meet Gwen Robinson and explore the Black Heritage Room. It's worth the drive to Chatham.

The Will to Remember

2008-11-10T21:36:00.000-08:00

“To you from failing hands/ we throw the torch/ be yours to hold it high.”

90 years after the end of the First World War, only one Canadian veteran remains alive, and with him, the war will pass from living memory. Monuments, plaques and literature have already been created to ensure the veterans of the Great War are not forgotten in the physical world. But as the event fades further into the past, it becomes our responsibility to preserve their memory in our present and future consciousness by engaging with history and in active remembrance. Now, it is our turn.

War is a horrible thing, but remembrance cannot be clouded by contemporary interpretations of contemporary wars. Concepts of honour, courage, liberty, truth and justice are tainted by post-modern cynicism, but to past generations, these values were real and they were everything worth fighting for, worth dying for. Part of remembrance is accepting the truth of the past, even if it does not exist the same way in the present. Knowledge of the war that defended and preserved the civilization we know today and of the beliefs that forged nations and led people to fight, deeply enrich our modern existence and provide a constructive reminder of the capabilities of human good and evil.

In the now, it is essential that people understand that supporting our troops and veterans does not mean supporting war, and that the meaning of remembrance should not be distorted through a modern looking glass. Future generations need to be told about our history and the events that shaped our nation. They should know about the sacrifice made by so many Canadians and about the unimaginable impact of total war. They should know to be thankful for their freedoms, for their youth, and for the opportunities of their future. They should know it is a luxury to be able to take these things for granted, to expect them. They should know that history has not been as kind to past generations, and they should know that through remembrance, we have the chance to say thank you.

They had the courage to sacrifice their lives, so we must have the will to Remember.

Google as personal assistant

2008-10-15T21:44:00.000-07:00

When the subject of information tracking comes up, it often invokes a reaction full of words like "frightening," "creepy" and "scary." I however, tend to react with "awesome," "convenient" and "useful."

We've all dreamed of being rich and famous enough to have a personal assistant to go fetch us a coffee or a good book when we don't have the time or desire to do it ourselves. The city of New York relies upon the existence of 24 hour convenience stores that deliver (insert "awesome" here) to answer the desires of people who need that bag of chips at 3am. Information tracking on the internet is really no different, yet because it involves technology (and thus some insidious plot for world domination) people are suspicious and tend to freak out and cry privacy violation and everyone's favourite thing to fear (GASP!) identity theft. People already rent dvds, buy books, clothes, music and more online - most of us have already succumbed to the romance of convenience and in doing so, have volunteered personal information as part of the exchange. Why this is such a big deal, I just can't understand. The internet having the information required to recommend books or music that I'd like doesn't mean any personal and/or private lines have been crossed. If the internet knows what I like to read and listen to, it doesn't mean it knows me. It doesn't mean it somehow knows my deepest, darkest secrets (except perhaps that I think Buffy is the greatest show of all time) and what's really going on in my life. Also, the internet's not alive, so why people care if it knows things that will make your life so much easier is beyond me. I mean, I get it, but I don't get it. Because of the abundance of information on the internet, information tracking is a godsend. If I had to sit down and go through all the books and music on amazon and itunes without having any tools to assist me, I'd get frustrated and give up. The tools available on these sites that are made possible by information tracking are essential to their function and popularity. What would be the point of them if they couldn't offer you an experience that differed from that which you'd get in a traditional store?

The last point I want to address is the idea that the internet is making us lazy. I disagree. There is a big difference between being lazy and just not wanting to. We all spend a lot of time doing things we don't want because we have to, so when you have the option not to do something you don't want to do, why would you do it anyway? It also makes absolutely no sense to do something the hard way, when an easier, more efficient way is available. It's kind of like choosing to take the train from London to Toronto that takes over 3 hours instead of the one that takes 2 hours or doing all your banking at the branch instead of online - why, why, WHY would anyone choose to do this?!

So when I find a book in the google library that would otherwise have required I go to Huron to get it, I will happily use the google library. When I buy an album on itunes and it recommends other things to me, I will listen. When my ipod shuffles songs based upon how much it knows I love them, it makes me happy. Information tracking is awesome and does so many fantastic things that I could, but would prefer not to live without. I often smile at the genius of my computer and I look forward to the day that I get a text on my phone reminding me to get milk and letting me know I can get said milk right around the corner.

Books and the internet: BFF's

2008-09-18T22:06:00.000-07:00

"The web will illuminate rather than eliminate books." Kudos to Anthony Grafton for a line that is all at once simple and movingly expressive. Of all the readings last week, this one stood out for me because it really made me think. As someone who sometimes struggles to reconcile her immense love of books with her pro-digital opinions, I was impressed and encouraged by this article because it didn't approach the two as though they are automatically engaged in a gladiator fight to the death. In addition to being a really well crafted and well written piece, I thought it presented a balanced, realistic and positive opinion regarding the latest in Google-gate scandals. Perhaps I enjoyed it so much because like me, the author LOVES books, but I think what really struck me was that he was able to support the digitization of books without any kind of traitorous escape from Camp Book.

I'll admit, my first reaction to the Google Library went something like an old school (think Adam West) comic book word bubble, "Zap! Egads! Ack!" So here goes.....My name is Natalie and I regret to inform you that I was not initially fond of the idea of Google scanning all the books in the world. My knee-jerk reaction was that of many, which was to fear for the loss of the book and therefore hate whatever suggests changing anything. My reaction speaks ironic volumes about both my belief in books and my trust of the internet.

I adore and respect books and often think the world would be a better place if everyone spent more time reading. There is something magic about interacting with a book, when words on a page are powerful enough to transport you to another world. There is an intimacy in being absorbed by a book, when the ideas of another person are capable of conjuring meaning for so many. There is also something about being able to possess a book because it is physically present. You can own a book and it can tell you a lifetime of stories, but you can't own the internet (unless maybe you're Google) and possess the information it provides as your own.

The ying to my fear yang was my suspicion that the internet would indeed eliminate physical books in many people's lives and that we'd end up with too many people who had never experienced reading an actual book, who would then lose touch with an essential part of humanity and we'd then lose a huge part of our cultural identity and civilization would be doomed. The Grafton article extracted me from this burning Orwellian train of thought and made me look at the whole thing from a really different perspective.

I have now stopped secretly wishing the Google Library gets taken down Enron-style by copyright red tape, only to have a spiteful book written about its demise. I just had to go beyond my already conditioned opinions and look at the whole thing objectively, realizing that in fact, I could be one of the first to throw pro-Google Library parties at Camp Book. So here I stand, reformed. Books and the internet aren't against each other and they aren't to be compared. One isn't better than the other, they're just inherently different and provide two distinct experiences with the written word. Ultimately, if it's a book or a computer screen, I should just be really happy that people are reading.

So the moral of this blogging is, enter the digital dimension with the idea of turning differences into strengths and try and understand the ways that books and the internet complement rather compete with one another. I had this really profound line about "illuminating, not eliminating" but then this Anthony Grafton character up and got to it first;)

Luddite

2008-09-09T15:49:00.000-07:00

As I've been doing the readings for class this week, I can't help but smirk at the fact that it seems they've been written just for me. I'll admit, it has taken me much longer to get through the online readings than it would have if they were on good ol' fashioned paper. I'm having a hard time processing that my academic resources are entirely online and find myself in a place where I need to do a total overhaul of my reading and studying habits, which is freaking me out a little. Gone is my trusty pen or highlighter, which I have faithfully used to underline important points in readings and write my thoughts and comments in the margins. I'm so thrown off, in fact, that I'm not sure if I should be taking notes at all or if, like the usual material I read online, I'm just supposed to come away from it with whatever my mind chose to retain.

I am a true believer in the points made in the readings about historians needing to interpret new technology and be the connector between the past and the present audience. I also think it's hugely important for the survival of our discipline because the world won't stop becoming increasingly digitized, so if we fail to hop on that train, our knowledge could be confined to a minority of people, when it has the potential to reach mass audiences. That is exactly why I chose this program and why I think it has an edge over the rest. That said, I like books and I miss them.

It's challenging enough coming back to school after four years in the working world and away from this routine. It's even harder to arrive and find that all my previous student skills and experience seem to be in need of a serious update for which I received no auto-notification on my computer screen! I'm just learning that I can't be a history student the way I used to be. Things have changed that much and that fast. Difficult as the initial adjustment period might be, I think this only further illuminates the importance, or perhaps more accurately, the necessity for learning about digital history and what new media has to offer us as historians.

The Power of the Past: The message is more important than the means

2008-09-07T19:45:00.000-07:00

After spending the last month or so living a nomadic lifestyle, what seemed like a state of eternal moving has come to an end and I finally got settled in my new apartment. After a few days, I was apparently lost without the thrill of living out of a suitcase and having no idea where many of my personal possessions were, so I got packed again and went back to Toronto for the weekend. The main reason was to go to the Virgin Music Festival, but I also worry that I've developed some sort of sadistic addiction to moving, as though I don't recognize myself unless my shins are covered in Ikea furniture-inflicted bruises.

While I was at home, I had the chance to catch up with the goings on at the film festival, particularly with regard to Passchendaele (which I am Matrix-level excited to see). After forcing myself to move on from my nostalgia for last year's festival (where thanks to a well-connected friend, I got to go to all the galas and parties and thus spent 13 days straight having more free food and drinks and less sleep than I ever thought possible), I turned my focus to looking further into the most expensive movie ever made in Canada (an unheard of 20 million bucks). The force of nature behind this film - Paul Gross - is an impressive guy and a great Canadian. I say this not only because he played a mountie and a soldier and isn't especially hard on the eyes, but because he single-handedly fought to have this film made and therein for Canadian history to have a voice in the public realm.

I got to thinking about the various stages that he went through in order to make this film and was pleased and impressed to find that there was an element of public history in all of them. His inspiration came from his grandfather and therefore having the experience of the Great War within living memory. History certainly resonates far more in the mind when its being told as a first-person account. This motivated him to learn more and most importantly, to respect and honour not only the soldiers who gave their lives in the war, but the value that event has to all Canadians as a part of our history and a defining moment in nationhood. I always say that as a human being, the most important part of history is not memorizing dates and facts, but to feel history, to connect emotionally with the events of the past, from which one can develop an understanding of human experience and why history matters. Not everyone can be (or wants to be) a historian in the academic sense, but I think everyone is capable of feeling history, because human emotions have remained pretty much the same throughout time - love is joy and death is sadness. It's for this reason that I see great value in film and television as a way to make people see and feel the power of the past. For all the criticism - much of it warranted - that pop history receives, it is arguably the most effective and accessible way to communicate historical information to the public. Because of this movie, many people will feel something and learn something about Canadian history that they may otherwise never have known. What they see might tweak their interest and inspire them to pursue further learning. I think this potential is incredible and something historians must acknowledge as a necessity in the field as the world becomes ever more digitized and impersonal.

I wanted to urge everyone to check out the website for Passchendaele as it is a brilliant example of both public history and digital history. Paul Gross has posted all his grandfather's letters from during the war, has a blog that he wrote throughout the filming of the movie and has interactive programs to give kids an incentive to learn about the war and how people felt during that time. There's the opportunity for kids to write their own letter from the front as they'd imagine it and vivid before and after pictures of the farmland/battlefields of WW1. In doing further research, I found out that in addition to doing it because it mattered very much to him to get the info out to people, the detail put into the website was a tool he used to raise the money needed to make the film. He met with Canada's richest people and as many people from the government as he could and used the website to show them why this movie needed to be made and thus why they should give him the money to make it. This is a whole other avenue of public history and one particularly relevant to this class. This film has come at a really good time for those of us in the program as it's a really good example of public history and digital history in practice as well as a great example of what passion and perseverance in history can accomplish.

So it begins...

2008-09-03T16:01:00.000-07:00

Hello all. Well, after staring at a blank page for a while, it seems I have no choice but to beat the blinking cursor by dwelling for a moment, in my own irony; I generally can't shut up and yet, as I start this blog, I find myself oddly at a loss for words. My experience blogging has thus far been limited to killing time at work by going to random and anonymous internet sites (ok, fine...usmagazine.com may or may not have come up once or twice) and commenting on the latest escapades of some vapid celebrity, with the sole intention to invoke an extremely amusing grammatical disaster of a response from someone on "Team Aniston." Aside from there being no birth of twins or undergarment absenteeism to comment on, I think my current "bloggers block" is because I'm not entirely sure whether to go with a trusty stream of consciousness approach or attempt to present some deeply philosophical and profound statement about the relationship between history and new technologies. Truth be told, the latter option is a far more demanding task than I'm willing to entertain at present, so I guess I'll save that for later and just stick to the basics:

I'm really excited to take this class and learn about a whole new dimension to the study of history. I am also eager to improve my (admittedly) rudimentary tech skills, as I expect that advanced knowledge of ipod and blackberry operation doesn't qualify me for any IT positions outside the Best Buy sales team. As appealing as that 40% discount is, I think this is going to be a great class and I look forward to meeting everyone.

In closing, it seems I didn't end up having any trouble finding words after all, lol.