Written in Stone Review

In Sanford Levinson's book, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies, the significance of public monuments are examined within the context of public and collective memory. He examines several controversial monuments, especially in the South, as a way to explore the different ways in which society deals with public space. Although he ultimately focuses on the American South, Levinson begins by looking at monuments in Eastern Europe, Nicaragua, and Zimbabwe. These global examples really bolster his historical argument that Southern monuments are much more controversial than originally thought. In addition to monuments, Levinson also sees objects such as stamps, inscriptions, and flags as symbols of a national identity and collective memory.

One of the more interesting points that Levinson makes is that often societies who suffer extreme regime changes often have an easier time deciding how to treat their public monuments than a society, such as the United States, that has, for the most part, experience a subtle culture change over decades of time. Within Germany, there are no monuments and statues dedicated to Hitler and SS members and this is understood by everyone. In the Soviet Union, statues of Lenin and other communist are removed with controversy. These acts represent a reaction to the “bad spouse” idea that Levinson mentions at the end of the book. In America, however, historical culture had changed a much more subtle rate, resulting in the graying of American culture. Monuments to Confederate heroes are still revered by many Southerners and therefore their removal or destruction would be hotly contested. I had never previously viewed this difference although I had unconsciously agreed with it my entire life. As Levinson says, the difference lies in the way collective memory is developed and how the “couple” parted ways.

I think it is also important to note that Levinson's career as a lawyer makes a difference in how he views public monuments. He is careful to make it clear that he believes in a person's right to wave the Confederate flag or believe in Confederate heroes but that it should not be within the public sphere. Although he agrees that Federal courts do not have the rights to order State governments to remove Confederate flags from State Capitols, he still believes that the public arena should not be a place of exclusion and biased towards one religion or one political viewpoint. Although I think he made very good points and made astute observations, I, as a Southerner, had to keep reminding myself that he was not explicitly attacking the South. As an anthropology major in undergraduate, I was constantly reminded about the language I used when talking about a culture and the importance of “loaded” vs. “neutral” words. I feel like Levinson's words were quite loaded and could end up causing some of his readers to be defensive and therefore not concentrate on his essential argument, that monuments and other memorial objects reflect and legitimize the public historical memory. This is just a minor concern however and has the complete possibility of being purely personal.

Archive Stories review

In Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, historians gathered together in order to describe their personal interactions with archives and to outline the ways in which archives support and detract the cultures that they exist in. Many of the historians tell tales of the archive supporting national identity and as Burton says, having “dynamic relationships” to their environment as well as the past that constantly change.

After reading this collection, I must say I was surprised at the amount of power illustrated that the archive possesses. The archive is not just a repository for documents of historical importance, but in some instances, it can determine the path that history takes. I saw this in the essay about the archives and the German Nation. During WWII, much of what was kept was seen as a way to protect “Aryan” history and genealogy. Papers that were collected in the official archives were highly slanted towards what Germany felt was its national identity. Therefore documents representing groups such as Jews and Eastern Europeans were ignored. This leads to “the Racial Archive,” as Peter Fritzsche puts it in which whole racial groups are ignored. I had never thought about an archive having this ability before. For me, an archive is a place where historical documents are placed, no matter their subject. Of course having historical significance is a criterion, but that significance should be across the board rather than dealing with merely one racial group’s history.

Another story I found compelling was that of Durba Ghosh’s story of her time researching in Britain and India. She showed that what the archive possesses is not always what the researcher is going to receive. She shows the importance the archivists and staff working there can possess. Working in India, where there is a wealth of information about British colonial rule, Ghosh met with resistance due to the perceived inappropriateness of her topic. The “gatekeepers” of the archive deemed her topic crude and therefore did not allow her access to as many of the documents as she would like. They had much more at stake culturally than the British did who welcomed her thesis with open arms despite the fact they did not contain as much information. I had never before quite realized the impact archivists can have upon researchers. Rather than merely providing the information requested, archivists instead actively engage the researchers and inadvertently shape their topics of research.

While I found many of the essays enlightening and engaging, there were a few that I did not connect with very much. Some, such as Antoinette Burton’s own introduction were heavy handed with historical theory, so much so that I found myself skimming in order to get done with it. Almost all quoted Foucault or Derrida as away to bolster their arguments, but they often lost me in their theoretical approaches to the stories. The most engaging essays for me were those that told a personal connection with the archives or changed my perspective about them. One of the ideas that greatly upset me was during the essay about the condition archivists and researchers must live in, in Uzbekistan. It spoke to my belief that archives should be for the people since the documents within were once owned by the people. Jeff Sahadeo’s essay was told in such a way that I, as hopefully a future archivist, felt connected to those he encountered during his time spent there and felt professional empathy for their struggles.

Historic Preservation- Diane Barthel

Diane Barthel's book, Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity, explores the different aspects of the preservation world. She looks mainly at the differences between British and American preservation in order to explain the mind frame that determines what gets preserved and how it affects different communities. Problems that one country faces is quite different than those of another country's, creating differing practices within the same field. Barthel maintains that British preservation stems from an elite voice, searching to preserve those historical places they deem worthy. In America, as we learned in class last Tuesday, preservation is run by grassroots organizations that focus on not just the elite but rather then neglected as well as the historically important.

An overarching argument that I saw in Barthel's book was the effect preservation can have upon what it is preserving. I know I personally view historic preservation generally in a positive light, believing it is saving history for future generations. Barthel effectively shows that this is not always so. In fact, over-preservation has become a major concern both in Great Britain and in America. Before even beginning this book, I thought about to something a friend had told about his time spent in London. He mentioned that many churches in England may have only 4 or 5 parishioners but is still required to remain running. This is due to the fact that all churches are seen as historic and therefore are forced to remain open. Sure enough, in the book, Barthel mentions this very issue in regards to the cons of too much preservation. Churches that may otherwise have allowed room for new architecture are being kept open, even though often there is no justification for it to remain open.

In America, Barthel mentions the strain between private and public enterprises when it comes to preservation. Many historical landmarks such as churches and homes are privately owned, but seen as a member of the American heritage. Preservationists who strive to protect these buildings are sometimes accused of overstepping their boundaries when it comes to the private/public realm. The example given by Barthel is the proposed selling of a Jewish yeshiva to a developer for the building of a apartment home. Although the owners were in favor of selling, the preservation community argued against the sale due to the historic significance of the house. Eventually the house was declared a landmark and saved from being sold, but at what price? Private owners ma eventually no longer have the rights with their property that America has long been known for.

Obviously, both sides present their own problems and Barthel delves into the issue with an even hand. She expresses concern both for over-preservation and the decay that can come from the lack of it. Although lacking the personal spark that Young possesses in his essays, her topic is also more academic therefore requires a more serious approach. She explores not just her own experience with preservation but rather the experiences of of the collective memory, especially Great Britain and the United States.