Caroline Brittingham
Digital History
“Commemoration & the Public Historian
“we … have
a moral obligation to struggle to understand the past as the past actually was.
… [W]e also have an obligation to present at least some of our knowledge to our
fellow citizens in ways that they can understand it, apply it… .”
Above is a quote from the first article of discussion for
this week’s reading. I think there is a fine line historians straddle of
commemoration and celebration and just plain disrespect.
History is much more than the texts of a textbook or the
headlines in the news. History is people and their stories and how they
impacted the community and world around them. History is composed of birth,
death, devastation, alliances, etc. and often times it is hard to portray the
personal history inside of these events.
I think one of the larger problems modern historians have is
letting history be personal, the commemoration side of things. Many times,
historians glaze over events and give a broad view. While this can be helpful
and useful ( and much easier for the historian I am sure ) it also leaves room
for a lot of insensitivity and disrespect to those who were directly effected.
Commemoration is a distinct part of history that is hard to do. Can it ever be
done right? In my opinion, it can not because you will never have all people
agree on how the information is remembered, presented, and portrayed.
Another part of the problem or struggle with historical
commemoration is the fact that everyone remembers history differently. Just
like when a car accident happens, each person involved has a different view and
recollection of what happened before, during, and after the accident occurred.
The same, I think, goes for history. And, as time goes on there may be even more opinions based of geographical
location, beliefs and prior knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment