Read on Twitter
Your daily reminder that public commemoration (statuary and... plaquary?) is not at all about history and serves no record-keeping function whatsoever.
Public acts of commemoration signal from a position of power, what narrative is authorized & worthy of public praise.
Public acts of commemoration signal from a position of power, what narrative is authorized & worthy of public praise.
Study after study shows us that public commemoration does *nothing* to improve public understanding of the past. The statues and plaques are, from the point of view of historical education, worthless.
They foster name recognition. That's it.
Pretty low on Bloom's taxonomy...
They foster name recognition. That's it.
Pretty low on Bloom's taxonomy...
What they accomplish is to consume resources (space, time, public attention) in service of one celebration / constructed memory - and so they also strip those resources away from other celebrations / constructions.
Public history runs on a limited budget of space, money, etc.
Public history runs on a limited budget of space, money, etc.
So if we elect to raise a statue in a space, if physics didn't tell us we're stuck with only that object in that space, the budget manager would.
This matters, because public commemoration again, is absolutely an act affirming power.
This matters, because public commemoration again, is absolutely an act affirming power.
And history - the construction we bang together about actors and events in the past - is rife with power differentials.
So people with the power to install an expensive thing in a public place, do so to serve a narrative that generally emerges from contention.
So people with the power to install an expensive thing in a public place, do so to serve a narrative that generally emerges from contention.
Shocker: this means that the things we *wish* to remember almost always have a radically different meaning for people who attach their understanding to a different aspect of the power dynamic.
... and when you install The Thing in a public space, part of its public function (congratulations, bonehead) will absolutely be to push those conflicting stories upwards in public exchange.
Better plan for that when you do your plaque-statue-site whatever.
Better plan for that when you do your plaque-statue-site whatever.
There is ALWAYS a problem with the way the Cool Kids With Enough Money To Buy Marble And Convince The City To Let Them Use It, want to use the marble.
I mean, sometimes they're just not that good at what they do, and make a statue of the wrong person.
I mean, sometimes they're just not that good at what they do, and make a statue of the wrong person.
Heritage is self-serving, and present-oriented.
The best you can do with heritage is try to make sure that it patronizes the interests of as broad a group as possible.
Of course, the momentary alignment of interests of several groups will evaporate.
The best you can do with heritage is try to make sure that it patronizes the interests of as broad a group as possible.
Of course, the momentary alignment of interests of several groups will evaporate.
And then your statue-plaque-school theme-park bench will be what every other public historical installation that has ever been built, becomes the day it opens: an outdated flashpoint for disagreement.
If you're not pretty chill about that, this can be uncomfortable. Difficult.
If you're not pretty chill about that, this can be uncomfortable. Difficult.
Here ends my presentation for the public history career fair.
On the other hand, if the pearl-clutching yOu ArE eRaSiNg HiStOrY crew *actually* cared about our understanding of the past, you know what they'd be protesting?
Cuts to libraries and archives. Stolen artifacts. Development that destroys archaeological sites.
Cuts to libraries and archives. Stolen artifacts. Development that destroys archaeological sites.
I find it helps to silently soundtrack every encounter with Statuists with "Every Statue Is Sacred" in the back of my mind, by the way.
Seriously, though, the objection to "rewriting history" from heritage "preservationists" often amounts to a hostile reaction to one of the most critical functions of archives and historians in an open, democratic society.
The public interpretation and presentation of archival records is a critical tool for accountability, for checking the powerful, for understanding & criticising our governments and other organisations.
Hence the significance of the integrity of record-keeping in a just society.
Hence the significance of the integrity of record-keeping in a just society.
Tearing down a statue is a challenge to a narrative, of course, but the real threat is not in the remaking of public space. It's in the idea that Certain People Might Be Held To Account.
Possibly even by people they harmed.
#wut
Possibly even by people they harmed.
#wut
This is why something like the completeness and accessibility of records around the Residential Schools, really matters.
If the record has good integrity, people can independently pursue a well-founded understanding of the past.
If the record has good integrity, people can independently pursue a well-founded understanding of the past.
This is also why people should pay attention to the quality of records created by those in power.
It might seem really nerdy to care about things like "do business in writing if you're a public servant" but this stuff *matters*.
This is one way we find and address wrongdoing.
It might seem really nerdy to care about things like "do business in writing if you're a public servant" but this stuff *matters*.
This is one way we find and address wrongdoing.
So we see that often the most strident "pro-history" public voices are actually deliberately opposed to both the process and products of disciplined history.
It's particularly painful in that the Bogeyman that haunts the statue crowd, "rewriting history," is in fact the bread-and-butter of actual historians.
Tell a historian that reading their work prompted you to rethink and rewrite a work of your own, and they'd probably blush.
Tell a historian that reading their work prompted you to rethink and rewrite a work of your own, and they'd probably blush.
The very best historical work, of course, is remarkable because it makes it impossible to see an event in the same way after you read it.
The argument is transformative.
You are *compelled* to do that terrible thing, and rewrite the past, because the argument is so good.
The argument is transformative.
You are *compelled* to do that terrible thing, and rewrite the past, because the argument is so good.
Nothing illustrates the gap between people who love history and people who are Very Proud of Their Heritage more than the energy with which they overturn their own understandings when confronted with good evidence and persuasive argument.