Written in Stone

In Sanford Levinson's book, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies, he starts off by looking at the way Eastern European nations are dealing with Soviet-era monuments. In the book he examines several controversial monuments throughout the world some of these monuments include Confederate Monuments in the southern United States. Levinson has studied monuments as a way to explore the differences in how diverse societies deal with public space. In my opinion the way Levinson's explains how some nations preserve monuments as historical markers while other nations destroy monuments as catharsis makes for not only educational information and enjoyable reading as well.

The first half had more of a focus on Eastern European Nations Monuments while the second half of the book focuses on the American South and the racial overtones that are brought about by monuments to the Confederacy. I can remember a movement in my home town of Valdosta Georgia from when I was in middle school to remove the statue of Confederate Soldier off the Court House grounds. I had not though about the issue with the monuments that is still there by the way until I started reading this book. Levinson has created fascinating book with topics that every person who reads it can find something to relate with. The book covered topics ranging from the flying of Confederate flags over Southern State Houses. Every history buff should remember that South Carolina only removed the Confederate from flying on their State Capital in the last decade. The portion of the book that was about the statue of Arthur Ashe being placed alongside those of white Confederate leaders in Virginia was especially interesting to me. For those of you that do not know Arthur Ashe was from Richmond Virginia and most likely the greatest male African American tennis player ever. Arthur Ashe died of AIDS in 1993 but is remember for not only what he did on the tennis court but for what he did in his life. Arthur Ashe created a foundation to help address issues of inadequate health care with an infuses in AIDS research. What made the placing of the Arthur Ashe statue on Monument Avenue was an extremely big move for the city of Richmond in my opinion. It was a move that was also much needed. Monument Avenue was a place that traditionally was reserved for statues of key Confederate figures. The decision to put the Arthur Ashe statue there led to some controversy within the city. Some people felt since the city was once the capital of the Confederate States during the Civil War that Monument Avenue should be left to honor the Confederacy.

The book seems to have two separate halves with different visions. Neither half seems to have enough information that ties the first half of the book to the second half of the book. It is in my opinion that without a clear link the two halves just simply co-exist. I found nothing to tie them together except for the extremely short conclusion about the role of a changing public consensus in determining which monuments stay up. If the reader can get through what I consider to be a lot of needless information, then "Written in Stone" is a wonderful book. The book covers who chooses our public monuments and the values they represent if the reader can not follow what the author is trying to say is this book the reader will most likely put it to the side and find some other book on monuments. Levinson uses the topic Public History by using monuments in public spaces and how monuments speak of their nation’s identity. I feel what hurts this book the most is lack of information in each story. The stories seem incomplete in my opinion leaving the reader wanting more. I feel the book lacked on information and the author could validate this book more by placing more information on monuments is the book. However, it does not take away that this book is a wonderful read that can be enjoyed by all who read it

Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History

In Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, Antoinette Burton brought together seventeen people with archival experience some of which were professional historians. I enjoyed reading this book and learning about archiving as the archivists described their personal experiences and interactions with archives. One of the articles I found interesting was about an archivists who offered an interesting argument on how the wealth and prestige of Western researchers can gain the researchers entry into many highly restrictive archives. The article explained how it is important to be well known and have financial backing in order to view and study the collection in some archives. This particular article used the Uzbekistan’s Central State Archive as an example in explaining how wealth and prestige can help the archivist gain access to certain collections. The article described how the Uzbekistan’s Central State Archive severely limits the access of Uzbek researchers but has allowed other more well known historical archivist from Western to be permitted to view its collection. Jeff Sahadeo’s experience with the archives in Uzbekistan was a great example in my opinion. To gain access to the archives meant waiting weeks until a form detailing his research topic was accepted and filed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. What I got out of this was had he been more well know in his filed his path to the Uzbek archive would not have taken as long. In yet another example of how archives can limit access is that of Helena Pohlandt-McCormick in South Africa. She views the archives there as incomplete. She even went so far as saying that the archives had been manipulated by the government. The article described the archivists in South Africa as “guardians” of the archives that make it nearly impossible to gain access to certain records. The article made it seem that the access to the archives is being limited because the archives may reveal injustices the government does not want people to know bout.
A number of the essays question what counts as an archive. According to the American Association of Museums an archive is a museum. While other articles question what counts as history? I believe these questions have been raised because some museums along with their archive have misinterpreted or misrepresented history. The articles encompassed in this book help to highlight the intentions behind the construction and subsequent management of archival collections. They provide the reader with the universally contingent nature of the researcher's interaction with the archive. These articles also challenge scholars to expand on their definitions of evidence so that they include oral testimonies from people who have typically omitted from archival collections in the past and Burton said these omitted people should be made as "dominant regions of truth".
I believe Burton has done a wonderful job in taking these articles of the archivist that have had very different experiences and putting these articles into one clear discussion about treatment of historical archiving. I also believe this book would be an important read for people interested in archiving. I believe it is a truly interesting book and not those just interested in history. The reason is this book encourages people to always question the nature of what we call history and not just history as a subject but the history of life.

Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity Diane Barthel

In Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity Diane Barthel compares the preservation movements of Great Britain and the United States. In taking a comparative approach, Barthel shows the reader that the preservation taking place in Great Britain has largely aimed at preserving traditional values. While in the United States, the preservation process is much more dynamic and democratic, though also more permeated by commercialism. Barthel examines these differences in the preservation movements in the United States and Great Britain. It is important to understand that Barthel felt there were two different reasons for the preservation movement in these countries.

Throughout the book Barthel tries and provide the reader information on the effects historic preservation has on what types of things get preserved. While many people including myself believe that historic preservation is the best way to save history for future generations, Barthel provides information to the reader that shows in some circumstance historic preservation is not always the best way to go. Barthel provides the reader with information concerning the issues when historic preservation been misused. She tells of the cons of too much preservation. In Great Britain Barthel tells how many Churches have been allowed to remain open, even though there is no reason or justification for the Churches to remain open. Over-preservation has become a growing concern in both Great Britain and United States. When to many thing get preserved they tend to lose a bit of their importance. When learned in our last reading that people should preserve thing that are important to them. While this may be true if too many thing get preserved the less important things being preserved can also take away for more important artifacts.

An example of over-preservation I believe Barthel provides the reader is when she tells of the preservation of war artifacts and other memorable. She tells how the Civil War Battlefields have attracted people for many years and how these sites help to stimulate the economies of their surrounding areas. I know this to be true first hand from going over to St. Simons Island in Georgia. While not a Civil War battle field a major site for tourist on St. Simons Island besides the beach is the “Bloody Marsh”. The “Bloody Marsh” is where the Spanish were lured by James Oglethorpe to an open area in a marsh. Oglethorpe placed his men around the open field as the Spanish regrouped, Oglethorpe left his men to try and rally more support. Soon afterwards a much larger Spanish force would emerge and engaged Oglethorpe's men. The colonists battled the much larger and superior Spanish army and forced the Spanish into a haphazard retreat. This is what is now known as the battle of Bloody Marsh. The state of Georgia has turned this area into nothing more than a tourist trap. What was once a beautiful historic site in order to preserve the history of the “Bloody Marsh” Georgia has destroyed the true history of the marsh in my opinion because they have made it into a story with recreated artifacts?

So what is that needs to be preserved and how should it be preserved? Barthel tells how social history has changed the meaning of what is considered an artifact. If we take what we have learned an artifact is anything that is important to another person that they feel needs to be preserved. Barthel provides the example of a package of cookies from the Gulf War used in a museum exhibit in the United Stated. She tells that before the new social history movement occurred a package of cookies would not have been used as a historic artifact in a museum exhibit. She also tells how the British preserved artifact with them same historical significance with their use of plastic cups in museum exhibits. I could see her argument but these items are what make an exhibit unique in my opinion and if these are not preserved how will they be remembered? Barthel does show concern in the over-preservation of artifacts but she also has concern for the problems that can arise from the lack of historic preservation.

This is a great book though in my opinion is difficult to grasp and get into because it is so detailed. This book contains a lot of information I found difficult to comprehend because of the academic nature of the book. She has done an extensive study in historic preservation by studying the collective movement of historic preservation and how these movement span across and among nations.