Digital media and the Historians who try to figure it out.

Cohen’s article The Future of Preserving the Past brings up the worries about digital archives and how they compare to traditional methods. He brings up the fact that a digital form of archiving might have an n inverse proportion of quality and quantity. Cohen brings up how the creation of more accessible forms of media allowed for the rapid creation of records. While this ability to save can been seen as a positive, to a professional archivist it could be a pure nightmare. This ability to create massive amounts of data and present it to the public takes a professional eye out of it. As he states in his article, it would be unrealistic for the Library of Congress to screen all the sites out there for certain subjects. This kind of mass distribution and lack of organization most likely leads archivists to avoid digital collections, despite the impressive capabilities they possess.
The second article by Cohen History and the Second Decade on the Web bring up this problem as well as major benefits. He brings up the ability to collect things like syllabi and organize in ways only a machine could. This ability allows for the efficient organization, allowing for better search abilities and collection management.
Finally, we have Joshua Brown’s History and the Web, From the Illustrated Newspaper to Cyberspace: Visual Technologies and Interaction in the Nineteenth and Twenty-First Centuries. He brings up how History and digital materials can be melded. His success story comes from the use of CDs with texts, providing a massive amount of content compared tot eh bound volume it came with. While this was a success, his work with the American Museum did not go as well. This piece disallowed the free flow that was popular at the time. This attemptive three-dimensional approach failed to live up to expectations, showing that history was still not used to the new media. The digital world and history attempt to work together, but academics need to realize how to approach such a vastly different world.

Oral History and the grand scale.

Frisch's piece A Shared Authority focused upon the use of oral history. He especially focused upon how television used this type of history.
Later in his work, Frisch brings up the concept of using oral history in the Vietnam documentary weakens it, not allowing for a proper critical assessment. He claims that exclusion of sources comes from the sheer use of oral history. He argues that various privileged and non-privileged will not be part of the analysis due to the nature of oral history.
While exclusion does happen, it is part of the oral history in general. Oral history relies solely upon the memories of a person or a group of people. It creates a very intimate feel when it comes to oral history, that the person would not know everything because of time, and their own situation during an event. Oral history acts as an excellent source when working with a specific area, but when dealing with a large concept, the ability of an oral history to contain rich information strains.
With this strain, more oral histories an needed. With more oral histories, there might be agreement or disagreement depending upon what is found. When it comes to creating a narrative, the creators must decide what must be included and excluded. This leads to more omission and can support the argument that oral history disallows for critical assessment.

Film and History.

This week's articles deal with the power of media to shape the public opinion on history. Davis' piece discusses the ability of film to alter how one thinks of a time period. He especially brings up differences with historical fact and fiction. For example, Davis brings up the idea of an open trial. This is brought up to show a major historical error for this time period. This open trial is the exact opposite of trials performed by the Old Regime, which were secretive and disallowed for public discussion and accusation of the defendant. This kind of change can greatly affect about how one thinks of a time period, allowing assumptions to be made by the public about what is correct in history.
Rose and Corley's piece brings up another issue, the manipulation and omission of information by film makers. They bring up the filmmaker Ken Burns and his works. His pieces involving women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. These pieces involved historians being interviewed and then edited by Burns and his crew. This ability to edit film and in turn discussion displays the ability for films to be manipulated. This kind of manipulation allows for directors to sculpt a historical message they envision, omitting what does not fit with their view. This ability creates controversy between what historians believe should be included and what the public actually sees.
Is it alright for filmmakers to alter and omit information if they are trying to create an accurate representation? Are they permitted to omit based upon restraints and artistic ground? Should things always be accurate? These are things historians must deal with, especially since it affects public opinions on historical events.

Hard Times

With a collection like Hard Times, a reader can notice a distinct sense of date and general patterns. One of the more distinct patterns came from food. Many people mentioned their dislike of particular foods due to the depression. People claim they can't have certain things anymore because of this constant eating of it, like a sardine sandwich. It makes a reader wonder about how these foods affect thinking. Does it bring back bad memories, have they been conditioned by the situation to have a disdain? This kind of dislike and distrust directly came from the depression, and even decades later, lingered with that generation. Without a work like Hard Times, a very personal sense of the depression might have never been accessible to future generations as easily.
Another unique sense comes from the actual time period for these. Hard Times and the oral history fields itself, really dates the material. People mention thing such as the Vietnam War like it happened yesterday. These accounts not only provide information upon the great depression, but also on the time period they were taken in. Hard Times created an excellent account of these very personal stories, allowing them to weave powerful personal narratives even in the shortest amounts of space.

Burton and the Archive

Within Burton's work, readers find foreign influence. Much like earlier works read this semester, these foreign groups possess a different approach to the profession.
One particular group that spurred interest was the Uzbek archivists. With the changes in alphabet, archivists rightfully worried about future generations. With a switch in official alphabet, only those who go out of their way to learn the former language would work in the archives effectively. Others would simply be lost, not used to the old way and leave dissatisfied. This kind of situation is certainly foreign to United States historians who travel there, not used to the techniques and practices in other nations.
Some of these practices include the strict messages the stat tries to portray. The restriction on knowledge developed heavily after the breakup of the Soviet Union. With this, Uzbekistan used their archive as a source of power. The government used past records of an independent government as a source of pride and nationalistic feelings. These kinds of worries and uses show how an archive and it's nation interact, both relying upon each other for legitimacy in some cases.

Integration and the public sphere.

Bodnar’s work Remaking America immediately brought up the unique subject of integration. Through his work in the Midwest, the idea of integration takes a distinct appearance, focusing heavily upon the Scandinavian groups who emigrated there. These Scandinavian groups heavily focused upon their ancestors, with many celebrations focused upon the first generations. As these generations grew more distant from the first, celebrations slowly developed into a more general celebration, focusing upon the general idea of the pioneer rather than their direct descendants.
This idea of not simply focusing upon ones descendants shows an inclination towards being part of the norm. These people, as their families grew, slowly lost that deep connection compared to earlier generations. While this connection could be considered cultural loss, it could also be seen as gaining a new culture, one more associated with mainstream America’s. With this, public opinion essentially homogenized more, developing closer to that more stereotypical view of pioneer days.
With this kind of development, reader can connect this idea with ethnic groups in today’s world. One wonders if this melding of ideas and cultures continues, or will the old idea of the “melting pot” will fall apart as ethnic pride as well as racial pride seem to remain strong within some groups. All these things developed from the concept of the norm in society, and they will remain part of for the remained of American History.

Levinson and Statues

Written in Stone created something very unique within United States Public History works; it compared the actions of other nations to those within the United States. This comparison to the destruction of monuments within the former Soviet Bloc created a very different approach. Levinson displayed how the possible destruction essentially can create a similar situation to groups attempting to hold power is less stable nations. Levinson correct notes that symbols such as Stalin statues and even Confederate Commemorations statues retain power, acting as a symbol of authority within the public world.
The idea of altering the meaning also comes out. His use of the Confederate flag and Confederate represented the best examples for this situation. Essentially proposing things such as new plaques and complimenting memorials and even destruction of these symbols, Levinson dove into the debate of these, defining the major issues related to keeping symbols around. He discussed the vast that minorities may be offended and that even changing policies must debate the situation of what these symbols mean to all groups, and even what they mean on a regional and national level.
The fact that debates such as these continued display how much power a symbol holds. Levinson’s essay allowed for a glimpse into the long debate over what symbols should be allowed to stay in the public world and how scholars look into such complex issues.