Week 2: Museums and the Origins of Public History

Mike Wallace wrote Mickey Mouse History and Other Essays on American Memory, to  “examine the way Americans have grappled with the preservation and presentation of history in public settings”(xii).  Wallace makes note that Americans do not hold the same relationship to the past that people from other countries have.  For most Americans the discovering their ancestors, the history of their communities, or stories of great events in American History is what greatly interests them.  Not every one has the same view or opinion about history and there have been a few conflicts over collective memory.  Planned museum exhibits have come under fire, for example the National Air and Space Museum’s 1994-95 proposed Enola Gay exhibit.  But is does not stop at just conflicts, as Wallace points out, dictators like Stalin “police the past as well as the present, suppressing some memories, embellishing others.” (xi). 

Wallace’s first essay Visiting the Past: History Museums in the United States, discusses how the very first “museum” Washington’s house at Mount Vernon was preserved and how museums first came into being in the United States.  During the mid 1800’s, Americans were not interested in preserving sites of historic value because the monetary value outweighed the price is would cost to preserve the buildings.  Several groups were formed and they would construct shrines and monuments, some of these groups were: Sons of the American Revolution, Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities.  Henry Ford, like many others, believed that history had no business in the present and people should live in the now, later on he created the first museum villages in Sudbury, Massachusetts.  Wallace notes that the first museums seen in America voiced the opinion of those who developed them, and left out parts of history that they or the public would not like.  This is a very interesting essay and gives insight into how Americans viewed museums in the 19^th and 20 century. 

Wallace’s second essay Razor Ribbons, History Museums, and Civic Salvation, discusses different types of museums in different areas and what they emphasize as important history.  Many of the urban museums put more focus on the history of the surrounding areas.  Museums are also changing how they display the history or artifacts.  Wallace himself proposed an exhibit that is not based on objects but on architecture, construction, developers, housing as well as other things.  This essay is not as straightforward as the last one, where some knowledge of the areas he discusses would help to understand why they design their museums the way they do. 

Patricia Mooney-Melvin’s Professional Historians and the Challenges of Redifinition, discusses how the history profession expanded from academic to the study of Public History and what that entails.  Melvin’s essay is very informative but dry and makes it hard to focus on all the facts that are presented.  One interesting fact is that professional historians paid less attention to individuals who worked in historical organizations, archives, the federal government, as independent historians, or the general public who read history books or visited historical sites.  Finally public history broke free and became its own respected profession although the definition of what public history is and what a public historian does is still greatly debated. 

Constance B Schulz’s Becoming a Public Historian discusses how a person becomes a public historian today.  Schulz discusses how one entered the public history field in the early years before the creation of public history programs.  The programs were split into three categories of study: archives and information management, cultural resources management, and applied research.  Schulz essay is very interesting and gives much information about the differences between academic history and public history. 

Museum Sells Pieces of Its Past, Reviving a Debate article by Robin Pogrebin, discusses how the Philadelphia History Museum sold numerous artifacts to provide funding for a $5.8 million renovation of their 1826 building.  There was much controversy about museums like this one selling historic artifacts to fund museum projects.  Pogrebin hits the mark when discussing why people are against this move and how the transactions are not closely recorded. 

Courtesy of The Philidelphia History Museum, taxidermied Philly