Friday, March 12, 2010
Portland by bike
Letting "preservation" go?
All three panelists argued for the importance of getting beyond the limitations of the way the preservation field has historically defined its mission. Brown suggested that American preservationists should in fact follow the lead of their colleagues in many other parts of the world and shift to thinking about "conservation" rather than "preservation," as a way to talk about a much broader ethos and way of living rather than a way to save case-by-case specific properties and places. One of the things that sometimes frustrates me about the preservation, public history, and museum fields is that projects so often get stalled within categories that confine us even though we know intellectually that they're artificial and problematic--notions like "tradition," "heritage" or "preservation" itself, so convincingly deconstructed by recent scholarship yet still so powerful in public practice relating to history. This session gave me real hope that a newer paradigm may be emerging, more clearly focused more on the kinds of underlying values and goals that are often masked in public history practice but that the world needs urgently as people try to confront the behaviors and patterns that are increasingly landing us in ecological and economic hot water.
It was also heartening to see public history practitioners linking up the insights of history--for example, the knowledge of how older urban neighborhoods were built to be highly walkable--with emerging public policy attempting to create places that are responsive to social, environmental, and economic concerns. This kind of holistic thinking is in fact extremely anthropological, and seems to reinforce a notion I've had for years that public history and anthropology have much to offer each other. It was great to see a session where people were not only talking about moving beyond the limits of existing professional and disciplinary discourses but actually going ahead and doing it!
Historical Thinking Dine-Around
After serving on a panel about digital history curricula and "tools" for public historians with 4 great folks (Jeremy Boggs and Tom Scheinfeldt from the Center for History and New Media, Leah Surstedt from American University/National Trust for Historic Preservation and Lauren Gutterman from NYU/OutHistory.org) I looked forward to turning my attention to another strong interest of mine-- historical thinking and teaching with primary sources.
I was thrilled by how many people signed up for the dine-around I organized on the topic. There were archivists, digital librarians, museum curators, museum educators, and university professors in charge of teaching undergraduates environmental history and teaching pre-service high-school level social studies teachers. Despite a bit of an adventure in search of the restaurant, I think that the evening was well-received. Conversation seemed lively around the table and from what I overheard and absorbed, touched on the intersections between these different related fields and our mutual commitments to helping the public learn how to think critically about the past. I also appreciate some helpful advice for me to bring back to my institution, the National September 11 Memorial Museum on how to use the process of parsing available sourcematerial on 9/11 to introduce students to thinking critically about sources and the construction of historical narratives. Ironically, perhaps, this advice came from a professor who teaches teachers in Texas, the state that just adopted rather horrifying new content standards.
I think the dine-arounds are a great addition to the conference experience!
Also had a great time on the city parks tour today, but that will have to be another post!
I was thrilled by how many people signed up for the dine-around I organized on the topic. There were archivists, digital librarians, museum curators, museum educators, and university professors in charge of teaching undergraduates environmental history and teaching pre-service high-school level social studies teachers. Despite a bit of an adventure in search of the restaurant, I think that the evening was well-received. Conversation seemed lively around the table and from what I overheard and absorbed, touched on the intersections between these different related fields and our mutual commitments to helping the public learn how to think critically about the past. I also appreciate some helpful advice for me to bring back to my institution, the National September 11 Memorial Museum on how to use the process of parsing available sourcematerial on 9/11 to introduce students to thinking critically about sources and the construction of historical narratives. Ironically, perhaps, this advice came from a professor who teaches teachers in Texas, the state that just adopted rather horrifying new content standards.
I think the dine-arounds are a great addition to the conference experience!
Also had a great time on the city parks tour today, but that will have to be another post!
Things I Heard at the NCPH Conference
Overheard at the NCPH Conference:
How does one communicate about sustainability at the local level?
Is it better to be pretty good at a lot of things or really good at one or two things?
My Top Twitter Posts:
@pc_presnation: Important to train public historians to be adaptable . Knowing about digital tools is just as important as intellectual knowledge #ncph2010
@p_presnation: In a working group on sustainability and h.pres. How are you talking about it with your communities? #preservation #ncph2010
These two questions (and tweets!) lie at the heart of my first day of the National Council on Public History Conference here in Portland Oregon. I love this conference, first of all—its a small, yet open, community of historians that often like to look outside the box. Secondly hearing about these two things within the same day is not unheard of. In fact at any given moment you can hear about dissertations, practical applications for oral history, or even section 106 mitigation review all in one conversation.
The first tweet and the first question came from a session on digital history in a master's program. We had some great examples from the folks at the Center for History and New Media, that was supported by a student at American University (who also works for the National Trust for Historic Preservation), an individual at the National 9/11 Memorial Museum and a doctoral student NYU who works on outhistory.org. What was great about this program is that it was, in the end, about more than just digital curricula in an educational setting. It was really emphasizing that sometimes, and especially in the case of public history work (including historic preservation) it is better to know how to do a lot of different things so that you can build upon that knowledge easily to further the goals of your institution and work. While Jeremy Boggs from CHNM was talking specifically about basic digital tools (html/CSS, FTP file sharing, writing grant proposals) its really an idea that can be discussed across the board. Its really important in any field to be adaptable, something that I also talked with another NCPH participant on my very early morning flight across the country on Wednesday morning. In terms of digital tools this is something that can be seen at the National Trust through our very recent Save Americas Treasures campaign which used traditional media to contact congress, but also provided the guidance for advocates to use Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube to spread the word.
Which comes to the second lesson from this session. Sometimes you have to take a little bit of a risk and have a little bit of trust to move forward. Without either of these things we, as historians/public historians/historic preservationists will never be able to adapt to the changing world. New communication tools, mean new communication strategies. New research techniques and sources, means new methods of talking about those sources to tell the stories we want to tell.
The second session of the day was about historic preservation and sustainability. This is a topic, as I mentioned in my earlier post, that is near and dear to the heart of preservationists. This is not something that NCPH, traditionally, has really discussed which is why having this conference in conjunction with the American Society of Environmental Historians was a great idea.
At the heart of the conversation was a self-examination regarding how sustainability and historic preservation connect back to the role these buildings play in the community. That while we talk about relationship between the two subjects to our peers at the USGBC or at sister organizations like NCPH that we also have to recognize the continuing disconnect at the local level. What strategies have been done to develop outreach and communication strategies for those at the local level? Whose responsibility is it to get the word out? How can we get the word out?
All in all, a successful day which ended with a chance to speed network (its like speed dating but you end up with a lot of business cards) and a great dinner with one of the panelists from my own session on the International National Trust Organization's Dublin Declaration. So stay tuned on Monday for some concluding remarks and, I hope, some pictures from an organic and sustainable vineyard here in Oregon.
Follow the Conference on Twitter #ncph2010 or on the conference blog at http://ncph2010.blogspot.com/
Priya Chhaya
thisiswhatcomesnext.wordpress.com
How does one communicate about sustainability at the local level?
Is it better to be pretty good at a lot of things or really good at one or two things?
My Top Twitter Posts:
@pc_presnation: Important to train public historians to be adaptable . Knowing about digital tools is just as important as intellectual knowledge #ncph2010
@p_presnation: In a working group on sustainability and h.pres. How are you talking about it with your communities? #preservation #ncph2010
These two questions (and tweets!) lie at the heart of my first day of the National Council on Public History Conference here in Portland Oregon. I love this conference, first of all—its a small, yet open, community of historians that often like to look outside the box. Secondly hearing about these two things within the same day is not unheard of. In fact at any given moment you can hear about dissertations, practical applications for oral history, or even section 106 mitigation review all in one conversation.
The first tweet and the first question came from a session on digital history in a master's program. We had some great examples from the folks at the Center for History and New Media, that was supported by a student at American University (who also works for the National Trust for Historic Preservation), an individual at the National 9/11 Memorial Museum and a doctoral student NYU who works on outhistory.org. What was great about this program is that it was, in the end, about more than just digital curricula in an educational setting. It was really emphasizing that sometimes, and especially in the case of public history work (including historic preservation) it is better to know how to do a lot of different things so that you can build upon that knowledge easily to further the goals of your institution and work. While Jeremy Boggs from CHNM was talking specifically about basic digital tools (html/CSS, FTP file sharing, writing grant proposals) its really an idea that can be discussed across the board. Its really important in any field to be adaptable, something that I also talked with another NCPH participant on my very early morning flight across the country on Wednesday morning. In terms of digital tools this is something that can be seen at the National Trust through our very recent Save Americas Treasures campaign which used traditional media to contact congress, but also provided the guidance for advocates to use Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube to spread the word.
Which comes to the second lesson from this session. Sometimes you have to take a little bit of a risk and have a little bit of trust to move forward. Without either of these things we, as historians/public historians/historic preservationists will never be able to adapt to the changing world. New communication tools, mean new communication strategies. New research techniques and sources, means new methods of talking about those sources to tell the stories we want to tell.
The second session of the day was about historic preservation and sustainability. This is a topic, as I mentioned in my earlier post, that is near and dear to the heart of preservationists. This is not something that NCPH, traditionally, has really discussed which is why having this conference in conjunction with the American Society of Environmental Historians was a great idea.
At the heart of the conversation was a self-examination regarding how sustainability and historic preservation connect back to the role these buildings play in the community. That while we talk about relationship between the two subjects to our peers at the USGBC or at sister organizations like NCPH that we also have to recognize the continuing disconnect at the local level. What strategies have been done to develop outreach and communication strategies for those at the local level? Whose responsibility is it to get the word out? How can we get the word out?
All in all, a successful day which ended with a chance to speed network (its like speed dating but you end up with a lot of business cards) and a great dinner with one of the panelists from my own session on the International National Trust Organization's Dublin Declaration. So stay tuned on Monday for some concluding remarks and, I hope, some pictures from an organic and sustainable vineyard here in Oregon.
Follow the Conference on Twitter #ncph2010 or on the conference blog at http://ncph2010.blogspot.com/
Priya Chhaya
thisiswhatcomesnext.wordpress.com
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Mass Motorization and the Environment
So here I am in Portland, Oregon, a famously "green" city (on the way in from the airport I was startled to see people getting on the light rail train with bicycles which they then hung up from hooks on the walls!) at the National Council on Public History/American Society for Environmental History conference. It's always fun to come to conferences and get to encounter what I heard a grad student refer to last year as "walking books" - the actual authors behind what we're reading. In this case, the first panel I attended featured Tom McCarthy, author of the wonderful book Auto Mania: Cars, Consumers, and the Environment (Yale University Press, 2008), one of the first things I read when I started my current study of cars and heritage.
Along with other speakers on the topic of "Mass Motorization and the Environment," McCarthy posed questions about the intersections of policy, politics, and automobility, and reached some conclusions that were ultimately rather dispiriting. He spoke about the Clean Air Act of 1970 as the high water mark of environmental legislation in the U.S., representing "the frontiers of the politically feasible" when it was passed. When states and agencies began trying to enact and enforce its provisions, though, particularly in the Environmental Protection Agency's ill-judged and possibly self-sabotaging promotion of mandatory gasoline rationing in California, public and political support quickly turned negative. The EPA's credibility was badly damaged, and the episode formed part of a backlash against a whole constellation of things (including the 1973 OPEC oil embargo) that suggested to Americans that there might be limits to their expectations of mobility and freedom. Noting that the EPA's projections and data were actually quite solid, given the scientific knowledge about car-based pollution at the time, McCarthy had to admit that "rational argument alone rarely carries the day"--an acknowledgment that echoes the ideas of Bill McKibben and Laura Nader that I wrote about in my last post.
On a slightly more positive note, McCarthy pointed out that although the EPA's data may not have swayed the public, policy-makers inside the Beltway actually did listen to what the scientists were saying, with the result that pressure to entirely gut the Clean Air Act was successfully resisted. Federico Paolini, another of the "Mass Motorization" panelists, offered comparative comfort by showing that Italian regulation of traffic-related problems, including pollution, is only just beginning to be enacted--something that commentator Brooks Flippen said made him feel better about the U.S. government's actions in this area! (Meanwhile, I take heart from watching Portland's light rail trains gliding past the hotel, and tomorrow I'm going to go on a bike tour--in the rain, it seems, but this is the Pacific northwest--to explore some of the city's extensive bicycle infrastructure. Should be fun, if damp.)
(Cross-posted from my blog, History on Wheels.)
- Cathy Stanton
Along with other speakers on the topic of "Mass Motorization and the Environment," McCarthy posed questions about the intersections of policy, politics, and automobility, and reached some conclusions that were ultimately rather dispiriting. He spoke about the Clean Air Act of 1970 as the high water mark of environmental legislation in the U.S., representing "the frontiers of the politically feasible" when it was passed. When states and agencies began trying to enact and enforce its provisions, though, particularly in the Environmental Protection Agency's ill-judged and possibly self-sabotaging promotion of mandatory gasoline rationing in California, public and political support quickly turned negative. The EPA's credibility was badly damaged, and the episode formed part of a backlash against a whole constellation of things (including the 1973 OPEC oil embargo) that suggested to Americans that there might be limits to their expectations of mobility and freedom. Noting that the EPA's projections and data were actually quite solid, given the scientific knowledge about car-based pollution at the time, McCarthy had to admit that "rational argument alone rarely carries the day"--an acknowledgment that echoes the ideas of Bill McKibben and Laura Nader that I wrote about in my last post.
On a slightly more positive note, McCarthy pointed out that although the EPA's data may not have swayed the public, policy-makers inside the Beltway actually did listen to what the scientists were saying, with the result that pressure to entirely gut the Clean Air Act was successfully resisted. Federico Paolini, another of the "Mass Motorization" panelists, offered comparative comfort by showing that Italian regulation of traffic-related problems, including pollution, is only just beginning to be enacted--something that commentator Brooks Flippen said made him feel better about the U.S. government's actions in this area! (Meanwhile, I take heart from watching Portland's light rail trains gliding past the hotel, and tomorrow I'm going to go on a bike tour--in the rain, it seems, but this is the Pacific northwest--to explore some of the city's extensive bicycle infrastructure. Should be fun, if damp.)
(Cross-posted from my blog, History on Wheels.)
- Cathy Stanton
Currents of Change: Thinking about the Environment and History in Portland, Oregon
For the next few days I'll be attending the National Council on Public History (NCPH) conference in Portland, Oregon. Not only is this city the furthest west I have ever been, it is also the first time I've ever been in Oregon. The topic of this year's conference is “Currents of Change” and involves looking at the connections between history and the environment. The conference is particularly exciting because this year it is in conjunction with the American Society of Environmental Historians. You can see the program at www.ncph.org but I'll pull out a few highlights over the next few days (and will be tweeting @pc_presnation). Until then here are a few thoughts from the first day of the conference which also includes a celebration of NCPH's 30th birthday.
Sustainability is something we at the National Trust for Historic Preservation have made a priority. We've had tweets, and resources and discussions at various events including the National Preservation Conference. I know its something we care about on many levels. On my way in from the airport I overheard a snippet of a radio conversation that asked about why young people aren't involved with the fight against global warming like they were back in the 1960s for Civil Rights. The commentator whose name I didn't really catch, wanted to know where the sit ins, the protests, the civil disobedience to urge government action. His conclusion: That its not happening because no one has put forth a call.
I think a bigger question is: If someone puts out a call how will historians and preservationists answer?
Which of course leads me to more practical questions: how does the green movement and history interact with the public? more importantly what strategies and ideas are currently being used to reach people on the local level? How can we use our knowledge of the history of the environment in America to reveal how historic preservation is also green?
I'll be look for answers when I attend a panel that talks about historic preservation and sustainability, the opening plenary session with Adam Hochschild and my Friday tour of an organic winery, and much much more. So stay tuned!
(This post has been cross-posted on the PreservationNation.org blog and my personal blog at thisiswhatcomesnext.wordpress.com).
Priya Chhaya is a public historian who works for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Sustainability is something we at the National Trust for Historic Preservation have made a priority. We've had tweets, and resources and discussions at various events including the National Preservation Conference. I know its something we care about on many levels. On my way in from the airport I overheard a snippet of a radio conversation that asked about why young people aren't involved with the fight against global warming like they were back in the 1960s for Civil Rights. The commentator whose name I didn't really catch, wanted to know where the sit ins, the protests, the civil disobedience to urge government action. His conclusion: That its not happening because no one has put forth a call.
I think a bigger question is: If someone puts out a call how will historians and preservationists answer?
Which of course leads me to more practical questions: how does the green movement and history interact with the public? more importantly what strategies and ideas are currently being used to reach people on the local level? How can we use our knowledge of the history of the environment in America to reveal how historic preservation is also green?
I'll be look for answers when I attend a panel that talks about historic preservation and sustainability, the opening plenary session with Adam Hochschild and my Friday tour of an organic winery, and much much more. So stay tuned!
(This post has been cross-posted on the PreservationNation.org blog and my personal blog at thisiswhatcomesnext.wordpress.com).
Priya Chhaya is a public historian who works for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)