I wrote this last year for my public history class.
It is kind of cool to read it again and kind of compare it with what I know then and now.
What would you do?
Source:
www.examiner.com
When viewed from the perspective of a public
historian, an interesting situation has come up recently in Washington D.C. We
are all familiar with the controversial “Occupy “movement that has been
spreading across the country over the past year. Their main tactic is often to
encamp themselves in a public park and set up shop -- till evicted that is.
That’s just what D.C. police are trying to do, warning the protestors that they
will soon be forcibly evicted. While it may seem to be a matter between
protestors and police, this developing situation in D.C. is something public
historians should take note of as well.
McPherson Square was dedicated after a famous Union
general from the Civil War, and it is officially maintained by the National
Park Service. Another agency that has a
role of maintaining the park is the Historic Preservation Office, which is in
charge of preserving the cultural heritage of the D.C. area. During the protest, many of the occupiers
have been jumping on the bronze statue of McPherson and have now draped a blue
tarp over the statue dubbed the “Tent of Dreams.” The park service and HPO want
to evict the protestors under the premise that they are doing damage to the
property.
The NPS and HPO could both be categorized as outlets of
public history. While I only included one link to the situation going on at
McPherson Square, there are dozens more that can be found online, each taking a
different stance on the protestor’s right to be at the park. I used the article
from Examiner.com because it focuses on the issue of historic preservation. The
article defiantly approves of the work of public historians, and notes the
historical value of the park in which the protestors have chosen to camp in. In
many ways this is reminiscent of the civil rights protests during the 50s and
60s. How can anyone say who is right, and who is wrong when it is a question of
opinion.
Yet this is a public park after all and that is largely
the source of all the debate at hand. The protestors say they have the right to
be there, and public officials say they do not. Looking at it from the
standpoint of a public historian, I would find this issue a hard one to face. Personally
I think the protestors have every right to be at the park, provided they
respect the property. Others might say differently. Despite the fact, I think
this provides for a unique, if not challenging, decision for public historians.
Where do you draw the line between “public history” and “private property,” and
just what do you do about it? While the questions don’t have obvious answers, I
have a pretty good feeling we’re seeing history in the making.
No comments:
Post a Comment