471A3--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Tuesday

Fahs and Waugh -- McConnell Essay
I really like the idea that memory has a geography, a landscape to work from for historians. We talked about this in the beginning of the semester (woah… full circle!) about how little history looks into memory of history. Ever since last semester’s US History in Film course, I’ve thought popular memory of history was a normal thing, but this class has made me realized how little is really written about it (in comparison of course with “normal” history). Like McConnell states, though on 263, there are more and more histories now than ever before because finally it seems rather important. He doesn’t really state why that is so… I’ll be interested to hear people’s take on the geography of memory in class. -- Brooke

Throughout the course of this week’s readings (and the course overall) I found myself reflecting on the evolution of my beliefs from the time I was young until today. Being raised in the South, and happily so, I find myself frustrated by the debates that exist between Southerners and non-Southerners. I fancy myself a 21st century enlightened redneck (I hunt deer and drive a hybrid Camry). The narrow-mindedness of so many of my fellow Southerners is hard to explain. I found myself trying to figure out why Southerners are so consumed with perpetuating the ideas inherent in the “Lost Cause.” I attribute it to the fact that the Confederacy lost and they perceived themselves as victims of an oppressive Federal government under Reconstruction which together resulted in an inferiority complex that still exists today. Given the focus on the common person in the historical narrative since the 1960s I think the South will become more and more educated about ALL of its history. (Fahs and Waugh, p. 264) The remembrance of figures like Col Mosby, who rejected the Lost Cause and supported Grant and the Union after the war, has significantly increased while remembrances of figures like Lee and Jackson have decreased, or at least held steady. Figures like Grant and Meade are emerging in a more generous light. As is often the case time is helping to correct the historical record. – Jason

I have noticed that the distorted memory associated with the Civil War is akin to memories of other wars like the War of 1812, the Revolutionary War, the Seven Years War, etc. These all have one thing in common, they all took place beforM the professionalization of the history profession. How significant has the presence of professional historians been to the memory of all conflict from the Spanish-American War to today? Given that the U.S. Government left the memory of the Gettysburg Battlefield to a landscape artist, it is easy to surmise that professional historians would have greatly altered the memory of the Civil War in its immediate aftermath. In their absence the void was largely filled by soldiers who had obvious biases and motivations. - Jason

McConnell brings back the idea of historical memory as a form of geography. When we first discussed this at the beginning of the semester, I interpreted it in a more physical sense...like memory, specifically Civil War memory, is varied regionally. However, as McConnell points out, it is so much more than that. The past itself is a map; it is a land that has been explored numerous times and each time it is explored, something new is learned about it. Something from the reading that really struck out from me was the impact of "women's sentimental fiction" on Civil War memory. Obviously, I knew that Gone with the Wind had a major impact, but McConnell made it seem like the entire genre had a major impact on influencing the way people interpreted the war. --Carly W.

I think that the quote that opens the essay sums it up. “The past is a foreign country—they do things differently there” (pg. 258) I think that this quote fits perfectly with what is being said in the essay and I love the geography metaphor. We as historians are trying to examine the memories now and navigate how the past is remembered. I loved the metaphor because looking at memory it is similar to going to a foreign country. Their experiences are different than what you would find here, just like people’s memories and experiences of the Civil War are different in different places and at different times. –Kayle P.

We have spoken a lot about how women helped shaped the memory of the Civil War through various groups like the UDC. They would establish parades and monuments to help sway the public memory of the war in their bias. Another avenue that women pursued according to McConnell was writing sentimental fiction. These women authors wrote of the Civil War as a time of suffering and not heroism. The fact that women were still able to impact the memory of the Civil War during a time when they couldn't have their own say in the history books is pretty interesting to me. Sentimental fiction will tug at a person's heart strings and when someone can get an emotional attachment to an event, then that event will always have be a significant memory.-- George H

Like others, I believe the quote used in the beginning of the essay perfectly sums up the whole book. I think that looking at past is something different people certainly see differently than one another. The meaning of history and historical memory can easily be identified, especially with the closing arguments. Relationships between politics, geography and so many other factors contribute to how historians perceive the notion of historical memory. I agree with the author that if we take everything or as he put it, the “landscape,” it will be a much more enjoyable thing to study. – Ana Y.

I really appreciated McConnell's post-postmodern approach. I completely agreed with him that we are sometimes afraid to look at events in relation to each other and "assign meaning ourselves" (259). I think it's really important to establish that continuity, so that it doesn't just seem like random pages in a book but a fully developed narrative. - Carly B.

I too think it's really interesting to see how geography and historical memory coincide. I thought this quote from page 258 was also important. It states, "Yet memory is geographical in another sense. It is a kind of map on which individuals and societies locate past events relative to one another." Memory is something that brings people together in such interesting ways. Reading about the different war memorials and groups has really shown just how important memory can be. --Kelly F.

"Commercial taste may have shifted somewhat since the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, with directors such as Ken Burns (The Civil War) and Edward Zwick (Glory) finding mass audiences for tale of tragedy and racial reconciliation" (262). I felt this quote was particularly interesting due the fact it depicts the progression of pop culture's influence on society/culture. With the rise of film and TV in most American's homes, the entire nation became capable of seeing/learning about the Civil War post 1970s. The spread of information provided Americans the possibility to continue a fervent memory of the Civil War. -- Donald P.

His metaphor of Civil War Memory being like a forest where people focus on individual trees rather than the whole forest was interesting. At first I thought he was reaching a bit, but after thinking about it, it makes alot of sense. Its easy to get absorbed in one story or perspective and lose sight of the bigger picture, which in turn effects one's overall vision of the Civil War. He does a good job of reminding readers that all the different kinds of memories covered in his book relate to each other. -Cameron F.

I really enjoyed the McConnell Essay and the different way that he explains memory. Everyone has brought up how memory is like a geographical sense, and I think that is an important point that McConnell makes through out the essay. That historians have a job in which they must make sense of the information surrounding them. - Meg O.

Shackel
While I completely agree that African Americans should be included in the narratives present at Civil War memorials, monuments, and battlefields, I think Shackel is reaching bit a far when he includes Asian, Latin American, and American Indian. He isn’t arguing they should be in Civil War memory, but that they are usually the ones omitted along with African Americans in most western history. For me, this brings up questions like, whose point of view is the most significant? Are the point of views different? Are those differences enough to warrant a different point of view on a memorial? These questions seem necessary when evaluating whether or not a history is omitting a particular viewpoint. -- Brooke

I think that it is important to get as much view points from all ethnic groups that were attached to a certain event in history so that the historian can get the most complete answer. I understand that certain groups might be more biased than others to push their own agenda, but I think Shackel isn't too far off for including Asians, Latin Americans, and American Indians. Even if these groups had a small part during the war, it is still important to understand their impact.--George H

Shackel talks of a "sanitized and trivialized version of history" at Civil War battlefields that omits African American views. He goes on to say that "[i]t becomes easy to ignore stories of racism and slavery when the material culture that represents African American ideals is erased from the landscape." (p. 179) Exactly what black history does he want discussed at Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, etc.? If 60,000 white guys from the North met 40,000 white guys from the South on a battlefield in Virginia does he want the interpretation to breakdown how many of the 40,000 owned slaves and how many of the 60,000 are fighting for emancipation? Or "oh by the way people around this battlefield owned slaves." This seems to be about doing what "feels" good instead of what is appropriate. I want to know about the significant parts of the battle and I don't care what color the skin of those involved. I would have a real problem if I heard an interpretation of Fort Wagner that didn't mention the black troops. When talking about the Robinson family property at Manassas, Shackel mentions that "African Americans have not been vocal about this removal." (p. 180) I don't understand that kind of divisive mentality, the real question is why wasn't anyone, or historians, or the National Park Service vocal about it. Does he really think that blacks are the only ones that may seem bothered about the Robinson property issue? - Jason

The League of the South is something that just stood out to me. Even after talking about for a whole semester, seeing something that was as recent as 1998, about the South and their beliefs is interesting to me. They are still standing up for they think is right. I don’t know whether or not I never saw this mentality or if I just wasn’t looking but now that I am more aware of it, I am curious to see how much of it is around me. –Kayle P

I thought that Shackel was pretty harsh toward the League of the South. Many of their points for concern aren't even Civil War related, but conservative and Christian - so what's his point? I think he too easily lumps them in with all the other groups without realizing that the LoS is just one of many such organizations, all with a slightly different bend. - Carly B.

I agree with George & Jason in that everything/everyone, who had any influence on the war, should be included in its memory. I think that all people, including those who are not historians want to know the full story of what happened without having anything left out. I think it is extremely important to include the memories of every race involved because although sometimes it is inevitable, it can help to eliminate bias. Also, I believe including the stories of the African American troops, (or what ever race that had any influence) is important because it shows respect for those who contributed in the results. – Ana Y.

It had never occurred to me before reading Shackel that National Parks have a pre-occupation with the movement of troops at the expense of stories about race and slavery. Though its important that battlefields talk about the military narrative, their should be more time spent on the social implications of the battles.-Sean

"With the development and strengthening of the Lost Cause, from the late nineteenth century through most of the twentieth, the memory of African American participation in the war became rather limited in American literature" (176). I agree with other posts stating that historians/Americans need to preserve the memory of all racial minorities that fought, sacrificed, and died during the Civil War. "Southern whites gained tremendous political and social power after Reconstruction and developed a southern patriotic past that could overcome historical humiliation" (176). I believe it is the duty of the people to challenge the memory that is formed by the people who think they are in charge. In this quote, southerners spun their blunders and humiliations into ideas of grandeur and honor. The formulation or spinning of memory by the victor (Union) is nothing new, however, it is interesting to see the defeated (Confederacy) capable to change the memory of their failure into something honorable. -- Donald P.

I really liked how Shakel brings up a definition of "'revitalization' as a 'conscious, deliberate, organized effort on the part of some members of society to create a more satisfying culture.'" (176) I just thought that this quote really explained the idea of the Lost Cause and southern memory. For me it was just a perfect parallel for the class. -Meg O.