bringing together history and entertianment?

Making history fun has appeared to be as a very slippery slope for museums and other organizations to catch themselves on.  Our one reading and recent presentation on a Disney park possibly breaking the immersive environment and damaging the history they would tell.  Another issue was our discussion earlier in the year that took place after our visit to Carillon Park.  Apparently there were some rather strong feelings about museums and other historic sites offering the viewers a more entertainment based experience over a solid factual one. 

Carillon Park was telling history as it pertained it their mission and community but they were also presenting themselves as a park for recreation and fun over just scholarly learning.  In my paper I mentioned that one of the main standards that museums and public history organizations need to meet is their credibility.  Are they telling correct information, the right information, are they covering up facts, and are they personally skilled to research and explain these topics? 

In my opinion as long as a site it still focused on educating its community and visitors with a wealth of information, then I see no reason why they could not find some way to themselves more public recognition.  They gear the type of information they want to present around the type of audience and atmosphere that want their visitors to experience as they throw special events for their visitors to take part in.  Its not that they are trying to hide information, I imagine you can still come to them with requests about certain topics that are not shown very often and they could professionally help you in your research.  They are looking to find a nice medium that a museum or park can have a fun atmosphere for recreation and enjoyment with out just catering to the people that find the pure enjoyment of reading or seeing history. 

I found it in the archives!

I have been volunteering at the Green County Archies for about a month and a half now. The project that I have been assigned to do is alphabetizing the probate records from the 19th century. I have found some interesting stories

I was first working on the lunacy cases, where I found the case of a young man in his early twenties who was trying to smite people by holding his hand in front of their faces. I bet he was fun at parties.

But my favorite case has to be a case from 1885. A young man had recently lived through the death of his sister. At the trial for her murderer, apparently the Judge (whose name was Scroggy, how awesome a name is that??) made some comments about his sister that he didn't like so much. So when this young man encountered Scroggy on the streets a few months later, he wasn't too pleased with him. He also happened to be in a drunken state, so you know he was making good decisions. Well, he decided that punching Scroggy on the back of the head while he was walking away was a good idea. Probably not, sir. 

So the moral of the story: don't go around punching judges. In a hundred years or so, someone will be laughing at your court transcript.

A date which will live in infamy

One of my earliest memories is in May of 1996. I was almost 4 years old, my sister just over a year old. We were living in Hawaii at the time. My dad was in the Army, and had recently opted to not reenlist. That meant that we had a few things on our checklist that we had to check off before we moved back to Ohio. One of them was to visit the Arizona Memorial.

We had a stroke of luck: my dad's unit was assigned one week to e the ones to raise and lower the flag. So my mom packed up my sister and I so we could go see Daddy work, and also so that we could see this once in a lifetime site.

I remember it very vividly. The memorial itself is a long concrete cylinder. When you go in, the marble and concrete make an echo chamber of sorts. Even with so many people in the room though, it is eerily quiet. It is one of the most quiet things I remember. That's what impacted me the most, the silence. It affected me, as my mom said that she was surprised that I was as hushed and quiet as everyone else.

In the middle of the room there is a giant hole in the ground. Or at least, that's what it looked like to me. I was a little scared of it, but my dad walked me up to it, and I looked down, and I saw a shipwreck. I was a little confused, but my dad told me all about that infamous day.

In 1941, on December 7, a fleet of Japanese airplanes attacked the same place where I was standing, sinking a ship and killing lots of people. Next to me was a wall with the names of people who had died. One of them had the same name as my grandpa. It could have been him.

What's the museum/exhibit that has impacted you the most?

Historic Community Sites

I've been to three historic communities:

• Colonial Williamsburg, VA
• Greenfield Village,  Dearborn, MI
• Old Sturbridge Village, MA

All three of these sites are artificial in some way or another. Colonial Williamsburg is almost all reproductions. Most of the buildings had been destroyed or allowed to rot. Greenfield and Sturbridge, while authentic buildings, they have been moved there from various places to create the community.

Colonial Williamsburg

Williamsburg is the least satisfying site because the buildings are reproductions and, at least the last time I was there, they don't advertise that piece of information. Greenfield does contain predominantly authentic buildings, but they are from all over the eastern half of the United States. It isn't so much a village as a museum display of Americana. Old Sturbridge is a collection of building from several states in New England, but the village captures the look and feel of a New England village circa 1830.

Greenfield Village

Old Sturbridge Village

Carillon Historical Park

These sites are good in certain respects, such as they stimulate interest in history and help with preservation efforts. My problem with them is the same as with historical films; these sites are either reproductions or conglomerations of multiple places presented as one place.The sites need to be more transparent when it comes to what they are, and not just what they represent. While not as elaborate as these three site, at least Carillon  Historical Park the buildings came from Dayton.

Repatriation

On working on my research paper on deaccessioning, I have come across information on repatriation of art to their country of origin. I had always thought this should be a "Duh!" kind of thing; of course the pieces should go back to where they came from originally. But now I'm not as sure.

Many countries do not have adequate facilities or personnel to properly care for items. There are alarms being sounded about the Egyptian Museum in Cairo; there is fear art and artifacts will be irreparably harmed if they stay there under the current conditions.

There are also problems with war and looting. Museums in Iraq were looted and items stolen or destroyed. A case can be made that the items are safer where they currently reside.

I'm just not sure. Is it better to repatriate the art and possibly loose or keep it protected where it is? What do you think?

Gathering Places

Having gotten back from New England, I have experienced the New England Town. They appear to be alive and well, and still attempting to capture a past that may or may not have existed.Many of the buildings in the center of town (even those easily identifiable as centers) are not original; they are well conceived reproductions of originals or something the town thinks should have existed.

I'm not sure what my comments are about exactly, but it seems important to continue the dialogue about community and gathering places. Too many communities don't have a place to gather, old or new. People don't have a place to exchange stories and histories in order to keep the community alive. The web and social media helps, but is no substitution for F2F gatherings.

Community groups and historic districts are helping, but more needs to be done. I guess more people need to become active in the groups and participate in their events.

Richard III DNA Mystery

In 2012 exciting news spread across the globe about the discovery of King Richard’s burial, which had been a mystery for hundreds of years. But the solving of this mystery led to another one. When DNA tests were performed on Richard III’s body along with living relatives from both Richard’s maternal and paternal sides. DNA from the maternal relatives (the XX chromosome) matched, but DNA from the paternal side (the Y chromosome) did not. This means that a male descendant or ancestor of Richard III was illegitimate. During Richard’s time the important part of a family’s lineage was the paternal side, so this evidence raises many questions about Richard and his family. Richard was a relative of Henry VII, both Richard and Henry were descendants of Edward III. One of Henry’s ancestors, John of Gaunt was surrounded by rumors of illegitimacy and with further studies could be a candidate for the ancestor who does not fit into the paternal lineage of the family. Scientists can now even distinguish that Richard may have had blue eyes and blonde hair, this could help with the mystery as well.

This makes us think about our own ancestry and if the DNA we have also belongs to those who we think are our ancestors. Today science can help with this, there are many programs offered to do DNA testing for genealogy and family history purposes. National Geographic and Ancestry.com offer a program for people to have their DNA sent to a lab and traced back thousands of years and revealing where their ancestors first came from. This raises interest, questions, and curiosity for the field of genealogy and those who study family history. Science has become a great resource for genealogy because genealogical studies used to rely heavily on documents, accounts, stories, and objects that no longer existed or never did exist.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/richard-iiis-dna-analysis-reveals-cuckoldry-family-180953514/