"But I thought engaging with the public was the point of National Historic Sites": A Reaction to the Claire Campbell PDS

On September 19, a professional development series workshop was held where members of the history graduate program and faculty members attended a lecture on National Historic Sites and Environmentalism by Dr. Claire Campbell. Dr. Campbell presented some interesting information regarding national sites in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta. What I found particularly useful was her insight on the necessity of considering the environment at the time of the founding of particular sites and how that reflects the actions of the historical figures. But this blog is not on all that I learned from Dr. Campbell, although I should perhaps write another to engage with her findings, but rather it is to discuss the reaction I heard from the audience.

It was a snicker.

It seems strange to focus on something so small but I heard a snicker from a group of History MA students when Dr. Campbell brought up a slide that showed a happy couple sitting in the endangered grasses of the Bar- U Ranch for their wedding photos. I thought it a particularly odd thing to laugh at but it happened again when referring to conferences and meetings being held at other national sites. That’s when it occurred to me that the students and –to some degree- the faculty were laughing at the idea of national historic sites being used by the public for the events they so saw fit.

Image from Parks Canada.

I was perplexed. What was so funny about people engaging with history in unconventional way? Why was it a problem that conferences were being held at sites that educated them while they worked? Is that not the point of public history? To be utilized by the people and to engage with the public? I feel like my first two weeks at Western are a sham if this is false.

However, the laughter could have been for a completely, and more unfortunate, reason. Perhaps the students and few faculty members were laughing because they believed that the couple in the photo or the companies referred to in passing were not worthy to be there in the grass and in the historic board rooms. Weddings shouldn’t happen at the Bar-U because the people who book the weddings are ignorant of the history there. They do not know that the grass is endangered and they do not know that the Ranch was supported by the Federal government during a time when there was tension between the government and the people of Alberta. Therefore, they do not deserve to use that space.

An elitist perception of the purpose of national historic sites is created by this logic. The truth about Canadians, and most people to their respective country, is they don’t know everything about their past. It’s just the way it is. We can blame the parents, we can blame the school system, we can blame the government but when it comes down to it, some people just don’t care to read about it. But that doesn’t mean that they should be barred from access to these spaces. One shouldn’t be expected to pass a historical quiz before entering these sites or before they book their conference or wedding. The point of the site’s existence is to educate. So while the couple is getting their pictures taken and the guests have nothing to do or while a board member is taking her coffee, they could be learning something about that site. Is that not the overarching goal of a national historic site?

Then again, the snickers from the audience could have been directed at the site lowering itself to selling its space to the common folk. To that I become particularly annoyed with the academic crowd. Just this past week in History 9800 Public History: Theory, History, and Practice we learned about the history of national historic sites and museums. In most cases national historic sites were only supported by the federal government if they showed signs of self-sufficiency (Pannnekoek, 73). The booking of weddings and conferences are what often saves national sites from collapsing as it offers additional revenue to that of gate fees or gift shops. I suspect few would snicker knowing that it is up to these sites to find funding opportunities to stay afloat even if it means appearing as if they are pandering to the general public.

The answer to stopping the laughter is not to tell academic historians to keep their noses out of things they don’t understand. Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe that academic historians should be required to take a public history course. Naturally, there is a reason why they chose the ivory tower over the public sphere and they are not required to convert. However, I believe that if they were made aware of the difficulties that public history faces (funding, engaging a public that seems forever drifting away) they would perhaps cease the chuckles at sites that are opening their spaces. Perhaps they would understand that sometimes it is not about how much an individual takes away from a space but that they acknowledge it as part of their history by interacting with it. They would realize that even though they would rather research and write books for other academics as a means to perpetuate the growth of knowledge and critical thought, that they too have a role within the realm of public history if they were to accept it.

Source:

Pannekoek, Frits. "Canad's Historic Sites: Reflections on a Quarters Century, 1980-2005." The Public Historian 31, 1 (2009): 69-88.