Alex Kelly Nov. 20 Democratizing History

The readings today focus on the question of what the level of viewer involvement should be in historical presentation. The first reading talks about how modern technologies such as facial recognition software and large databases are being used to identify Australian citizens. I believe that this is a good thing because it allows for information to be more easily accessed by professional historians and lay people alike. The second reading talks about the concept of “Radical Trust.” This is the question of whether or not lay people’s opinions should be taken seriously in the study of history. Modern technologies such as databases and social media outlets have given a voice to people who otherwise wouldn’t have had one. I believe this is a good thing because history can be seen through the lens of all people not just the authoritative historians who traditionally have held the monopoly on what constitutes history. Black Confederate soldiers are a very divisive topic historically. The third reading discuses how many different people have different things to say when it comes to Black Confederate soldiers. It is hard to determine exactly what role African Americans played in the civil war on the Confederate side. Much of what people post about this issue is strictly opinion. Because of this, lay and professional historians have to be careful when they analyze what they read on modern day historical forums such as blogs. The fourth reading discusses different methods for involving regular people in historical projects. The co-creation model is the most effective way of doing this because viewer participation is the key to a full understanding of history. The contributory and collaborative models are ok too but they do not involve nearly as much participation by the viewers who are the consumers of history. For this reason the co-creation model is the most effective way of doing historical research in modern times. The last reading is an example of how first person accounts can be used to give us a broader historical understanding. The website asks for feedback from people who were impacted by the Boston Marathon bombings. This is an excellent way to use the technologies available to us today. Knowing what average people experienced and how they feel with respect to the bombings is beneficial to modern historians. I believe that this is an excellent way to use the Internet for the historical discipline. Firsthand accounts are an essential part of understanding history.

Alex Kelly Nov. 6 Public History

Today’s reading was focused on public history. It was interesting to me how there are two sides to many stories that comprise mankind’s history. I think that the Internet and technology can help public historians communicate their ideas more thoroughly and effectively. The websites like the 9/11 memorial are and excellent example of how technology can help advance the historical understanding of such an event. There does need to be someone maintaining these websites because people can put ridiculous content if they are not prevented from doing so. On the whole, technology is great from a public historians perspective. I agree with the article that historians have a moral obligation to present historical events as they actually happened. A historian has to be critical and be aware of the context of the events they are speaking on, but they still need to attempt to be unbiased and do their duty to explain the history in a matter of fact way.