Introduction

Fort Vancouver was built in 1824 and is a National Historic Site in Vancouver, Washington.  Situated nearby the Columbia River just above the area’s flood plain, the Fort played a pivotal role in British and U.S. history, as a multicultural and multinational trading outpost, a repose and stopover site for soldiers heading to the U.S.-Philippine War at the turn of the 20th century, as one of America’s earliest aviation fields, and today, as one of the few national historic sites built, maintained, and integrated into an urban setting.  The National Park Service (NPS) maintains the site, which features a garden, a village with two reconstructed homes, Pearson Field Army Air Corps municipal airfield, and recently, in homage to Dr. John McLaughlin, one of the founders of Fort Vancouver, a reconstructed McLoughlin House which serves as a revitalized museum. The NPS grounds are immaculate, with historically accurate reconstructed buildings including an upscale restaurant.  The city of Vancouver has preserved and respected the site boundaries making for an environment welcoming to everyone with plenty of open space on its large greenways. In addition to their onsite efforts, the NPS website for Fort Vancouver hosts a comprehensive repository of historical information about the site including a virtual reality-based tour of the objects held at Fort Vancouver, featuring archaeological finds such as carvings, glassware, and others that characterize the site as an active and vibrant fur trading post in southwest Washington state by the mid-19th century. This paper attempts to contextualize Fort Vancouver National Historic Site (FOVA) in the modern movement to expose narratives and stories from indigenous groups and women, and argues for continued forward movement in this effort on the part of interpreters, historians and other key people involved in delivering public history.

Argument

Historian James B. Gardner notes in his article “Contested Terrain: History, Museums, and the Public” for The Public Historian (2004) that “our sense of what constitutes history and the sources for it has changed significantly over the past several decades with new perspectives, new theoretical paradigms, new interdisciplinary approaches to our work, and the like.” Gardner suggests that history presented for the public and by historians must be negotiated and that the processes used by historians be exposed to the public to enhance the posture of these negotiations.  At FOVA, interpreters have been advocates for the public by engaging them with interdisciplinary interpretations, exhibits, and activities – the earliest years of FOVA were defined by the people – French-Canadians, early American explorers and troops, Métis Indians, and Kanaka Hawaiians.  From inviting Indigenous local Indian tribes, black people, and women to contribute to the many archaeological expeditions undertaken by the NPS in the greater FOVA area to uncovering and rehabilitating artifacts and places such as the McLoughlin House, citizens and professionals have invested dollars and labor into bring about a fuller picture of the early FOVA.

Professor of History Michael Wallace predicted this changing landscape of historical interpretation in the 1980’s when “millions of people…visit museums each year… and they help shape popular perspectives on the past.” Added technology and increased globalization have brought people to new and expanded narratives about local and national history in 2023 and the conversation around public history will continue to expand as more resources are uncovered and added to the historical narrative.  At FOVA, interpreters and historians have collaborated to bring a fledgling alternate reality module to the site that allows visitors from all over the world to visualize in real-time the artifacts being uncovered at the site.  While nascent, these and like technologies do portend a future where museums and historical sites alike feature fully virtualized reality experiences that will put visitors into a complex narrative and visual walkthrough that reflects the stories and culture by which they define themselves.  Wallace hinted that in the 20th century “The eighties promise[d] to be a period of right-wing offensives. Consequently, those who seek to repeal working class, wornen's, and black gains in the present, will also work to reverse their gains in the field of history. It will be necessary for radicals to resist these moves to reappropriate the past,” and this is as true now as it was then.

This doesn’t mean to suggest that historians should throw ‘founders chic’-based narratives out the window, as they can be relevant and instructive, as well as rehabilitated today.  Ruth Graham, national correspondent on religion, faith, and values at the New York Times authored an article for The Boston Globe in 2014 titled “The Great Historic House Museum Debate,” reporting on the discussion in the public history field revolving around the idea that are too many historic houses with too many interpretations and errant curators, and that they should be shuttered.  Instead, historians, interpreters, and administrators could be more proactive in adopting new historical practices and narratives shaped by the public.  At FOVA they have deputized the public to do official history for the park by inviting them to participate in the Archaeology for Kids and Public Archaeology Field School programs.  In 2022, in concert with the University of Washington and Portland State University the NPS invited children from all age groups to assist in the excavation of a 19th century-era Public School at FOVA and “rediscover places tied to the education of the Indigenous and Métis (Indigenous and European heritage) children of the fur trade. The Fort Vancouver school formed part of the Hudson's Bay Company's colonial project to "civilize" and assimilate Native American and Métis children who were either children of fur trade families or orphaned because of disease epidemics,” broadening how history is learned today by including indigenous voices and modern technology.

Conclusion

Professor Gary Carson in his article titled “The End of History Museums: What’s Plan B?” in The Public Historian (2008) has a solid plan for historians as the future unfolds.  Plan B is to embrace technology – augmented and virtual reality, big data, and ever faster and more portable devices – to make sure that a fuller narrative about our shared history has fidelity and academic rigor as features and not afterthoughts.  Noting the declining funding and support for museums and historical sites, Carson challenges historians to rethink interpretation from the worldviews of differing individuals, noting that in the past “little by little the real and the represented fused in our minds. It produced ‘a culture of performance’ to which we were irresistibly drawn because the new media flattered us by inviting us backstage and even onto the stage.” In response to Carson and many other advocates, NPS and FOVA have worked together to expand both the historical narrative and their presence in the local community.  For example, when COVID struck in force in America in early 2021, FOVA was closed to visitors, but maintained its presence in the community via its website and educational outreach programs as evidenced by the productive 2022 cohort in the Public Archaeology Field School.  As historians look to the future and reimagine museums, historic sites, and other historically situated places including historic houses, reimagining the visitor experience, incorporating more and ever-expanding worldviews, and engaging the public for the 21st century are crucial aspects for continued success in the maintenance and management of these historic places.