Introduction

From wide-net collaborative practice to controversy over work products such as national monuments, public history is under duress in the United States and the response from the profession has been understated, at best. At worst, narratives about our shared past are being replaced with vanilla ‘founders chic’ or traditional historiography helping to slow or stymie the incorporation of more voices, such as those of women, gay and lesbian, and Black people into the historical record.  For example, in her essay “A Hamilton Skeptic on Why the Show Isn’t As Revolutionary As It Seems,” (https://tinyurl.com/ynfxzmxe) senior editor of Slate magazine and author Rebecca Onion explores the impact of popular entertainment on the public, exclaiming that material such as the Broadway musical Hamilton has erased the voices of slaves in the story of Alexander Hamilton, a founding father who has acquired an almost mythical status in U.S. history.  This essay briefly discusses these phenomena and offers some insight into the tools and resources available to public historians to better champion and defend the ‘New History’ that undergirds their profession.

Argument

Examples include the resurgence of so-called “Lost Cause” narratives about the origins of the American Civil War, or the attack on educational institutions orchestrated in various states to suppress the speech of civil rights and black history experts in efforts to erase Critical Race Theory from curriculum.  But institutions in America are also being challenged for systemic issues with presenting their own pasts, including in building names that reflect slavers or in the lack of representation of a diverse culture within their employment ranks.  Dr. Larry Cebula, a professional historian on a recent tour of the Baron Von Munchausen Historic Home also offers a modern-day example of public historical citizen ‘experts’ and their mangled interpretative role that touches on the disconnect between public representation of historical events and places and the professional bent that experts bring to the discussion.  He wrote a letter (https://tinyurl.com/2fhmhv6k) to the curators of the site pointing out the several historical narrative errors in the docent’s tour monologue, including referring to the slaves that operated the Home in the 19th century as “servants”.  The curators retorted that introducing slavery into the workings of the Home to visitors was an inappropriate way to generate enthusiasm about the tour, offering insight into new ways of perpetuating ‘Lost Cause’ narratives in public spaces. Today, there is a lot of talk about gray areas, diffuse leadership, and the input of stakeholders such as the public who may not be positioned to understand entirely the complex issues that can arise, for example, in ferreting out the past deeds of donors or founders, or illuminating on the sometimes-dark histories of local and national sites. 

But there are ways to get at simple truths about an institution’s past and provenance, using the long paper and oral history trails of affected groups found online across the Internet.  More forthright proposals to convince administrative staff to delve into their own past as a leadership group within an institution, or to discuss and redress structural and organizational systems that reinforce false historical narratives are in order. In the hyper-technology centric society of the U.S., it is now easier than ever before to prune fact from fiction, to ask and agitate for laypersons and other adjacent stakeholders to carefully consider history professionals’ inputs as a ‘gold standard’ in efforts to educate and professionally research a particular historical event or person, and to establish standards such as institutional certifications of properly construed historical productions and other presentations. 

During a review of recent peer-reviewed journals and other historiography on this subject, one finds a mishmash of complaints or complainers, dour websites and other electronic resources, a vast educational network of public historiography topics casting a wide net for subject matter and inputs, and a seemingly gradual ceding of authority by historians to relative laypeople that is rather alarming, especially in the political climate of America today.  For example, the National Council of Public History’s (NCPH) website (https://ncph.org/) defines public history as having as its core group of representative members "historical consultants, museum professionals, government historians, archivists, oral historians, cultural resource managers, curators, film and media producers, historical interpreters, historic preservationists, policy advisers, local historians, and community activists,” allowing virtually anyone to claim the credential of public historian.  Yet, on its jobs page NCPH calls for trained experts in such positions as memorial “Exhibitions Project Manager” or White House, Executive Office of the President official “transcriber/stenographer,” jobs for which a degree, experience, and financial and other work-life balance considerations are required, exposing a possible disconnect between the encompassing definition of a public historian’s professional responsibilities and the reality of working in the field proper.  It’s incumbent on American public historians to take back with authority the responsibilities that professional historians including honoring the historical record, monitoring this historical record for changes, and continuing to make progress on establishing a baseline for professional conduct and honest, rational discourse with stakeholders to solidify and improve the narratives they present to the public.

Conclusion

“Public history can be important in a local community to help them develop a strong political foundation from which to grow,” notes Denis Maringolo of The Institute of Oral History in her Vimeo short film titled “What is Public History?” (https://tinyurl.com/mu7ydyyb) The importance of public inputs to our shared history is more pronounced than ever before, as technology offers citizens and other stakeholders more and varied opportunities to participate in a wide range of activities that define the frameworks and narratives of local histories.  At the core of this activity, however, are trained history and other social sciences experts that communicate to the public broadly, develop literature and signage to highlight places, persons, or artifacts, and act as messengers to all levels of government and academia.  With this general framework in mind, institutions like the NCPH could increase their visibility and authority by participating in the legislative process at the local, state, and national levels, bringing certification or other vetting opportunities for historical-educational subject matter to bear, and leveraging digital resources more effectively, for example, with authoritative and exacting language, to help demystify, delineate, and shore up public history’s enormous contributions to modern American society.