Obama as History or Heritage?

Thinking through the issues around history and heritage over the last few weeks, it has been fascinating to observe the events leading up to and including the inauguration of Barak Obama as the 44th President of the United States. Countless pieces of media coverage contain a common thread, that this event is “historical” in nature and that we are witnessing “history in the making.” 

Since starting this course, I have been thinking more critically about statements like these, 

and tend to now perk up and listen closely when ideas or statements involving historical themes are raised. During the planning stages for my group’s first week presentation, we discussed a number of topics, including the concept of what makes something “historic.” One of the members of my group brought forth a newspaper that was published on the day that her first son was born. This piece of “personal history” is meaningful not because of the content (she admitted she had not read or even opened the newspaper) but because it signifies the day her first child was born.

It seems as though one of the collective or public criteria for what makes an event historic is the phenomenon of “firsts.” We celebrate firsts – in news, sports, politics, and economics. The inauguration of Obama has been repeatedly deemed historic because of his colour. I have an African friend who recently said to me, “Ok, we get it- he’s black, can we move on now.” But will the second black US president get the same ‘histori

c’ label.’ Interestingly, the group member who kept the newspaper from her first child did not keep a newspaper from her second.

So then I wonder whether the Barak inauguration would be a historic event or a heritage event. Chances are I should see it as both.  Obama’s comparisons with Lincoln, King and Kennedy seem to be a overt desire to connect him with a particular theme and strand of what it means to be “American.” Watching the news, following the stories online, I sensed a number of celebrations running parrellel, while the election of Obama the person was one focus, so was the realization of the “American dream” in the election of this man. I sensed that the country was not celebrating him, but celebrating themselves, and that this first Black president was a heritage symbol for what American has been, can be and will be.

And yet, even in the loud and numerous voices, chanting for emergence of this new era of change an

d hope, and for the emotion that I have seen on so many faces at so many Obama events, I now wonder whether this time of change is really a time of change for everybody? Are all voices in America chanting in unison? Obviously this is not the case, is it possible to have an account of history that does cover all voices and give time to all perspectives? 

This iconic image of Barak was taken from Wikipedia.  One of the things I find interesting about this poster is that is has already been acquired by the Smithsonian Museum, which (according to Wikipedia) is usually an event that happens as a President is leaving office, not before they have been inaugurated.

Historical Consciousness Presentation

Heritage versus History

One of the ideas that have struck me so far this term is the notion of "heritage" and specifically how it differs from history. I have always viewed the two concepts synonymously, never considering how or why the two might differ. I found my eyes opened by the article "Fabricating Heritage" by David Lowenthal and wish to continue exploring the relationship between these two ideas, and what the role of both might be in the history classroom.

In terms of my own understanding of historical thinking - I had always thought in a fairly simplistic way - that there was "good" history and "bad" history - not in the content, but in the approach that the historian took. Until recently, I assumed there was a “one to one” relationship between the accuracy of the historical method and the epistemological correctness of the historical account or narrative. Seen in this way, if a certain version of history - a particular story or account - was flawed and erred it had to do with a faulty approach or method used by the historian. My belief was that exaggerations, myths, omissions, lack of balance and over-emotional historical accounts were bad history that could and should be rewritten or re-examined.

The Lowenthal piece has shown me that much of what I thought to be “bad history” (though not all, I as assume that some bad history is simply bad history) is actually “heritage,” and heritage does not apologize or make excuses for what it is. Lowenthal writes that, “heritage exaggerates and omits, candidly invents and frankly forgets, and thrives on ignorance and error.” Through this reading, as well as additional pieces by Graham, Conn and Levin, I’m starting to develop an understanding of the ways in which history differs from heritage, at least in the framework but forth by Lowenthal.

Firstly, heritage is an emotional pursuit. Exaggerated and “fabricated” accounts of one’s heritage are designed to create feelings of patriotism and nationalism, and an undying sense of attachment to the group. Multiple voices and perspective are not included – in fact, almost grinningly excluded. As opposed to history, which on its best days is a just and fair account of history, malleable and open to reinterpreation in light of new information, heritage is tales and myths that instill faith and devotion to one story. As Lowenthal writes, “historians aim to reduce bias; heritage sanctions and strengthens it.” Again, in its ideal form, history’s accounts and evidence are open for all, while heritage is limited to an exclusive group. Heritage is our stories about us.

Secondly then, heritage is about identity and belonging. Heritage does not claim to actually discover what occurred in the past. It is not open to criticism by historical method. Actually, it often builds its strength on sometimes accidental, sometimes intentional misreadings of history. As Lowenthal quotes Renan, “getting its history wrong is crucial for the creation of a nation.” Heritage grows on incorrect and exaggerated accounts of history, and according to Lowenthal, heritage is the stuff of patriotism. We derive our sense of nationalism and identity from the unifying myths and legends that are constructed and amassed throughout our history. What defines us and unifies us is our heritage.

Seen this way, heritage takes on a negative connotation, and it would seem that one of the goals of history education would be to eliminate the place that heritage has in shaping our understanding of our past, as well as who we are in the present. However, there are two points that I find interesting on the side of heritage. Firstly, for many people it is heritage that draws us into an interest, passion and potential study of history. The overly simplistic, one sided, mythological approach to history seems to hold a significant place in shaping our collective memory and identity because the stories are powerful and compelling, and as I have stated above, they are emotional and often patriotic. How many people find a passion for a deeper and more critical study of history (either their own or their culture’s) because of legendary stories and unifying narratives that spark the imagination and stir the soul? And this notion has obvious application to the history classroom, as Lowenthal writes, “teachers of history must above all strive to astonish, students strive to be astonished.”

Secondly, I wonder what role heritage plays in filling a need for unity in order for a liberal democracy like Canada to function politically and socially. As Charles Taylor writes, “ to form a state, in the democratic era, a society is forced to undertake the difficult and never-to-be-completed task of defining its collective identity.” In a nation like Canada, a nation where the majority of the people has external roots, and where the native population is marginalized and practically voiceless, I wonder whether there is a need for a collective identity? I understand the evils of this type of exclusionary approach, but I still wonder if a unifying narrative of who we are as a people is necessary for us in order to move forward together in harmony and good government? While I currently lack the deep historical understanding to take a stance on this notion, I am interested in the role of heritage as a element of liberal democracies. 

As a social studies teacher, I find these ideas so fascinating. Teaching grade seven this year, the curriculum is a year-long survey of Canadian History. What I now want to explore is the heritage of our country. I want to develop a deeper sense of what the myths and legends of our country are. I want to somehow expose my students to our nationalistic heritage, and then have them examine these ‘truths.’ What voices are being told? What voices are being excluded? Who is in and who is out? Whose heritage are we learning?