Unit 2

This is my post for Unit 2 in HIST 218.
May 26, 2017

My reactions to the introductory chapter of Daniel J. Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig's Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006).

I was pleased to find the chapter interesting, well-written, and easy to read. The discussion about some historians' and writers' very positive and negative predictions for the effects of technology and the web on history as a discipline seemed extreme (pp. 1-2). Perhaps their extreme stances were a way to get published and get attention.

I think it is true that the Internet does not do a good job of distinguishing "between the true and the false, the important and the trivial" as Gertrude Himmelfarb stated ("A Neo-Luddite Reflects on the Internet," Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 November 1996). It does provide greater democratization of information because more individuals can produce information available to the public at large without gatekeepers like journal editors and book publishers deciding what is to be made available. Who should decide what is important versus trivial? I like the fact that more information is available, and that I may be able to find the detailed information that I am looking for without having to travel to libraries or wait to borrow sources through inter-library loan. However, it requires more work on the part of the person receiving the information to determine its credibility.

I think accessibility is one of the greatest advantages of "The History Web," as Cohen and Rosenzweig label it. That accessibility may allow professional and amateur historians to be more efficient and productive in the amount of work they can do and reach a broader audience. It may allow historians to access a broader array of sources than in the past. In addition, it may make it easier to do quantitative and statistical studies that require searching a high volume of documents and sources. Perhaps more historical research can be based on more broadly representative samples (e.g., of individuals, locations) than were possible before the Internet age and digitization of historical resources.

The accessibility and democratization of data can also lead to a downside--an overwhelming volume of information. As I navigate through a web page, I am often required to make a choice about whether to continue reading a block of text on a current page or click on links to other pages. At times, I am concerned about whether I am missing something important or if I have viewed everything I needed to see. I think that creates a degree of stress for those reading online.

In addition, there is the frustration that a lot of historical information is only available for a fee. I have often decided that I am unwilling to pay the fee to access a journal publication or book chapter. As a social science researcher who works for a small non-profit organization that is not affiliated with a university library, I may skip some sources or rely only on what is in the publicly available abstracts. I think the fees (e.g., $25) are much too high. So this gatekeeping has a counteracting effect on the democratization of data I mentioned above.

One of my biggest interests and curiosities about history is what it was like to live in another period of time. As an undergraduate over 35 years ago, the history courses I took seemed very focused on political and military history and it was more difficult to find courses on social and cultural history. The study of history appeared to be focused on the elites. Although I think it is important to understand the large political, economic, and military trends and events, I also want to know what it was like to live when those events were occurring. Was most of the population even aware of the political and military events?

Based on my personal experience, it seems that historians, particularly those in public history, are making greater use of what I consider to be a major advantage of technology for increasing individuals' understanding of history--the ability to involve additional senses and a third dimension. For some time, it has been possible for the public to go to sites like Colonial Williamsburg to get a more experiential and immersive view of history. I would like to see even more of this kind of approach to educating students and the public about history, and I think new technologies add tools for doing so. For example, I recently read that Historic Royal Palaces now provide visitors to Banqueting House, Whitehall Palace, with headphones and something resembling a block of wood that allows you to "activate memories, images and voices" and "become immersed in a world you personally create." Using binaural sound, a visitor listens in on conversations and hears voices that seem to surround one, and at the end of the tour the block begins to throb to represent the heart of King Charles I as he walks to his execution (Sandra Lawrence. "History and Fun Haunt the Royal Palaces," British Heritage Travel, 37 (6), November/December 2016, pp. 24-25). There have also been researchers experimenting with the use of virtual reality to try to build understanding and empathy (Building Empathy Through Virtual Reality. Rutgers Office of Instructional and Research Technology. Retrieved from: https://oirt.rutgers.edu/building-empathy-through-virtual-reality/ on May 26, 2017.)

POSSIBLE TOPIC FOR PROJECT: One possibility is to use my Dad's photos, my photos from a visit to two former airbases in England, and memorabilia to study his experience as a sheet metal mechanic stationed in southeast England during World War II. (He's no longer living, so I can't ask him anything about his experiences.) Most of the history of the Army Air Corps is either about its leadership or about flight crews. The experience of ground crews has gotten far less attention.  Another alternative is to use photos I took from a recent trip to Venice and Florence to pick a historic location and describe its history.

LOCAL HISTORY SITES: In viewing the various web sites, I appreciated the fact that more information is online. I used to drive out to Fairfax County Library's The Virginia Room to do genealogical research 15 years or so ago. Online information would have saved me a lot of gas and time. However, the ability to walk through the stacks in a library has allowed me an opportunity to find other sources with useful information that I might not have found through a card catalog or online search.