-
Recent Posts
Archives
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- December 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- May 2012
Categories
- Best Practices
- Book review
- Case Study
- community based history
- Course information
- Digital history
- Discussion
- Exhibition review
- Gender
- heritage
- Interpretive issues
- living history
- Museums
- News
- Preservation
- Public history profession
- Race
- Reviews
- slavery
- Uncategorized
- Urban history
- Website Review
- Welcome
Authors
- aarise2
- adurrell1
- ashleybarrett95
- blairbanks2438
- bmforeman
- Gage Williams
- denihall
- LeAnne McDaniel
- jamyewarren
- jeromeali13
- jkane303
- jmbrown800
- Kate Wilson
- kthornton7
- ktippinssylvestre
- maddiemcg
- mfoster38
- mransley1
- natebonz
- pnguyen58
- poricha1
- saylworth
- shannonltimberlake
- Taylor Rucker
- veronicahealy
“Don’t frack our history!” Using the past for environmental activism in northeastern Pennsylvania | History@Work
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
When I first started reading this article, I was a little depressed because I thought it was a situation of a public historian vehemently supporting the idea that public history should always be used to “fight the power.” I got excited when I realized the real intent of the article was to argue that the public historian’s place is as a mediator between opposing sides. The author recognizes that if public historians join the fight on one side or the other, they aren’t doing anything except furthering the fight. I like the idea that public historians can be, as he says, “citizen historians forging those dialogues.”
But here is the question I am left with…how? I see that both sides of the argument turn to history in one way or another, but does that really create an avenue through which public historians can have some say in what’s going on? Is he saying public historians should be community leaders, thus giving them some say? I would like to hear some other people’s opinions about how public historians are supposed to gain a foothold to work for positive outcomes in these types of conflicts.