Subjecting History

There is no denying the fact that purchasing a car can be
a nerve-wracking, stress-filled experience. Before you make a
decision and spend a great amount of money on a vehicle,
it pays to acquire a bit of knowledge on the subject.
Keep the tips that follow close at hand, and you will have what it takes to make an optimal decision.

I can’t put my hands on it at the moment, but a few  years ago some Friends put together a tour of Quaker sites, largely in Chester County .  The front of the brochure was a picture of Independence Hall which listed a number of reforms (women’s rights, abolition of slavery) which “Didn’t begin here.”

Did Madison have a copy of Woolman’s journal.  Some years ago I visited the home of James Garfield in Mentor, Ohio. One of the pictures hanging on an inside wall was the group portrait of the Board of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society in 1851. Seemed pretty significant to me that Garfield would have and display this picture. However, on seeking further information I found it was just an old picture that someone thought would look suitably period hanging on Garfield’s wall.

Only the Monthly Meeting had the authority to discipline members.  The Overseers might caution them, but if it was a serious matter it went to the monthly meeting. “Elders” were responsible for the spoken ministry in meeting, and to some extent the behavior of ministers and elders, but not the general conduction of Friends.

Not sure what vision. If this is his vision on Pendle Hill in 1652,  the “great people to be gathered” were all over, just not to the west and that vision was almost forty years before the settling of Pennsylvania.

Who are the custodians? Very important questions particularly as millions of people go though Independence National Park while a relative handful read “scholarly” books. I’ve heard of studies where people trust museums and historical sites much more than historians to be telling the unbiased truth, somehow not being aware that the better interpreters themselves are interpreted  by “scholars.”

This is not to say scholars “get it.” Even the best sometimes get mired into small matters of interpretation but loose the ability to answer simple questions of what actually happened.  Often on local matters the most knowledgeable and sophisticated are “independent scholars.” They do often lack the ability to connect the small picture to the big picture, but they know the details.

Question here is whether this is a particular ad hoc reaction to a question by a reenact or a thought-out response to all such questions. It probably doesn’t do much good to spend much time with an individual interpreter while others are present as they may feel that they have to keep in character. Better to take the question to a higher level where it MIGHT be possible to change (or at least expand) their responses.

However, I do see the response an all to common modern public reaction that glorifies soldiers and the military unconditionally.

“(graduates of the Benstitute)”  needs to be explained or dropped.

You beautiful piece reminds me to open my eyes, heart and mind to  those who are remembered through monuments and statues and parks.  I am impressed by how in searching for the story behind the Potter Garden Dr. Prieto has led me into see how history connects the dots and  makes me feel less isolated in time.  Through this article, I am more appreciative of  Josephine’s selfless generosity despite her loss.

The writing in this essay is so evocative. From the perfect Stoppard quote at the beginning- through excellent summary descriptions like Paragraph 40 (“Neither sepulchre nor wilderness, it was a living memorial brought within maternal reach” ) I was drawn in by fine storytelling.

Thank you so much.

I share this concern and would raise the additional question of how this essay deals with those scholars since the 1960s who have in effect been writing the History of their own (personal, familial, cultural) experience, often that of people(s) left out of (hegemonic) History prior.  The work of those scholars demonstrates a different type of agency and identity to what Trevor describes here, I think – a combination of both roles perhaps. But it also raises the question of how “subjects” experience their lives and whether/how this might be compatible with History.  How does autobiography work with or against History, and what ontological or hermeneutic impact might one expect from attempts to mix the two in a public forum which (in form, lexis, etc.) privileges History rather than autobiography.