After six weeks of this class, I will never
look at historical facts the same way. This class had made me question many historical
narratives that are presented in textbooks, films, museums, photographs, etc.
in the sense of what I was really reading and seeing in these mediums were indeed
accurate. I learned that when looking at a certain narrative I must be critical
and base it on multiple perspectives. What I took away from this class was that
a person should never be biased and be open-minded to other stories that may be
hidden from the public’s view. I believe that it is difficult to obtain an accurate/knowledgeable
history because history is dynamic. However, if possible, in order to attain an
accurate depiction of the past, we must gather all the perspectives and narratives
that we can from different type of mediums.
Also, reading various article from Morris-Suzuki
and Rosenstone taught me to understand different mediums to learn about the history
of our past. According to Morris-Suzuki, to be able to understand our past we
must learn about the present first. Reading the article of Rosenstone gave me
an understanding that ‘documentary films’ can be criticize in its own unique way.
Lastly, the field trip was awesome and I really enjoyed it everything (film,
Pacific Aviation and Arizona
Memorial).
At the end of the day I feel that I walk
away from this class with a better sense of history in knowing that there are
many ways to present it and there are many points of view. To be methodical of
what history is by way it is presented as well as the narratives being represented
and what it is doing to me when I am experiencing it.
Coming into this class, I had never thought
critically about history, what history is, or how history is utilized. In social
studies and history classes from elementary to high school, teachers often asked
us students why it is important to study history, and the answer was always the
same: to learn from past mistakes, that we do not make the same mistakes in the
future. After having taken this course, I can see that history, and public history,
has so many political and even personal implications that extend far beyond such
a simplistic answer. In addition, I have learned and experienced through the films
and photos and the field trip to the USS Arizona Memorial that history is also
about perspectives. And one of the most important things I learned in this course
in terms of how to be critical of a particular narrative is to ask the question
of what is missing.
During the first week of class, I questioned
my ability to do well because I wasn’t always interested in learning about history.
There were some historical events that I am embarrassed to admit, I was unaware
of until this class This course made me think of a lot of things differently.
The most important thing I learned from taking this course is to keep an open
mind and think outside the box when it comes to historical events (among other
topics) and the ways they are portrayed. Before this class I was one of those
people who was easily persuaded to believe that the things I read in books or
saw in (some) movies was actual depictions of true events. Although I would always
remain skeptical, I was never pushed to question things especially when it came
from people with authority. I now understand that everyone has an agenda and different
intentions that influence what or how he or she decides to show in their own narratives.
I believe it was Rosenstone who was being critical of written history because
he said historians tend to add biases to history through their own subjectivity.
I’ve also realized that being critical and questioning certain things allows for
a better understanding of history and it can lead me closer to the truth. My critical
thinking was put to the test in this class as well and I am now able to put myself
in a position to understand all sides of an issue or event.
First, I learned that we cannot blindly accept
that the history in our history books is completely "accurate." There
is always more than one side to a story, and people always have preconceived biases.
Second, I learned that we cannot blindly accept that films (including documentaries),
museums (including "historical" sites), and images (including iconic
photographs) are historically "accurate" just because they claim to
be historically "accurate." Films, museums, and images can all be easily
manipulated to tell the story of an event in history from strictly one point of
view. Lastly, I learned that though my first two points emphasize what we cannot
do, what we can do is keep an open mind and look at history from multiple
perspectives. Looking at history from multiple perspectives, we come closer and
closer to the truth.
From this class what I learned is that history
is a perspective of the past from a particular point of view. Two people from
different sides will have very different reflections of what a battle was like,
likewise their grandchildren will have very different views of the evidence of
the same battle 50 years later. I really didn't think that so much work and strife
went into museums and monuments. I really just thought that the people at the
museums were history professionals got their facts strait and put displays together.
Seeing the Vietnam
memorial as a 12 year old kid I could understand the scar argument as a college
student given the background or the design and what it represented the wall is
a great monument it is not just a sea of names the year and context of where they
died and with whom. Films are a good medium to communicate history but they are
usually presented as fact when they are more loosely based on fact than anything
else.
Going into this summer semester I was really
unsure as to which course I wanted to take, so the first day of the session I
sat in on three that sounded relatively interesting: Indian Philosophy, Personal
Peace Stories, and American Studies: America, Hawaii, and WWII; All liberal arts
intensive courses. The type I tend to shy away from due to their strong leanings
toward intellectual masturbation. Despite my aversion I ended up taking probably
the most hard core liberal arts course of the bunch; American Studies. I chose
it for a few reasons. One: It was an area that I knew little about. I’ve never
been into history, especially war commemoration, but I felt a strange obligation
to learn more about WWII in particular because I live near the site of the beginning
of the war for the United States, and it is so relevant
to the trajectory of where we are now. Two: I was also compelled to take the course
based on its sheer utility. It not only fulfilled 4 of my liberal arts requirements
for graduation in one shot, but the tone that the professor set for the course
was the way that liberal arts courses at universities ought to be; highly professional
yet personable, respectful yet humorous, compelling, accessible, and demanding.
Demanding not in the sense that we were bombarded with ridiculous work, but that
we were challenged to really think differently, and further to articulate said
thoughts in the written word and speech.
I felt that this class made me rethink and
challenge history; public and social history. I enjoyed learning about the shift
in power to the public regarding memorials and museums. It has made me more aware
of what is shown to me and makes me question the integrity of the display, monument,
and so forth. I also enjoyed learning about the different media of history and
how movies and film reflect more about the time it is made, rather than of the
time it is depicting. Overall, I enjoyed this class immensely and learned a good
deal about history and war.
I had never fully examined the ways in which
history can be told with such a powerful narrative even when the assumed intent
is that of pure objectivity, that the telling of history will always carry with
it a subjective narrative in some form or another. Subjectivity is unavoidable.
This extends beyond just history to the realm of commemoration of anything deemed
commemorative.
I have been exposed to the term ‘postmodernism’
many times in the past but did not get a handle on its meaning until I took this
course. I also learned about public history and new social history and their connection
to postmodern thought. The development over time of memory making and commemoration
from oral history to written history to now the issues with history on film was
fascinating. I had never before considered the idea that a significant percentage
of the world’s population today could be considered ‘post literate’. It is absolutely
thought provoking in its implications.
I have learned very much from this class.
The title: Hawaii, America,
and WWII, lead me to believe that AMST 319 would be more of a ‘traditional history
course’. However, the scope of this class far exceeded my previous notions of
what to expect. In the past six weeks we have covered conceptions of memory, perspective,
commemoration, philosophy, commercial viability, etc. I was pleasantly surprised
at how much this class pushed me to read, think, and approach concepts critically.
On one hand I am disappointed that I did not take this class during either the
fall or spring sixteen week semesters where I would have had more time to digest
all of the material. On the other hand, I am grateful that I took this class sooner
rather than later because having done so will enhance whatever courses I take
in the future.
I have often considered the fact that there
are always two sides to each story and to be mindful of different points of view
of the narratives given to me, yet this class has reinforced in me the duty to
be vigilant when referring to history. That is to say, to look for what is not
presented as well as what is. This is also applied to physical places of history
as well such as war memorials. I also learned to be critical of the content given
to me in how it is sourced and delivered including media such as films and documentaries.
I learned as well how the influence or power
of politics and economics play into commemoration. Also from a psychological standpoint,
the realization that we forget by what we choose to remember is a concept applicable
to daily life as well as history. For example, what I decide to focus on in this
essay will to a certain extent prioritize what is written here at the expense
of other concepts. When applied academically it reinforces the importance of designating
time for review.
I learned more about how history is represented
and understood than I can recount in this short paper (which has already exceeded
its desired length). I learned that there are many angles not only about how I
receive information, but about questioning the source of the information I receive.
I learned that it is not necessarily about the alternate perspectives, but just
as much or more so about the additional perspectives. I am thankful for my time
in this class and I can only regret that I was not able to spend more time under
the instruction of Professor Llora. I do view things differently now, and I feel
I am much better as a person for having experienced and absorbed what he had to
teach me and the others in the class. Thank you.
I learned that the telling of history is
just that. It’s a telling of history, not history itself,
which is unchangeable, while the telling of history can change. It can change
depending on who’s telling it, why they are telling, how they are telling it,
and importantly – when they are telling it. I learned that the telling of history
is more indicative of the era in which
it is being told rather than the era about
which it is being told.
I learned that via different mediums of display,
history can be presented with a narrative which is almost undetectable without
knowing about it first. These methods are so simple and left me thinking about
how obvious these are, yet I never would have paid much thought to them without
this class. From museums, to books, to movies which include documentaries and
Hollywood films and more,
to the internet, and beyond, history can be represented, and from each can come
a different narrative from its author and/or intent toward its audience.
In a more Dragnet review (also learned what
“just the facts ma’am” is from) of what I have consumed in this course: I learned
more information about the history of Bataan during WWII, the Japanese/East Asian
textbook controversies, the Rape of Nanjing (not sure to what extent should be
capitalized), and the Enola Gay Smithsonian exhibit controversy. I had only heard
of all the previously listed topics and am now better informed about each one,
although I plan to continue learning.
In a way, this course also confirmed something
I had experienced throughout my education, from elementary onward, but had been
unable to articulate until now: history is personal. People’s personal, self identity
is intertwined with history, with the past and how we understand and remember
it. When I first learned of the Rape of Nanjing and comfort women, I felt ashamed
of my Japanese nationality, but when I tried to understand why I felt this way
over something in which I played no part, I could not come up with any adequate
explanation. Now I realize that my shame, at least in part, was due to the importance
of history to national and self identity. People react to history and how it is
presented. And history, I now believe, does not truly ‘exist’ until people of
the present pay attention to the past and make meaning out of it.
In order to avoid simply listing the different
topics we have covered in the course, I want to reference concepts as they come
to mind rather than working chronologically. The most broadly significant thing
I have learned in this course was how to better take a critical approach to history,
thought, and memory. Out of everything I learned, that higher level of critical
thought will absolutely benefit me the most.
In order to understand where we are now it
is important to know where we came from and consequently how we got here and I
think that history vis-à-vis interdisciplinary discourses like American studies
can really enhance the depth and breadth of our understanding as individuals within
local, national, global, etc. communities.
In this class I learned how controversy can
be created through examining the World's Body Exhibit and the Enola Gay exhibit
(amongst others.) I was able to discover that controversy is created not over
the materials or items but over the people and ideals that it relates to. I know
that controversy is easily created once it reaches the media, and controversy
is hard to control because people have so many differing opinions. I also learned
to look deeper at any picture, film or novel and to examine the context of what
I'm looking at - not just the content.
In this class I learned things I didn't expect
to learn going into this course. I expected to learn about facts, dates and biographies
about famous people during WWII, but this course came at WWII from a different
angle. This course taught me to take a closer look at history and question what
was being taught to me in history classes, through a photo, or textbook or even
at a museum. I learned that I should question "facts" about history
because history is invented by people, and that means that history is NOT objective.
Therefore, I should look deeper and try and find as much 'truth' as I can about
a historical event. To do this I could use Tessa Morris-Suzukis' approach and
find as many perspectives as possible from as many mediums as possible.
Learning history today is much different
than it was a few decades ago. With new technology, we are given access to information
via films, documentaries, and the internet. Traditional methods of studying history
involve reading books, but as our race is evolving, so are the ways in which we
learn. However, controversy is often brought up as to whether or not this new
style of learning is effective in educating the general public. Granted, more
people view historic feature films rather than reading historic books, but do
these new ways of viewing history provide details with reliable sources of information?
They documentaries are shown as objective, but it is still the subjective perspective
of the director. None the less, the information being displayed on screen and
on the internet still gives us a basic understanding of some of the social, ethnic,
and national conflicts that people were faced with in the past.
Memory plays a crucial role when dealing
with the topic of history through the roles of perspectives in what is chosen
to remember as well as the topics which are forgotten. We have learned about the
Disneyland effect which begs to question where
the line is drawn between education and entertainment. We looked at museums as
contested sites where we start to become critical about the conventional history
as it is dictated to us through the education system. The notion of public history
becomes a phenomenon where the public plays a role in the content in which museums
portray to the general public.
Morris Suzuki has given readers the ideas
in which you must obtain as many different mediums of information to obtain a
greater idea of the truth in history. Mediums such as film, text and photographs
have their strengths and weaknesses and are up to the viewer to sift through the
agenda that we are being exposed to. Rosenstone showed the most critical view
when looking at history because he believed that even the use of books have a
hidden agenda in which we are experiencing throughout our research into historical
topics. Looking through multiple perspectives gives the public the greatest chance
of gaining insights because there are usually different valid points when looking
at a topic depending on the situation in which it is presented. I believe that
the most important thing I learned is that you must question everything because
we are exposed to a point-of-view when dealing with any notion of history and
can be seen through many different perspectives.
One of the main things that will stay with
me from now on is the statement by Morris-Suzuki where she explains that in order
to receive an accurate depiction of historical events, one must obtain multiple
perspectives in order to get closer to the truth. I do, however, also think that
it’s a good idea to remain somewhat skeptical about some things because as Rosenstone
has said, using more sources may actually take you farther from the truth. I am
pleasantly surprised by how much more I learned aside from what I stated above.
Rosenstone and Morris-Suzuki all point out
in their readings that history has been evolving over the past few decades just
as much as our present society. Questioning the studies of history builds new
connections from the past to today. Understanding the past from different perspectives
is how we can view a bigger and broader picture of society and its conflicts long
ago. If studying history has changed so drastically recently, imagine how much
it is going to evolve in the future.
The most interesting and insightful thing
that I think I’ll walk away with, and continue to apply,
is how a historically based film tends to be more representative of the time
during which it was created than the
time it depicts. This extends to how people sometimes try to bend a historical event to support, justify or validate
their viewpoints or agendas. I’m also glad that I was exposed to Japanese works such as Grave of the
Fireflies.
There are several insights that I personally
gained from American Studies 319: America,
Hawaii, and WWII about
myself as well as the world that I live in, but unfortunately I cannot possibly
name them all. I gained from this course a much more concrete understanding of
contested history. It’s an idea that wasn’t totally new to me. Many of the things
I’m walking away with are not entirely new, but their articulation is. It has
been apparent to me that history is not only mostly told by the winners, but that
each account is provided from a particular perspective and not without motive.
The course provided me with a tactile approach to really feel and think out these
different perspectives to get any small increment closer to the truth. Further
the notion that history is something that is living within and among us, and not
just an objective concourse of fact that lies behind us was really given substance.
Also, I was really forced via this class to come to terms with my own personal
baggage and subsequent biases as well as acknowledge the real power that film
has and has had for me as a medium for (re)creating history. I realize that a
lot of what I “knew” about the past was in actuality sourced from films and was
subconscious and taken for granted and now that I’ve pinpointed this, I can begin
to call into question all of these mental artifacts with ground to stand on.
There are so many things I learned from this
class! Mainly though I learned to ask questions, I believe that this is very important.
My eyes have been opened to examine both sides of the story and to question what
is truly 'fact.'
This American Studies 319 class of American,
Hawaii and World War II
has been very interesting throughout the first summer session. I learned about
many important issues and topics that I never heard about before. But the two
topics that stand out for me is being aware of perspectives and how media changes
the events of history. I did not realize the amount of research and debate that
went into planning a display for an exhibition. The section on the Enola Gay is
a good representation of this and how there was controversy in how the display
was going to be shown to the public. Each aspect of the display was critically
analyzed and debated by numerous perspectives. Because of this, I will never look
at a display or an exhibit the same again. I might question why a display is constructed
the way it is and what is not shown.
This class has confirmed my opinion/understanding
of War memories and war commemoration in America,
Hawaii, and
World War II. I had always thought that these were scenarios evoked much diversity
and multiculturalism. The way that War was approached or viewed by those that
had experienced it was dependent on the individual. This class has, however, changed
how I viewed War in general. I had always thought that War was all the same and
I never realized how multifaceted it could actually be.
Through this class, I was able to understand
how the media changes events throughout history. Throughout this topic, I recalled
elementary school and everything that was taught to me. Only now I realize the
importance of what information of history is put into textbooks. I realize that
the information that children learn through these books will stay with them as
they develop their own ideals. I also learned how movies changed history as well
by showing events that are altered in order to stay true to the story line. I
did not realize the scrutiny that movies that involve the military are under.
Whenever I view a movie that involves the military, I will think about the real
history that it is based on and question whether it is a good depiction of history.
Throughout the past 6 weeks I basically learned
that history is much more than documented facts. It is a narrative that involves
multiple perspectives on a single topic. History cannot be told through only one
person’s story because it includes that narrator’s subjective feelings towards
that story. Instead, history is a collection of stories that serve the purpose
of providing the present with a direct relationship to the past.
Throughout the semester I have learned a
lot. History has many perspectives and it is important to try and understand all
of them. There is never just one narrative to a story. I learned that it good
to question what you are told and try and understand why some things are told
while others are left out. There is a lot of history and people sometimes choose
to leave things out in order to advice their own particular agenda. If you listen
to what other people have to say you can learn a lot and there are a lot of people
out there with something valuable to say. There is always something new that you
can learn. I learned that you should always get your work in on time and get to
class on time. If you don’t do these things then you are only cheating yourself
out of a great opportunity.
Throughout this class we were asked to not
only look at history the way it is offered to us, but to also look at it from
a theoretical point of view. To ask questions and to consider not only what is
presented, but also what is not. In doing this we see that history consists of
many different narratives and that our point of view of that history can change
with the inclusion and exclusion of these narratives.
To close, our field trip to the Arizona Memorial
and Pacific Aviation Museum
was a cool way to finish out the course. Taking the concepts we covered and having
a chance to apply them in a real world setting is a value not as easily accessed
in other courses. And it was just cool to get out of the classroom, discuss things,
and chill with classmates to wrap things up. Mahalo.
To summarize, I learned to think critically
about what is or is not knowledge and to understand how knowledge is formed. It
is not objective but it is products of social interaction and power. I also learned
that what is at stake - is more than just local, it is transnational. It is not
just us and there are many sides and perspectives to a story. You don’t have to
agree, but you have to respect their viewpoint.
What have I learned from American Studies
class? Many things, this class broadened my horizon to have a better understanding
as to why there is a war between different countries. What or who is Enola
Gay? When did World War II start and end? Who fought during World War II?
Who is the United States
president during World War II? There are things that I have never questioned before
that I do now. I have never watched so many ‘war movies’ in my life before as
I did in this class. I do love watching action movies but ‘war movies’ are not
just action, it involves drama, romance, etc. Also, I did love the anime movies
(Barefoot Gen and Grave of the Fireflies) and they were very moving and
awe-inspiring in portraying the Japanese perspective. In addition, seeing both
the movies (Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima) that was directed
by Clint Eastwood was amazing to be able to understand the different viewpoint
of the Japanese and Americans.
When I registered for this course, I half-expected
it to be just like every other long, boring lecture class. But from the very first
day, I could already tell that I was going to be proven wrong. Sure, this class
was long (as are most daily summer session classes), but it was not the least
bit boring. This class was one of the most interesting and mentally stimulating
classes I have ever taken!
With Colonial Williamsburg, I was able to
see that everyone had a different opinion on how history was represented. Such
controversy was seen in the Body Exhibit, and how representation of “art” was
interpreted in various ways. It made me think about the differences between contemporary
museums compared to historical museums, and the impact that they have on consumerism.
Mass media had a lot to contribute to the opinions of people today, and I thought
it was interesting to see how many people challenged cultural norms. When comparing
attitudes of those in 1945 and current, there seems to be less vulnerability to
what is shown in mass media today. There seems to be more acceptance of the war
today, which serves as a distinguishing factor between fact and fiction. I believe
that time was able to heal the hurt from the war, so it is easier to pass judgment
in modern day society.
With regard to the more historical, informative
aspect of the class, I enjoyed how we explored
things beyond but related to World War II commemoration and memorializing. Before this class, I didn’t know about
Maya Lin and the controversy surrounding the Vietnam Memorial, the controversy surrounding the Enola Gay, the ethical
issues surrounding the Body Worlds
exhibition, and I hadn’t realized the apparent slants and prejudices of Disney
movies. I didn’t know in very much
detail about many events of World War II in the Pacific theatre, such as the Bataan Death March, the Raid at
Cabanatuan or
the Rape of Nanjing.
With regard to the more subjective, “ways-of-thinking”
aspect of the class, I learned a great deal about the different sides that seem
to be in a tug-of-war match when it comes to commemoration and memorializing.
The issues important to the veterans, the historians, the post-modernists etc.,
and how they must be balanced, were new to me, however not surprising.
You have asked us: “Did the class confirm
or (re)enforce what you already know or did it make you think of things differently?”
Well, I can say that I have always prided myself on trying to be pretty open-minded.
In doing so I will almost ALWAYS argue whatever point someone is trying to make
regardless of which viewpoint or stance they may take. It’s who I am, I can’t
help it. However, there was very little in this class to which I felt I could
offer much opposition or even debate (although I understand full well that my/any
opposition, or alternate/additional perspective, is part of the essence of what
was being presented to us, intellectually, in this class). Although I thought
I was open-minded before, I would have to say that I will always look at history
differently from now on. I was shown new perspectives, or avenues to perspectives,
toward understanding history and the telling of it.
Part 2: Reflection(s) on a day at Pearl Harbor, the USS Arizona Memorial,
& the Pacific Aviation
Museum
A Day at Pearl
Harbor and the USS Arizona Memorial:
Pros: The first word that comes to mind is WOW!
The renovations to the Arizona Memorial Visitor’s
Center were amazing. I particularly found appreciation for the “art gallery” like
layout of the “Road to War” Exhibit Hall, and the “Attack” Exhibit Hall. It wasn’t
until I looked at the tour brochure online, that I discovered that the walk through
of the two galleries is intentionally set up to guide you through a chronological
account of the events that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor as well as the step-by-step
events of December 7th, 1941.The experience of the new orientation
video in the Memorial Theater was very emotional. I like that it has been revamped
to include a little background history as to the events that led to the attack
on Pearl Harbor. I believe that educating the
public with this enhanced orientation video will help to convey that the memorial
is a somber, tranquil, and emotion filled location that is intended to honor those
who gave their life in war.
Cons:
I would like to see a broader scope of exhibits that would detail the effect of
the war, and specifically the attack, on Hawaii and its civilian residents. There were
four panels which included the Hawaiian perspective, that were placed between
the “Attack” Exhibit Hall and the Theater, that I feel could be more strategically
placed. I would also like to see more detailing the role of women in the war.
Pacific Aviation Museum:
In contrast to the Memorial, the Pacific Aviation Museum
definitely seems to be a much “brighter”, much more celebratory atmosphere. I
feel that the bright halogen lights and the presence of the theater style lighting
hanging from the ceiling may detract from the history lessons to be learned here;
the fact that these exhibits still involve the attack on Pearl Harbor. I also
believe that some may consider the exhibits to be biased toward the American view
of the events that occurred being that there are only three exhibits that deal
with the Japanese and all three have negative connotations to them. Other than
that, I enjoyed the walkthrough. Being able to see and experience these vehicles
from history is, in my opinion, mandatory to the perpetuation of the history of
Pearl Harbor.
Considering the sensitivity of war memories surrounding
the monument, the inclusion of some of the Japanese angle was surprising. The
director did a good job of arranging the exhibit so that American audiences could
be directed to the idea that the attack on Pearl Harbor
was not just out of the blue. The Pacific aviation museum has more serious issues
of struggling to recognize the service of past airmen by showcasing the planes
they flew and the controversial nature of war. The Arizona
Memorial was quite appropriate. The simplicity of the display directed our attention
to the commemoration aspect of the monument. The lack of additional placards explaining
everything about the sunken ship drew the focus towards the monument. I still
saw instances of people treating their visit to the USS Arizona memorial as a
stop on their visit to Hawaii. For instance, people walk into the
room to take a photo of the names and then leave. Most people seemed to recognize
the commemorative aspects of the exhibit just as the park service wanted.
During our tour at the Pacific Aviation museum, I kept thinking about
where the tour guide got his narrative from and if it was mediated in any way
(or how much mediation it underwent). Although he did touch upon some information
about the Japanese, he seemed to have been glorifying the military in his own
way. I was also thinking about how much authenticity these planes really had being
that they've been restored and some even replaced with American engines. We learned
about museums claiming objects as "artifacts" and I noticed many times
that the guide was saying how certain planes were, "Much like the ones flown
during the war.." That's just like you said in class where you take a spoon
from Africa, put it in a box and it becomes an African artifact.
Firstly, I thank you for allowing us to visit this exhibit
as we had discussed the issues around it. I found the exhibits to be more comprehensive
than I expected. In class we discussed the issues with the earlier USS Arizona
film, and inclusion of the less commonly heard view of historical events. I felt
the exhibit addressed those concerns. I suppose new additions could add extra
exhibits to showcase battles in the rest of the pacific, especially featuring
the non-western understanding of historical events.
I feel that it's important to be critical of the Hawaiian narrative and
it's place in the museum and it's implications. Because of it's location between
the two main museums, I hardly noticed it was even there. Also, because it's situated
to look like a place to sit for the tourists, they were faced away from any and
all information about that particular narrative. It should really be put in a
place where people will take notice that it's there or section it off, so that
they actually take the time to read about it.
I have long been a fan of war movies or movies about
historic events. I already knew that the scenes depicted did not necessarily happen
that way. This course has added a different angle; rather than looking at the
facts, look at the film as the way the filmmaker chose to present things. The
manga/anime/Japanese culture is dominant in Hawaii
as well as on the mainland, which I associated with people becoming Japanophiles.
Thus, I never recognized it as a legitimate medium for representing history. I
now recognize that history cannot be thought of strictly based on facts as stated
in textbooks.
Lastly, today’s field trip to the USS Arizona Memorial helped me to actually
experience the effects, the power, of the historical narrative through historical
sites and museums. Even after having discussed the different narratives of Pearl
Harbor and World War II, I still found myself being immersed in the
celebratory tone of the museum exhibits, the film, and the memorial. I consciously
had to back away from the exhibits to think critically about the displays. I admit,
however, that I did not even notice the exhibit of the Hawaiian narrative until
we were about to leave. It would be interesting to see how visitors would react,
how their overall experience will be affected, if the Hawaiian narrative were
closer to the other exhibits.
The Arizona memorial showed a great amount of a
celebratory history for the use of informing the public about the war in the pacific.
I believe that the small portion dedicated to the Hawaiian viewpoint should be
improved because the physical location is hidden for the public when visiting
the museum portion. An implementation of creating a corridor between the two museums
could easily solve this issue. There was an attempt to show the Japanese perspective
to the public and is important to note that this is an American belief on the
Japanese perspective in which there is an emphasis on the propaganda that was
given to the Japanese public throughout the war. I also noted that there was a
huge downplay on the friendly fire from the American side which played a strong
part in the casualties of the civilians during the attack on Pearl
Harbor.
The Arizona Memorial tour was very productively
run. The length of the movie was just right and the time allotted to us to visit
the memorial was also appropriate. It is difficult to commemorate an event such
as Pearl Harbor and I think that the National
Parks Service is doing a good job of educating the public on the event.
The new Arizona Memorial complex, now the WWII Valor in the Pacific National Monument, is much improved over
its predecessor. The layout and architecture is newer, nicer and better reflects
the importance of the site. I appreciated the inclusion of a wider perspective
on the events surrounding and of Pearl Harbor itself, particularly the information
concerning Japan.
My one disappointment was that the Native Hawaiian perspective was barely present.
I was told that several pictures between the two museum buildings was concerned
with that perspective but I had to go back and look because I missed it the first
time through. I would like to see more content in that area. However, besides
that point, I thoroughly enjoyed my time at the monument and would like to thank
you all for your commitment and professionalism.
The Pacific Aviation
Museum had some interesting aspects but
ran into the same pitfalls as Colonial Williamsburg. I feel as though his tour was
intended to teach a younger audience. The focus of lots of the exhibit seemed
to be on displaying history. The story of the Ni’ihau pilot had little to no historical
implications, and was displayed for the purposes of displaying ‘the real thing’.
The tour guide’s not so subtle racism did catch me off guard but I was able to
focus on hearing the information he had to present.
The Pacific Aviation
Museum was fantastic. I have
been interested in aircraft ever since I was little. Our docent was extremely
knowledgeable, and I very much appreciated his stories.
The trip to the Arizona Memorial allowed
me to test all that I have learned in the course. I was able to notice that some
aspects of the museum were pushed or emphasized while others were only subtly
touched upon. We've talked about how the bombing of Pearl Harbor allowed America
to be better prepared to handle situations like this, but throughout the tour
I've only recognized narratives about how well prepared they were (on the ground).
In the film, they didn't mention anything about remembering the importance of
being prepared, instead they listed all the things they did to prepare for an
attack. They even went as far as saying that their radar had in fact detected
the Japanese planes. The tour guide also emphasized how they'd line up the battleships,
so that if the Japanese used torpedoes, it wouldn't be able to damage the ships
on the inside.
The Valor in the Pacific memorial was a very sanitized
display, still celebratory which I thought was good. The bronze displays for the
blind were great the scale Arizona, Japanese aircraft
carrier, and zero fighter were great way to incorporate the experience for people
who could not see. It was a very American view point, but hey it's our memorial
and the final resting place for thousands of Navy personal. It is a big improvement
over the old center.
Therefore, upon entering the U.S.S. Arizona memorial, I tried to maintain
my critical thought of how history is presented and to ask: “What are they trying
to do to me?” I did notice certain things while there, like a pre-teen girl saying
to her parents: “I don’t understand why they did this. All they did was make us
go into the war against them.” At this all I wanted to do was inform her of all
the other information she obviously didn’t learn in school and provide additional
perspectives to her. Yet, I still had a hard time separating my thoughts from
the thoughts that were being given to me by the exhibit. It seems as though an
exhibit done properly will do just that, it will tell you what you should think.
It works. The mediation of history is a powerful thing, and unless you’re aware
of it, you’ll likely fall victim whether it was intended or not. The Arizona
memorial is very effective at telling its history.
With regard to the USS Arizona Memorial, I thought there
was an excellent balance of the American and Japanese sides of the war. I didn’t
know there was that extensive of a museum available. I especially liked how the
pre-war years are focused on and how the museum tries to explain why the Japanese
attacked. I would suggest, though, as some were pointing out, that there be a
significant portion dedicated to the native Hawaiian perspective in a big, obvious
area. The little outside Hawaiian exhibit surrounded by seating seemed more like
a place for a map of the grounds. Besides being out of the way, the way people
are sitting around it will deter people from taking the time to examine it carefully.
