[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: how we come to view and define 'history' and 'historical' -- for instance, how we choose to view and tell the story about the development of our area, what we choose to celebrate, what we choose to submerge (in this case, streetcar lines or sewer lines!) -- and what all that says about the selective processes involved in preserving history, in legitimizing certain histories and not others...
Thought-provoking comments.
well, I'm just trying to put it in perspective. on the one hand, we have uchs working very hard so that a replaced porch spindle can resemble its original neighbor. and on the other hand, uchs is apparently silent while two whole buildings, sites of (national?) historic significance(?), are disappearing forever.
and none of this seems to be about history. it seems to be about better homes and gardens on the neighborhood level, and expansion/monopolization on the institutional level. and on both levels, history seems to be 'defined' -- cited or ignored -- as needed.
and the power to define history, as needed, is what I'm wondering about. how it's assumed and sustained. and why.
......... laserbeam� [aka ray] maybe the vision of the anointed is one big trump l'oil :-)
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
