Historical memory vs. Memory

RobertP · Nov 28, 2023

The concept of historical/public memory is used frequently around here. I wish someone would explain it to me and why historians think it trumps actual memory.

Thanks

Old Soldier · Dec 10, 2023

vmicraig said:
I had the good fortune to be deployed to Iraq during my military career on several occasions and during one, collected over 200 oral histories from Privates to General's who were actively engaged in combat operations at that moment in time. For the higher ranking, the focus was more on strategic governance of a hostile area, whereas the lower ranking focused on the tactical situation in which they were immediately involved. The whole reason for employing a Marine on ground collecting oral histories in the midst of combat operations is because Corps leadership realizes no matter how little time passes after the event, memory fades, tales get exaggerated and history is distorted. People tend to let opinions and biases cloud the memories of the event pretty quickly. In the case of combat, mere hours can distort the actual events, even for the most hardened. Without oral or written record taken contemporaneously with the action or event being discussed, the history is and will forever be incomplete, skewed and altered. Collective memory and even individual memory in any situation is simply fraught with error, even if well intentioned.

Every Civil War vet who spun a tale likely added or exaggerated, as there were few contemporaneous interviews conducted for historical sake. Public and collective memory of the Civil War was surely no different than today. I could likely go to any Marine I interviewed and ask the exact same questions I did of him in Country a mere 15 years ago or so and their memory of the event would not recall the same story as originally told. As such, our reliance on the memories of anyone, even if written down in post action books, chronologies and novels, must be taken with a grain of salt.

Your Marine Corps is such a sensible organisation. Semper Fi!

Library Lady · Dec 10, 2023

In These Honored Dead: How the Story of Gettysburg Shaped American Memory, Thomas DesJardins states that history is created. It is a construction born of people's desire to make sense of the past. History is not necessarily a record of the facts, but rather a reckoning of stories of past events arranged so that they make sense to those who do the reckoning. There is no what really happened at Gettysburg, only a multitude of differing versions of events drawn from a multitude of sources, each with a different perspective and a different set of goals in mind when they made their record.

Many people involved could not describe their experience at the time but wrote years later. They may have made honest mistakes.

Then there are the planned mistakes. As Gary Gallagher points out, there is an enormous controversial literature that was created by former Confederates who fought at Gettysburg that endlessly replays what happened there in search of villains and scapegoats to try to explain why General Robert E. Lee lost there when Robert E. Lee was a peerless soldier.

The writer's pride and self-esteem may be connected to being at Gettysburg or, for Union soldiers, their pride and self-esteem may be connected to being on the winning team. I believe DesJardins says later in the book that, as time passed, writers came to feel that their unit or their commander (if he was well-liked and respected) wasn't getting a fair share of the credit, and they sought to remedy that.

Some writers felt the need for an heroic past for this young nation. The Civil War armies were quite literate and aware of world history.

Putting it all together, elements of memory, confusion, embellishment, deception and identity form the basis of the American mythology of Gettysburg which gives us a canon of established stories that entertain and misinform.

Some of the above is direct quotation and some is me paraphrasing because I was taking notes while listening to an E-audiobook (I do not own a hard copy).

Mr. DesJardins' description of history makes total sense to me. Obviously, he is focused on Gettysburg, but I think his comments could apply as well to any other battle or momentous occasion. According to one classification of personality, I have the gold personality that craves order, so if anyone would want to know exactly what really happened, it would be me. I've come to realize, though, that as long as whatever we're talking about deals with humans, that's not going to happen.

Old Soldier · Dec 10, 2023

Even 'peerless soldiers' make mistakes - or are out-thought or outnumbered.

JerryD · Dec 10, 2023

RobertP said:
The concept of historical/public memory is used frequently around here. I wish someone would explain it to me and why historians think it trumps actual memory.

Thanks

You have it backwards. Actual memory is more accurate than public memory. Public memory is another way of saying common knowledge. Common knowledge is often wrong.

ErnieMac · Dec 10, 2023

I recommend reading Pickett's Charge in History & Memory by Carol Reardon. I think it covers the topic of how the history of Pickett's Charge evolved from the first-hand accounts of the participants to the place it holds in modern public perception. The heaviest emphasis is on the period from July3, 1863, until the 50th Reunion in 2013.

Library Lady · Dec 10, 2023

A new book (released on 01/03/2022 - but my library just got it) that deals with how history is "made" is Forgetting and the Forgotten by Michael Batinski. It is of particular interest to me because it deals with a county in downstate Illinois.

Forgetting and the Forgotten | siupress.siu.edu

www.siupress.com

The Ninth Ohio · Dec 10, 2023

Race and Reunion by David Blight has a lot about Civil War memory, and is a good study on how sectionalism and reconciliation trumped memory.

wausaubob · Dec 10, 2023

With respect to the US Civil War, Grant's summary that the Confederate audacity on the offensive was very effective. But the US had the artillery and usually the larger army, and that was likely to produce a good result for the federal forces in the end.

RobertP · Dec 11, 2023

The Ninth Ohio said:
Race and Reunion by David Blight has a lot about Civil War memory, and is a good study on how sectionalism and reconciliation trumped memory.

OK, I've been reading papers on Historical Memory of the CW, Reconstruction and reconciliation and have found significant disagreement among historians as to the sectional motivations and methods used in creating the era's common memory. Unlike the disciplines of Physics, Chemistry or Biology there seems to be no golden truth in this subjective subset of traditional History but rather what modern scholars, in their opinion, believe is the real story. Sorry but the field appears to me to be just another way of creating a new common knowledge from existing common knowledge which was created from older common knowledge which was based somewhat on actual memory.

ErnieMac · Dec 11, 2023

RobertP said:
OK, I've been reading papers on Historical Memory of the CW and have found significant disagreement among historians as to the sectional motivations and methods used in creating the era's common memory. Unlike Physics, Chemistry or Biology there seems to be no golden truth in this subjective subset of traditional History but rather what modern scholars, in their opinion, believe is the real story. Sorry but the field appears to me to be just another way of creating new common knowledge from existing common knowledge which was created from older common knowledge which was based somewhat on actual memory.

That's pretty much the impression I have.

JerryD · Dec 11, 2023

RobertP said:
OK, I've been reading papers on Historical Memory of the CW, Reconstruction and reconciliation and have found significant disagreement among historians as to the sectional motivations and methods used in creating the era's common memory. Unlike the disciplines of Physics, Chemistry or Biology there seems to be no golden truth in this subjective subset of traditional History but rather what modern scholars, in their opinion, believe is the real story. Sorry but the field appears to me to be just another way of creating a new common knowledge from existing common knowledge which was created from older common knowledge which was based somewhat on actual memory.

Your mistake is in thinking of History as a Science. In Science there are often clear right and wrong answers. History has a lot more grey areas, so yes, there is often no "golden truth" as you put it. I think your last sentence is just outright wrong, though. Modern scholars, at least the reputable ones and not those with an ax to grind, are trying to reach the best conclusions they can from the available evidence. The problem is, in history the available evidence is almost always incomplete, so some interpretation is required. This is where opinion comes in, based on each scholars assessment of the known facts and their best guess as to what really happened.

The Ninth Ohio · Dec 11, 2023

RobertP said:
OK, I've been reading papers on Historical Memory of the CW, Reconstruction and reconciliation and have found significant disagreement among historians as to the sectional motivations and methods used in creating the era's common memory. Unlike the disciplines of Physics, Chemistry or Biology there seems to be no golden truth in this subjective subset of traditional History but rather what modern scholars, in their opinion, believe is the real story. Sorry but the field appears to me to be just another way of creating a new common knowledge from existing common knowledge which was created from older common knowledge which was based somewhat on actual memory.

Of course there are disagreements. I think you are misunderstanding what the purpose of history is if you ever expect to get "the real story", and any historian worth their salt will not claim there is one.

However, in the case of Blight's work, he points out many inconsistencies between what people understand was reunion and reconciliation, and what actually happened. For example, how can one claim (like Ken Burns and others have) that the 1913 Gettysburg Reunion was a symbol of the "nation's" healed wounds, when there was basically zero Black representation and collaboration despite offering almost a quarter of a million men to the war effort? To what extent did that nation represent them?

Why do the remembrances of people like Oliver Wendell Holmes come off as, quoting Blight, "passion and heroism immunized from motive?"

These are worthy questions to study, and I think Blight's work does a great job of analyzing them. Others' mileage may vary - this book will not likely appeal to those who tend to think of the war in a sanitized, idyllic, or mythologized terms.

RobertP · Dec 11, 2023

JerryD said:
Your mistake is in thinking of History as a Science. In Science there are often clear right and wrong answers. History has a lot more grey areas, so yes, there is often no "golden truth" as you put it. I think your last sentence is just outright wrong, though. Modern scholars, at least the reputable ones and not those with an ax to grind, are trying to reach the best conclusions they can from the available evidence. The problem is, in history the available evidence is almost always incomplete, so some interpretation is required. This is where opinion comes in, based on each scholars assessment of the known facts and their best guess as to what really happened.

My background is in hard science so maybe I'm biased that way. But individual historians do of course claim that their story is the truth just as if they were scientists working within the bounds of accepted certainties. They're not. The historical memory genre appears to me to be a bad combination of History, Sociology, Psychology and Political Science used to create a narrative that the author wants to create. It's foundation is based in sand.

JerryD · Dec 11, 2023

RobertP said:
My background is in hard science so maybe I'm biased that way. But individual historians do of course claim that their story is the truth just as if they were scientists dealing working within the bounds of accepted certainties. They're not. The historical memory genre appears to me to be a bad combination of History, Sociology, Psychology and Political Science used to create a narrative that the author wants to create. It's foundation is based in sand.

I really think you are misreading what historians claim. Of course they present their interpretation as the truth. They think it is. But if you watch any interviews with them on panel discussions, the good ones are always ready to admit the possibility of alternative interpretations. Its just that they believe they have determined the proper interpretation. Its like scientists who have a theory on how something works that is still unproven but is in doubt. They will argue their theory is the right one, but the good ones admit that others may be possible. But any historian (or scientist) who claims they have a monopoly on the truth is not a serious person and is someone to be avoided.

I think historical memory is a useful vehicle for pointing out why people have come to erroneous conclusions about different things. Most people's understanding of history is atrocious, so anything that can help fix that is welcome in my book.

The Ninth Ohio · Dec 11, 2023

JerryD said:
I really think you are misreading what historians claim. Of course they present their interpretation as the truth. They think it is. But if you watch any interviews with them on panel discussions, the good ones are always ready to admit the possibility of alternative interpretations. Its just that they believe they have determined the proper interpretation. Its like scientists who have a theory on how something works that is still unproven but is in doubt. They will argue their theory is the right one, but the good ones admit that others may be possible. But any historian (or scientist) who claims they have a monopoly on the truth is not a serious person and is someone to be avoided.

I think historical memory is a useful vehicle for pointing out why people have come to erroneous conclusions about different things. Most people's understanding of history is atrocious, so anything that can help fix that is welcome in my book.

If historians weren't allowed to interpret, it would just be a chronology.

RedRover · Dec 11, 2023

RobertP said:
My background is in hard science so maybe I'm biased that way. But individual historians do of course claim that their story is the truth just as if they were scientists dealing working within the bounds of accepted certainties. They're not. The historical memory genre appears to me to be a bad combination of History, Sociology, Psychology and Political Science used to create a narrative that the author wants to create. It's foundation is based in sand.

They, of course, do not view it as a foundation of sand (particularly if it includes pay and benefits). But it is a foundation more or less divorced from a concern with what happened in the past, and instead with what narrative evidences were produced in the past, and their sociological implications. The historians of public memory base their studies of public memory on the same evidences that would be used by historians of the past. Thus some of the confusion. In their works they are clear they are working on what they call "memory." And where that is not clear, the use of certain professional jargon might give some evidences.

Richard J. Cox, in his 2000 work "Closing an Era: Historical Perspectives on Modern Archives" noted the value of archives, or historical sources, to public-memory:

As regards the social-science jargon one might come upon in historical studies of public memory, you might find Mr. Andreski's old book "Social Science as Sorcery," interesting. For example, he theorizes that the verbosity of a social science narrative is proportional to its lack of reason. He gives an amusing formula: A/K - 1 =V; where A is Ambition, K is knowledge and V is verbose jargon; in other words "when knowledge (K) exceeds the ambition (A), then verbosity (V) becomes negative; and negative verbiage amounts to conciseness." p. 82-83). And we've all heard that brevity is the soul of wit! To the extent the Verbosity factor turns out positive, and in proportion to its scale, it adds nothing new to the ideas associated with actual social science. Andreski promoted a restoration of scientific method in sociology and social studies generally.

The "public memory" historical field boomed after the 1980s to render historical study useful to the public sector, (according to Bodner, "Remaking America, 1992) and by this I suppose is meant government agencies. And in any case, even if a historical narrative is adopted by law in our country, or is promoted by laws, there are no "ex post facto" laws (US Const. Art. I, sec. 9) so they are not binding upon the people of the past, and like all laws, subject to amendment or repeal in the future.

Historians of the past are aware they cannot recreate it by narrative means, using narrative evidences, as if producing a legal document binding upon the public. In this manner history is a philosophical art (literally Greek for love of knowledge).

From Oswald's etymological dictionary of English, 1836: