National Council on Public History

gvgk tang, Temple University

Proposal Type

Point-Counterpoint

Seeking

• Seeking Additional Presenters
• Seeking Specific Expertise
• Seeking General Feedback and Interest

Related Topics

• Advocacy
• Reflections on the Field
• Social Justice

Abstract

Can history be contrived within the bounds of the white institution – an exhibit, an archive or historic site? History is inherently “public,” and has existed as a medium of meaning-making, be it spiritual or political, for millennia. But white, middle-class practitioners have gentrified the process of historical narrative-construction. Too often, we have witnessed the celebration of institutions and project leaders over marginalized “subjects” themselves. Can such issues be solved by the integration of more people of color into an inherently elitist, Eurocentric historiographic framework?

Description

How has “the profession” continually defined itself in a way that is inherently exclusive? It guarantees that those in power have the option to “share” their authority on their own terms – virtue signaling without critically engaging. Do communities of “laypeople” require the guidance of “professionals” to dialogue around their own legacies? After all, the past is a part of our everyday lives, integrated into our individual and collective identities. How do we parse truth from mythos? Are these colonizer constructs?

This point-counterpoint reprises the success of the “Insider/Outsider” working group discussion from NCPH 2018. This proposed session solicits feedback, suggestions, and concrete solutions to the myriad grievances and questions raised by the year-long collaboration between public historians of color across the country. Issues to be covered include institutional policy and leadership, advisory groups, the tokenization of POC labor and content, and the appropriation/credentialization of social justice education. At the conclusion of our 2018 collaboration, we found ourselves at a crossroads between assimilation and militancy. Our new organizing question – how can we strategically negotiate separatism and integration, grassroots ideology and institutionalization in order to forge common bonds and enable collective action? Can the master’s tools never truly dismantle the master’s house (as Audre Lorde once claimed), or can we subvert from within?

We’re seeking feedback and advice from public historians of color. In addition to networking opportunities that prioritize our labor in the field, we’re hoping to finalize a nontraditional white paper that highlights our experiences both within and outside of the so-called field.

* Our moderating framework may draw on Michel-Rolph Trouillot’s Silencing the Past and Saidiya Hartman’s “Venus on Two Acts,” and their application to public history work.

If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to pass along someone’s contact information confidentially, please get in contact directly: GVGK Tang, [email protected]

All feedback and offers of assistance should be submitted by July 1, 2018. If you have general ideas or feedback to share, please feel free to use the comments feature below.

Discussion