Angela Sirna, Doctoral Candidate, Middle Tennessee State University
Proposal Type: Panel
Abstract: The papers in this session will examine to what extent the tumult of the 1960s, progressive agenda of the Great Society, and economic restructuring of the 1970s encouraged national park planners and the communities in which they worked to think creatively about management and public engagement, and to move to the “edges” of accepted park service policy, particularly in regards to race, poverty, and the environment.
In the decades following World War II, the United States experienced profound cultural, political and economic change. Powerful social movements challenged white supremacy, patriarchy, and ongoing American military involvement in southeast Asia and elsewhere. Environmentalism emerged in response to new threats from toxic chemicals and nuclear war, while labor radicals organized resistance to both employers and internal union hierarchies. Market capitalism underwent a profound transformation, with new modes of production and consumption taking hold, leaving some regions of the country in economic distress, while others flourished.
These upheavals were accompanied by demographic shifts that helped drive massive increases in National Park Service (NPS) visitation numbers. To meet this challenge, NPS Director Conrad Wirth proposed a decade of investment in the parks system aimed at improving visitor facilities and enhancing interpretation and preservation efforts. The MISSION 66 program quickly gained widespread political support on the national level, despite criticism from environmentalists and others who felt its emphasis on roads and infrastructure threatened both natural and cultural resources. Of particular significance, local boosters and citizens of areas near extant or proposed NPS units also engaged with and influenced the agency’s efforts, often shaping park planning outcomes to meet their own goals as well as those of NPS.
Key questions include: What role did park managers, advocates, agency critics and others play in the designation of new national park units and in the re-interpretation of older sites? How did this process of conflict and negotiation shape the physical, narrative, and interpretive legacy of parks? Can NPS histories, both the history of the agency and the histories told by the agency to members of the public, reveal shifts in American culture and social organization?
Seeking: Three panelists, PhD candidates active in public history with professional experiences working for and with the NPS, have already expressed willingness to participate. Their respective scholarly projects examine the history of the agency in the second half of the twentieth century, but all differ in topic and approach. One panelist critically examines NPS place-making at Fort Union National Monument under MISSION 66 in the 1950s and 60s. A second panelist explores the impact of the Great Society (1964-1969) in two national parks. The third panelist delves into NPS efforts to create urban and other non-traditional parks in the 1970s and 1980s.
Additionally, Theodore Karamanski, Professor of History at Loyola University Chicago, has agreed to participate as a chair and/or commentator for the panel. Our goal for the panel is to encourage active participation and input from audience members as well.
The panelists seek input and advice regarding their proposal. Additional panelists would also be welcome, preferably an NPS historian or senior scholar interested in the history of NPS and/or the histories told by NPS in the post World War II period.
Related Topics: Preservation, Environment, National Park Service
If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to share contact information for other people the proposer should reach out to, please get in contact directly: Angela Sirna, asirna87[at]gmail.com
If you have general ideas or feedback to share please feel free to use the comments feature below.
I like your ideas very much. My opinion –and it is only my opinion– is that the traditional “three papers and a moderator” model doesn’t attract much audience at NCPH. Is there a way you can restructure slightly so that it is something like “three short case studies and a discussion.” What are the points of intersection among your research topics? What questions do you have in common? Can you engage in a facilitated conversation around those questions. Finally, can you be deliberate and specific about why this panel will matter to contemporary practitioners and park service professionals and others?
A more interactive approach as Denise suggests would help, one that really invites discussion with the audience. The time period covered by your three research topics is not that long ago and there very well may be audience members who worked for NPS or have connections to those particular NPS sites and discussions in the decades that followed and can remember the ramifications of the decisions made then.
It falls later in your time period, but I believe in the ’90s there was a significant revision in the NPS “thematic frameworks” that reflected the influence of the 60s/70s social movements–Laura Feller (retired from NPS) might be someone good to bring into this discussion. I agree that the “short case studies and discussion” approach would be better and also wonder if there is a way to invite reflection on how what can be learned from these cases for how parks / NPS should/can/could respond to/evolve in the face of present political/social upheavals that relate strongly to parks. After all, “park managers, advocates, agency critics and others” are still presently involved in pressing for “new national park units and in the re-interpretation of older sites” and “[shaping] the physical, narrative, and interpretive legacy of parks.” There have in the last year or so, for instance, been the new LGBT sites initiative, the women’s history initiative, and the Latino heritage initiative, to name a few. I wonder if Lexi Lord or Lu Ann Jones or John Sprinkle at NPS might have something to offer on the “current context” part of the discussion. Or maybe someone involved in the movement about the Pullman Porters site or Harriet Tubman? Another idea might be a historian, Cyrus Forman, who recently left a ranger position at African Burial Ground–a site that was definitely shaped by some of the dynamics you mention. I can provide contact info if helpful.