And this post used to be longer. Much longer. Scads longer.
But I'm cutting it out of abundance of caution. Criticism of interpretive product is something that people too often take too personally for some reason.
I've never understood that. I likely never will. This is a world of ideas; a free marketplace is the best marketplace. Let the opinions rain down. If you have different ideas, I want you on my team. I don't reject you.
So, here's what's left of the post...
-----
I will state my belief here in strong, bold letters:
There is not one program given on any Civil War battle landscape that cannot, somewhere in it's natural flow and using resource-specific elements and tangibles, discuss the cause and context of the war in a meaningful and thematically-integrated way. Period. Full Stop.
Furthermore and because of this, there is no reason or excuse not to cover the cause and context of the war in a meaningful, thematically-integrated and site-specific way in every personal services program in some manner or fashion. Period. Full Stop.
If an historian ever chose a hill to die on, that's a worthy one.
(Using "an" before "historian" would be another worthy hill to die on as well, by the way.)
-----
Maybe someday I'll post the whole thing.
I agree Capt John. However I am interested in your thoughts on this:
ReplyDeleteHow would you feel about someone being presented an interpretation that does not fit your own, or contextualization that doesn't match what you feel is correct?
I hear a lot of pandering in the world about diversity and multiple perspectives and differing understandings. However in practice what I have seen in the education and history education fields is that those who say such things want only to impart THEIR interpretation and castigate people who proffer any other.
You and I have been around the block on some of this more than once, and usually come to an understanding (or truce, haha), but I truly want to see what your thoughts are on this.