In the third section of his work Mickey Mouse History, Wallace expounds upon his theory that history and politics are intricately linked. He does this by explaining the background of historic preservation in American, and trials that the field has experienced. These trials are due, in a large part, to politics.
Wallace illustrates how politics are connected to historic preservation by addressing different eras in the movement. Between the 1880s and 1940s a few main groups of the social elite led the country in preserving historical properties. These included New England businessmen, Southern gentry, and millionaire industrialists. Using their political clout, these groups managed to get the Antiquities Act passed in 1906, helping to establish national historic monuments and sites.
Since the 1940s, the movement of historic preservation has experienced regular high and low points. These have been influenced by different presidential administrations and the political climate of the times. Before and during World War II, New Deal programs instituted by Franklin Roosevelt created a surge in interest of preserving historical sites. After the war, urban renewal became popular, and many historical properties were destroyed to make way for new construction. In the 1960s preservation experienced a reversal of the post-war boom, and President Kennedy's administration led the way by example when Jackie Kennedy restored the White House. This preservation upswing influenced the passage of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
In the 1970s, corporations got involved with the movement because they realized how to generate tourism and profit from historically restored areas. Additionally, new construction became costly, and this influenced ordinary citizens to fix up their historical houses instead of buying new ones. Eventually this led to a backlash in the 1980s under Reagan. Social and ethnic factors became very pronounced in historic preservation as restored properties skyrocketed in value and the gentrification of urban areas became widespread. Reagan's anti-preservation attitude damaged the preservation movement and significantly shrank the political support base for the movement.
According to Wallace, historic preservation can get back on its feet with by forming alliances with groups he views as natural allies to the movement. Environmental and civil rights groups, local conservationists, unions, and public housing activists are just a few examples of groups Wallace feels should come together under the banner of historic preservation to influence the next era of the movement. He believes organizing on the local level in essential to preserving collective American memories, and this will be the way of historic preservation in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I was curious to know what your opinion is regarding Wallace’s suggestion that the best way to keep historic preservation alive in the future is to incorporate “environmental and civil rights groups, local conservationists, unions, and public housing activists”. I am in agreement with Wallace regarding this solution because I don’t believe that historic preservationists should have to shoulder the entire weight of this social responsibility. Due to the many rippling effects of preservation projects involving buildings and districts, the best move would be to incorporate all these allies in the process before any preservation or “adaptive re-use” takes place.
While I agree with your Wallace point on the necessity to organize on the local level, I also see the problematic stance with this argument. While it is important for a preservation group to ally with its neighbors, it is less likely the small neighbors you listed that will be a problem or cause detours in their quest to preserve history. In reality, preservation movements should ally with businesses in the area, proving the financial benefits of such a project in the area and in turn the possiblity of receiving financial backing.
Post a Comment