Digitized Heritage?

Every morning, when I wake up, I grab my coffee and cheerios and head to my computer to read the daily news. My home page has always been the Globe and Mail because no matter how busy I am, I can always keep myself informed. One thing that caught my eye is a documentary piece they’re doing on World War II correspondence, called Dear Sweetheart. This correspondence is focused on love letters between a Canadian soldier, David K. Hazzard, and his wife, Audrey. At first glance I was quite interested and impressed by what this documentary had to offer. It also made me reflect on the interaction between history, heritage and the digital world.

This documentary has put a spotlight on WWII in a way that is very attractive to mainstream Canadians. It is romanticising the war to the umpteenth degree, which, some may argue, generates a lot of interest in history. Readers can, as the Globe site puts it, “follow the epic love story through the Second World War correspondence of a Canadian soldier to his wife”. This sounded a bit cheesy to me initially but when reading a few of the comments posted I realized that people ate this story up. In addition, the site has a link that allows others to share their WWII stories or letters online. This gives Canadians the chance to feel a connection with each other that may not have been possible through other historical venues. The Globe was essentially able to create a sense of connection and even a feeling of heritage between Canadians through this digital documentary. It was almost impressive.

The letters are really quite touching and help the reader to get a sense of what the couples’ lives were like during the war. However, while reflecting on the weaknesses of Canadian heritage, I couldn’t help but think about the many cases of venereal disease that riddled the continent of Europe at this time. I know it’s bad and that comment probably ruined your heart-warming feelings from this love story but it was a reality then! It happened, whether you like it or not. It’s the interesting part of history that we rarely get to discuss. (maybe that’s why some people think history is boring; they never get to hear the crazy stuff!) To the shock of many today and back then, many soldiers during the war were diagnosed with VD. I’m not accusing Mr. Hazzard of anything. I’m only saying that it made me think!
It’s topics like this that always seem to be forgotten. Canadian Heritage (or any country for that matter) always seems to leave certain aspects of history out for the sake of nostalgia. (I’m saying this in general.) Isn’t that the dilemma between history and heritage?

Anyways, this documentary made me wonder about heritage and the digital age. I wonder if this online documentary (and the many other online documentaries out there) is the heritage of the future. We have heritage locations around the country but what about these history websites. Are they our heritage created into a digital format? With the creation of documentaries and online exhibits, supplemented by thousands of digitized primary documents, I think we’ve in a sense created digital heritage for Canadians. Canadians can visit these websites, from the comfort of their home, and get the understanding and (possibly) the nostalgic feeling much like what they feel from visiting actual heritage locations. Maybe that seems a bit out there for some...but is this where the digital age is taking us next?

*I also wanted to mention that the Globe has the actual letters digitized in their Pictures section. However, they don’t have a zoom feature so you can take a better look. So basically you can look at them but you have to go to the documentary site to read the copied words. I wish that the Globe would have made the zooming feature available so that readers could take a closer look and examine these documents themselves. However, I do commend the newspaper for at least providing a digitized copy.

**Photo courtesy of the Globe and Mail Dear Sweetheart documentary site.

“So, we should, like, have our own hoser Wikipedia, eh? Beauty thinking, eh? ”

--Bob and Doug McKenzie ...or what I was thinking they would say. (For those of you who are unaware of these beer drinking fellows... For shame!) Clearly this quote is not from the Great White North hosers but the idea seems so simple I wondered if they would’ve thought of it. Well, the thought, perhaps, isn’t that simple but I certainly was shocked that the thought never crossed my mind. In the article we read a few weeks back by John Jordan ‘For a Canadian Wikipedia’ it was discussed how countries, namely Canada, should have their own Wikipedia so that they have their own historical perspectives recorded.

When I read the article, I realized that I never even thought about how Wikipedia is language-centered instead of country-centered. Some people may be thinking...well of course it’s language-centered Sarah! But ...how does that even make sense? Obviously each country has their own history or viewpoints on issues so why would Wikipedia assume that they should all be gathered into one language- centered wikipedia? In terms of history, each country has its own version. So the English language wikipedia is for many countries such as England, the US and Canada. But we all have different perspectives on our collective history. So how does the Wikipedia entry accurately present each side? (It can’t) Seriously, how has Wikipedia not even thought of this before? As Jordan points out these various perspectives are all merged into one Wikipedia description for all of the English language Wikipedia. So what’s the solution?

Initially, I thought we should have the different accounts together under one topic heading. It made sense because then the reader could make their own conclusion from the information. You know, like the War of 1812: then there’s the US opinion, then Canada (though they were British subjects at the time, I know), and the British. But then I thought, and as Jordan points out, there is a “lack of unanimity among historians even within one country”. For example, some historians (and mostly the public) love, and pride themselves on, Billy Bishop, our great Canadian hero of WWI. However, there are some historians that truly believe Bishop is a fake. His record hits were mostly from his own account and the German reports on planes shot down apparently don’t match up. So now what would Canada do? One topic might be changed numerous times or have so many entries that anyone (lets say those naive students that use it as their main source for essays), get confused. And so...I do agree with Jordan’s suggestion for a separate Canadian Wikipedia but I must add something to his idea. I think that the Canadian Wikipedia would have to be able to provide the various perspectives of each topic. (Instead of people changing it back and forth) Wouldn’t that make it easier for the reader to come to their own conclusion? Then, supposedly, there wouldn’t be any bias. Now the question is whether it’s possible or not. Will the Canadian Wikipedians be up to the task of preparing these Wikipedia entries? Can it be done properly; without any bias? Perhaps this is asking too much, but hey! It may be something to look into.

What about the Grasshoppers?

Just a quick note about one of my many thoughts...

A while back, in our Public History class, there was a reading we did on a young historian who went into a small museum and changed the complete set up of the place without anyone’s consent.

Now to be honest, this initially made me laugh and I’ll tell you why. I’m from Port Colborne, Ontario, which is located on Lake Erie. Our ‘little city that can’ (yep! It’s on a city sign...) has a nice little museum called the Port Colborne Historical and Marine Museum and Heritage Village. Now, I know I haven’t been there in ages but I have no doubt in my mind that it’s still doing quite well. A few weeks ago, the head curator, Virginia Anger I believe, announced her retirement. (Thanks Mrs. Anger for your hard work and best wishes in your retirement) Now my first thought was ‘Oh man! I’m coming out of a Public History Masters degree and she’s retiring now?? Why not wait another year and I can be hired on to help there! But of course, my daydreams and my reality never match up. Anyways, while doing this reading, I couldn’t help but wonder what I would change if I worked there. Its main focus is Marine history and a bit of the city’s history from the 1800s to the early 1900s. However, I’ve always been interested in adding a bit more. (I will admit, however, that I’m unacquainted with the museum’s collection and, as a result, I’m unaware of what its potential is.) What about the native history in the area? I know most Port residents can remember the tale of the Grasshopper war that happened in the Tennessee road area. (it was part of a small pamphlet written by Varina Davis, wife of US Confederate president Jefferson Davis) Wouldn’t that be neat if we could get a small exhibit on that? Or how about Port Colborne’s experience in the War of 1812? We’re only 30 minutes from Queenston Heights; there must be something on that! Anyways...that reading just made me laugh because I know in my head I was thinking about the ways I could improve and expand my own city’s little museum. Although, I would be smart enough to consult the community and the museum’s stakeholders, unlike the character in the article.

(Since I haven’t been there in a few years, I plan on visiting the museum in the next few months to ensure that my ideas for additional exhibits haven’t already been taken care of. I’ll let ya know how it goes!)