Historical Memory and Manipulation

What is historical memory and how is it manipulated by historians and the public?
Has the media manipulated history or does it just reflect current Historian thoughts?

My initial reaction to the latter question was: “When was the last time an actual Historian weighed in on current affairs in the media?” I could possibly write this off due to my recent forum posts on the recent (2017) controversies over Confederate icons in New Orleans, or even my own bias supporting history as a discipline while remaining excessively critical of the media, both traditional and social. However, in both cases, the aspect of emotion underscores the necessity to clarify what “historical memory” means.

“Historical memory,” personally, implies a casual approach to history as a discipline due to the fact that it pulls more from what is known by any given society at a specific point in their time. Whether it is called “collective memory” or “social memory,” the implications of the preference of the opinion of history rather than the facts are clear in some cases. The problem of such a perspective on the past is that it is often contaminated by the prejudices of the present.

The manipulation of history is far from an American phenomenon. In 2007, political lobbying resulted in the name of one of the more infamous concentration camps in Poland, Auschwitz, to be renamed “Auschwitz-Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination camp (1940 to 1945)” in order to divorce Polish involvement from German initiatives in the Holocaust during the Second World War.^[1] Japan’s ongoing struggle with its own past during the Second World War has resulted in similar revisionists approaches to history and included the screening of school textbooks to fit the ideal image of Japanese history.^[2] In both cases, the manipulation of history is subtle and dependent on public perception – either through internal pressures or the desire to bury the national stigma of the past.

The potential of history to be manipulated by individuals and organizations not closely affiliated with history as a serious academic discipline has grown in relation to the increased visibility and availability of media, social media, and blogs. The fear of a general loss of academic control over the interpretation of history and the inevitable loss of public credibility enjoyed by museums has been noted within the last decade and can only become more worrisome as the internet becomes more of a trusted and handy source for the average person.^[3]

Current academicians like Paul Bolin offer hope for the future of history as a discipline. In his discussion of George Orwell’s 1984, Bolin poses five specific areas of consideration for the discipline: “the uncertainty… the impulse…the power… the responsibility… and the connectivity of the historian.”^[4] These areas are, for present students of history and future generations of the study of our present, areas which require much consideration to not only minimize the ability of the media and public to manipulate the past for the sake of contemporary convenience, but also will ensure that the ability of effective interpretation evolves with society.

[A classmate pointed out the 2001 movie Black Hawk Down in his comment…]

You picked the one topic I had to avoid due to my inability to sit through anything out of Hollywood “based on true events.” 🙂

I have been disappointed by so many movies over the last two decades that I have pretty much given up the hope that, much like the generations before us, what we have gone through as part of our service will ever be factually represented. In a way, I am glad that Hollywood messes things up so bad – some of the experiences I have had, like others, really don’t need to be included in any form of entertainment because to do so would take away the value of service. On the other hand, with over 17 years’ experience on Blackhawks, I cringe every time I see gross errors in scenes where aircraft or helicopters are key theatrical elements: No, you don’t walk off the nose of at ‘Hawk with the blades turning… No, you can’t have a normal conversation at 120 knots with the doors open, and no, helicopters do not explode tail first when they crash.

The problem with movies like 2001’s Pearl Harbor, and Enemy at the Gates is that they tend to butcher history for the sake of drama and romantic interests. Even one of my favorites, Battle for Sevastopol (2015) included both elements, but in this case, they stayed very close to what I have researched on Lyudmila Pavlichenko’s wartime exploits (even if the casting for her was bad).

The odd thing about movies like Full Metal Jacket (1987) and Saving Private Ryan (1998) is that they are intended to be subtle anti-war movies and seek to overpower the audience with the hopelessness and intensity of the psychology of warfare, yet they end up having the opposite effect and reinforce the concepts of bravery, heroics, and brotherhood so central to their theme.

[The conversation turned towards censorship and convenient “truths.”]

Unfortunately, I have had personal experience with censorship and omission when it comes to our education system.

I believe it was either 1985 or 1986 when I was taught by my Social Studies teacher that Queen Liliuokalani ceded her power and position in Hawaii to “better assist the plantation owners.” For a pre-teen, that made sense – cooperation is always a good thing, right? Besides, who was I to question the almighty Floyd Vandanoff, the knowledgeable and infallible teacher? It wasn’t until I actually was stationed in Hawaii in 1996 that I learned the ugly truth about the “Bayonet Constitution” of 1887 and the eventual overthrow of the monarchy.^[5]

Today, we have the same problem. The perceptions of history, based on poorly-researched “fact” and burdened with either an intentional agenda or accidental bias, continues to sway public opinion in a dangerous cycle. Will the desire to revise history here become similar to the actions in Poland, Japan, and elsewhere? I actually think it will, eventually. As long as the pressure to protect feelings and sensibilities remains stronger than the urge to present “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” and as long as the emotions surrounding the events of the past overrides the value of understanding and acceptance of what happened along the route to the present… the threat of successful revisions to history will exist. The common idea is that history can never be changed is true to the extent that, while the facts can only be improved upon, the interpretation can be altered – “changing” the past.

From the professor:
Do you think each generation re-shapes History (modern events and past events)? In your opinion is this a good thing or not?

I absolutely do think that History is continuously molded by each generation; however, I think that making the determination that this falls on either the “good” or “bad” end of the spectrum is contextual and nebulous. We have seen an example of these changes – the outrage and public opinion regarding intervention in Afghanistan immediately following the attacks of 9/11 has been diluted through a seemingly endless war against terrorism and a resistance to assign immediate blame recent terrorist attacks on Islamic radicals. On a longer timeline, the hate and anti-Japanese propaganda of the music and literature of the Second World War has been largely overlooked, and looking even farther back, the historical memory of the Puritans, western settlers, and supporters of the American revolution have undergone vilification, glorification, and modification throughout history.

The shifting perspective on History are both good and bad. As more primary sources become available and more distance is placed between the event and the study, the “bigger picture” becomes clear. Where one event may seem tragic and unfortunate in wake of a horrible event, decades of study and correlation to later positive events may result in an appreciation for the catalyst of tragedy. On the other hand, as society changes, perceptions and permissive behaviors change. An event that happened one way and for justifiable reasons, may be later dismissed and scrutinized or even altered to fit the contemporary desires and attitudes. These are the extreme ends of the spectrum of interpretation and reception of history, however. For the most part, as long as there exists a concerted effort of Historians to preserve and not alter, then a certain equilibrium can exist between the discipline and the society.

I also tend to ruin military movies for others that are watching them around me because I am always sharpshooting what is happening.

Oh, I completely understand. My ex-wife would chide me about not being able to resign to a “willing suspension of disbelief” that is required for movies. My response was always along the lines of the responsibility and attention to detail – if Hollywood is going to be bothered to make a movie “based on historical events,” then they owe it to the subject matter to actually be honest in their representation and committed enough to get the details right. After all, I would remind her, how would she feel if they completely departed from the novels in making Lord of the Rings? We stopped going to “based on historical event” movies as well as fantasy ones, and given that I have an extremely hard time with the latter, I considered that a “win.” 🙂

Whenever someone asks me if the battle as the same as the movie, I want to jump down their throat. Fortunately for my friendships, I have enough self control to not say anything to terrible.

I get that all the time when I mention my small collection of Mosin Nagants… everyone wants to mention Enemy at the Gates. When I saw the trailer prior to its release, I was excited – a movie about the Eastern Front and a movie about Vasily Zaitsev? “Excellent!” After watching the movie I was irritated at the butchering of his story and the lack of supporting information on the Battle of Stalingrad. The same could be said of U-571, really. With all of the technology and information available, I have this odd hope that movies like these will finally be able to portray the events they are based upon in a better light… however, I also have this hope of winning the lottery, and the latter seems more realistic than the former. 🙂

[1] Gesche Schifferdecker, “The Current Manipulation of History in Poland: A Disturbing Development – An Interview with Katrin Stoll,” trafo.hypotheses.org, 2016, accessed June 7, 2017, http://trafo.hypotheses.org/5390.

[2] Mina Pollman, “Why Japan’s Textbook Controversy is Getting Worse,” thediplomat.com, 2015, accessed June 7, 2017, http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/why-japans-textbook-controversy-is-getting-worse/.

[3] Tim Grove, “New Media and the Challenges for Public History,” historians.org, 2009, accessed June 7, 2017, https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/may-2009/intersections-history-and-new-media/new-media-and-the-challenges-for-public-history.

[4] Paul E. Bolin, “”For the Future, for the Unborn”: Considerations of History and Historians for Art Educators, Generated from George Orwell’s Novel 1984,” Studies in Art Education 58, no. 2 (2017): 88-99, accessed June 7, 2017, https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1903924302?accountid=8289, 88.

[5] Caryl-Sue, “1887: The Bayonet Constitution,” nationalgeographic.org, 2014, accessed June 7, 2017, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/jul6/bayonet-constitution/.