Timing and collecting
I thought all of the Web sites for this week were impressive and had good collection pages. All of these sites could serve future research needs. I also was especially pleased to see the Business Plan Archive restricts general visitor access on the site. Although it collects failed business plans, the information in old plans could still be somewhat viable and too easily copied.
Maybe because I lived in New York during 9/11, I spent the most time on this impressively in-depth archival site, paging through the testimony and the documents. As a result, I wondered how nostalgia or historical memory plays a role in the success of these participatory sites versus the simple cathartic act of sharing your thoughts. For instance, it makes sense that a monumental historical event like 9/11 would draw forth thousands of responses to the site for the day has assumed historic importance and still evokes painful memories. However, the Hurricane Katrina, Rita, etc. Web site had far, far fewer submissions. Is this because the event is still too fresh and has not had time to assume its full historic importance? Do future participants on the site still need time to gather perspective? Or is it a practical matter - are the people that could share their stories still unable to even get to a computer to do so or too busy rebuilding their homes and lives?
This last point raises other questions as well. The Library of Congress clearly had to act quickly to archive Web sites on the day of 9/11, but how soon is too soon to create a Web site that seeks collections and recollections about an event? Could a Web site be seen as trying to “profit” from a tragic event instead of serving as a legitimate tool for collecting historical data?
And for a historian, is there a best time to capture personal recollections? I’ve never taken oral history here at AU and wonder what classmates who have taken the class think? Is it better to get immediate reactions because there is more detail? Or does it enhance the research to wait? Clearly waiting allows for the possibility of a story being changed ,but the fact that it changes could also provide interesting scholarship.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Loads of questions Jodi!
To start of with the nostalgia question–I’m sure that exists, where everyone sees the years before 9/11 as these terror-free days (when in fact we forget the previos WTC bombings and Oklahoma City etc….funny how it seems more dire when its a foreign threat rather than a domestic one…)
I think in the case of Hurricane Katrina more time has to pass–the ability of people to think about how they feela bout the situation and their lives is probably hindered by the fact that their lives are still being effected by the event–many people still have yet to move back to their homes and rebuilding efforts continue. I’m not sure when the right moment to collect histories is…but its certainly an ethical issue as well as a sensitivity issue. (which you did say) That being said, from being on H-OralHistory I know that projects were started anywhere from a few hours to days after the storms by independant groups and universities…Aside from the site we visited there are hundreds of other projcts going on trying to collect these stories….
Having taken the oral history class there isn’t necessarily a “best” time to take oral histories. On either end there are pluses and minuses (either too close to the event to have perspective, or too far so that details have melded together..) To some extent though Oral History is an excercise in rememberance and memory–and often its how the memory has been retained and what details are still there that make the most impression. (If you havn’t yet I would read Alessandro Portelli’s Battle of Valle Giulia)….
January 31st, 2006 at 1:24 am
I think time is an important factor in the number of contributions to the Hurricanes Katrina/Rita websites. However, I would also argue that the *national* reactions to these tragedies was very different from the 9-11 reaction. Unless they had friends or relatives in the damaged areas, I imagine the hurricans were abstract “natural disasters” for many people — terrible, but nothing to really fret over. However, many people throughout the country felt personally in danger after 9-11, and those personal and immediate feelings probably contributed to the massive response to the 9-11 site.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I would suspect that the reason there have been fewer submissions to the Hurricane website, is a practical issue as you suggest. I just heard on the news today that FEMA is still trying to find housing for people and so they are looking to possibly house people in abandoned apartments? I know that communications were down for a time after 9/11. However, New Orleans may never be the same. Not to diminish 9/11 at all, but losing the World Trade Center buildings compared to the destruction of most of New Orleans are two very different things. Not only that, but much of the Gulf region suffered significant damage from Katrina, not just New Orleans. Finally, New York is a much larger and much more affluent city than New Orleans, so I would think that would also influence people’s ability to respond on the web. So as you suggest, New Orleans is definitely a situation were oral histories would be the best way of preserving people’s memories and stories.