Mine Olde Mind

Why is History so important:
In one sentance, it is because history is the fabric which we are made of.  We all come from it, it binds us together.  History is who we are, and where we have come from. 

Hind sight is 20/20, so why should anyone make the same mistake twice.  (unfortunately we do... but that is just because most people are not strongly attentive to history and the methods of thought development it takes to be a historian)  We are able to look back on the past and learn from or mistakesand our victories.  What works gets handed down through the generations (even a good recipe) and what doesn't, unless reflected upon and taught as a lesson, will come back to haunt you.  The following link has a very good argument for history. 
http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/society/articles/history.html

Also is included my own personal testimonial for why history, and historic preservation sites in our communities are important.  History is useless unless it is living and relevent to us.  I believe historic sites play an important in keeping us aware of where we came from. 

Note:  History is typically written by the victor and so not all accounts given may be unprejudiced of that view, I will however do my best to present all sides of history; not just the good; not just the bad; not just the ugly, but all three. 

A Note before the Text:  This was my research paper for English 112 at UT Chattanooga, where I used to attend school.  These are my original thoughts and work, based on other people's observations.  I have cited these works at the end of the paper, please look into them.  Also, please to not copy this statement as I would consider it plagiarism.  Thank you and enjoy. 

Chains rang against wood as the gate doors swung closed for the last time. The fire pit still smoldered from the spark it had held, but that too would soon be suffocated in loneliness. The blacksmith’s hammer lay at rest in its box, still warm from the forge. Never again would it feel the delight of shaping a piece of metal. All the windows were closed and the whole place reeked of abandon. Forgotten already in the bustle of progress and the wake it creates. No one said a word. On July 1st of 2008, Historic Mansker’s Station was officially closed for business for the first time since it opened over 20 years ago. The impending encampment was canceled and the volunteers were notified; Mansker’s Station and all it preserved was no more. The city could not just close the site; but they could, and did. Even with my bias as a volunteer for the fort taken into consideration, the decision to close Mansker’s Station seemed irrational for a number of reasons.

Mansker’s was the only source of tourist revenue for the city. The Heritage Development Institute agrees that by cutting out the site, the city would miss out on a piece of a $1.3 trillion dollar a year industry (1). The question remains, then: why would they cut it form the budget? That question, at least, my friend and fort manager at Mansker’s Station, Bill Maddox, could answer with simply a few sentences; “The city had to make budget cuts to compensate for a $2 million dollar deficit. The site is extracurricular to the functioning of the city, and so it was cut.” My mission for this paper is to explore why such a beneficial aspect of the community would be the first thing on the chopping block, so to speak, when it could easily be maintained by public money. I believe that historic sites across the nation could be easily perpetuated by a small increase in public funding.

First I want to establish just what the benefits of having a historic site in the community are. As I have mentioned, historic sites offer us a piece of the tourism pie. How big, though, is that piece? According to the Travel Industry Association, heritage tourism sites were included in 58% of trips planned the past year (par. 26). This is a majority role in the tourist industry. According to Leithe, a staff member at the GFOA’s Research Center, on average heritage tourists spent $688 dollars per trip. This is $263 dollars more per trip than the average American traveler. New Jersey, Georgia and Virginia have all expressed similar data concerning the profit of heritage tourism (5). This proves that heritage tourism is a benefit nationwide and is also more captivating to the public at large. How could a small town like Goodlettsville afford to miss out on this booming industry? If that is not enough incentive to keep a site running, perhaps the impact of this tourist travel on local businesses would make a difference. Add this effect to the revenue of the site itself and you have a driving force for the community to stand behind and grow from. Historic sites like Mansker’s Station bring people off of the main trails of travel and expose them to the local business and culture of the area.

One last way that historic sites benefit the economy is by creating jobs for rural communities. According to Dennis Brown, a regional economist working for the U.S department of Agriculture, heritage tourism is also responsible for creating the major source of jobs for “non-metro” communities (1). Jobs, of course, are a very beneficial aspect of a thriving community. Not only will it impact the taxes of the area, but jobs will also create a reason to move to the community. This will boost the reality market and generate even more tax revenue for the city.

Another area in which historic sites are beneficial for their communities is the area of educational programming. Dr. Watson, of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, claims that, “Learning only happens when you care”. At historic sites you learn because staff members and interpreters are there to make you care. They interpret the history from the textbook and bring it to life. Hands on history entrances the minds of students and gives them a genuine interest in history. This interest in history is a key to becoming “that elusive creature, the well-informed citizen” (par. 15), according to Peter Stearns, a historian for the American Historical Association. Stearns goes on to say, “exploring the ways people in distant ages constructed their lives involves a sense of beauty and excitement, and ultimately another perspective on human life and society” (par. 11). By preserving historic sites we are preserving this beauty that is so crucial to the intuitive development of our culture. To be able to represent this beauty in a form that is affective and real to students is one of the greatest gifts that a historic site could give. Mansker’s Station, like so many other living history sites, is able to take even a “hands on” experience to a whole new level. Having volunteers out on site actually living as 18th century frontiersmen would have lived adds the spice that makes the programming more influential on the minds of students. The Station has been included in the state mandated curriculum for many of the preceding years. In educational programming, living history sites can be just as effective at getting information across as a museum is, but historic sites are far more fun. Even with these advantages, we are a diverse world and people will disagree.

Some skeptics would argue that historic sites are victims of a catch 22 situation and are therefore not maintainable by moderate public funding. Valery Patin, an administrator of the International Scientific Committee on Cultural Tourism, explains the issue beautifully when she says, “On the one hand it is seen as having important educational and social functions, helping tourists to find out more about the culture of the communities they visit. On the other, it is regarded as a major risk, especially for the fragile sites which attract flocks of tourists, and sites where tourist facilities are few or inadequate” (1). Essentially what Patin is saying is that the sites themselves form the catch 22 situation. A crumbling historic site is not only in danger of being further damaged by tourist activity but is also in danger of “damaging” tourists. The constant maintenance required by a historic site to make it safe for visitors and for the buildings is a very expensive process indeed. As the buildings get older and older they require more and more maintenance. “All historic sites are prone to the catch 22 situation, just by their nature of being a historic site” (Maddox). This universal escalation is where budgets start to crack.

To be able to adequately maintain the buildings, a historic site is most likely to cut valuable programming to allow for the budget deficiency and at least keep the site open as a visual reminder of what happened there. Keep in mind that when I am talking about “historic sites” I am referring to tourism generating sites and not just historic landmarks or buildings. When programs and staff are cut, the site loses its lure to the public. Public support only happens when you can make the public see why the site matters. Most often, this is accomplished with advertising, events, and special programs. When a site loses public support, the ticket sales decline and consequently a deadly spiral ensues. If no staff is manning the site, no one is there to make you care about what happened so long ago. Both programming and staff are critically important to a successful site. You may see it only as a dusty old building in the way of progress, when really it is the foundation of that progress. Shouldn’t that be saved? Even when in a catch 22 situation like this one, historic sites can keep functioning at limited operational capacity for a while, but eventually the site will perish as it fades from the public eye. Perpetuating public interest in the site is the key to perpetuating the site. Obviously this is hard to do when programming is cut, and budgets are excessively limited.

Certain aspects of the catch 22 argument are valid, such as the fragility of historic sites and the need for careful maintenance for the interest of its patrons, some of the claims laid out by Patin are refutable. In her catch 22 hypothesis, Patin also discusses the idea that “excessive exploitation of sites by tourism has been criticized on the grounds that it may rob host communities of their traditions and landmarks and destroy the authenticity and significance of their heritage” (1). Here she is basically saying that it would be offensive to have a misinterpretation of what exactly did happen and how cultures of the past really may have lived. The end result is a “cultural supermarket” so to speak. This point is valid in that historic sites are responsible for accurately and honestly interpreting what they have found to be relevant to the site. If, however a site is doing such and is still being criticized, perhaps the view of the public needs to be broadened to see the past for what is truly was, rather than becoming offended and defensive. I believe that if the community did not want to share their history, they would not have allowed a site to be established in the first place. Even if some were reluctant to founding a site, the benefits for the economy and educational programming in the community would be immense enough to recommend the establishment.

There is one solution to the catch 22 situation, and that is public funding. Many sites are supported by federal grants and local taxes. One, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, allows for the “financial and technical assistance to foster conditions under which our modern society and our prehistoric and historic resources can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations” (Sect. 2 part 1). This basically means that, under specified conditions, historic sites can receive funding. This is not the only legislation of its kind. Maddox gives the example of the Hotel-Motel Tax. This tax was approved in order to benefit the tourism causing attractions around the Goodlettsville area. Mansker’s Station is prominent among these attractions and was included in this tax revenue for many years. In recent years, however, it has received little to no assistance from the Hotel-Motel tax. The reasons for this are at the moment confidential (Maddox 1). If the taxes, tax breaks, and grants were applied as they should be, no site would ever need to close its doors. Examples such as the laws mentioned are proof enough that the government stands behind our great nation in supporting its history.

I still believe the overall balance in this argument favors the preservation of historic sites. With a comparatively small increase in public funding, historic sites could not only maintain the building better but also offer more educational programming. These benefits far outweigh the idea of “cultural supermarkets” that Patin gives. Historic sites, when well managed and properly maintained, can be the life blood of a community. These sites encourage the local businesses, generate interest in history, and provide a sense of unity among the local residents. For tourists, historic sites provide a chance to learn something new about a culture they may not have otherwise been exposed to. And last but not least for me, historic sites and particularly Mansker’s Station, has had a profound effect on my views from relationships to career path.

You may be asking, “So what happened to Mansker’s Station?” Well, I have good news in that department at least. Mansker’s Station was saved only a week after it closed its doors by a public outcry. It turns out that the citizens of Goodlettsville love their fort and want to keep it there. The budget was extended for a grace period of a year on a very restricted scale. The staff keeps things going as best they can even though some of the normal events have to be canceled due to the limited budget. This is a testament to the love locals hold for their historic sites, and how far they too will go to see them preserved. The best thing for a site to have, and the one real solution to the problem, is people that care.
 

Brown, Dennis, M. “Rural Tourism: An Annotated Bibliography.” Economic Research Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 6 Oct. 2008 http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/rural_tourism.pdf

“Heritage Tourism: Making the Numbers work for You.” Heritage Development Institute.
August 2005. Alliance of National Heritage Areas. 6 Oct. 2008
http://www.sitemason.com/files/i9cg92/august%202005.pdf

Leithe, Joni. “Profiting from the Past: the Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Georgia.”
Government Finance Review v. 16.2 (April 2000) 37-41 Omnifile. Wilson.
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. 6 Oct. 2008


Maddox, William R. Telephone Interview. 8 Oct. 2008

“National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended through 2000.” 6 Oct. 2008
www.achp.gov/NHPA.pdf

Patin, Valery. “Will Market Forces Rule.” UNESCO Courier. (July-August 1999): 35(2).
Academic Onefile. Gale. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. 7 Oct. 2008
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID-T003&prodId=AONE&docId=A55413365&source=gale&userGroupName=tel_a_utc&version=1.0.

Stearns, Peter N. “Why Study History.” July 2008. American Historical Association. 6 Oct. 2008 http://www.historians.org/pubs/Free/WhyStudyHistory.htm

“Historical Places/Museums.” Domestic Travel Facts from A to Z. 2008. Travel Industry
Association. 8 Oct. 2008