Customer Reviews

The Presence of the Past

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Throughout the 1990s historians Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen undertook a major survey of attitudes about and understanding of history in the United States. Their findings are startling. We all have long seen the periodic stories about the inability of students to place the American Revolution in the correct century and to name the the first president of the United States. Then we typically bemoan the future and the kids that will lead us into it only to return to our football games on television without doing much of anything more.

In "The Presence of the Past," however, the authors take a different approach to looking at the hold history has over us. In this important book they note that much of the consciousness of the past is more about collective memory of close and local events than about the overarching national master narrative. Collective memory is a powerful force for any person and group. Through linkages with such memory we identify and define and connect ourselves. Rosenzweig and Thelen see an intensely personal relationship with history among Americans. They note that far from Americans being disengaged from history, as has been routinely thought because of their detachment from national themes, most people have supplanted interest in these broader themes to the history of family and locale. Indeed, Rosenzweig and Thelen insist that Americans "pursue the past actively and make it part of everyday life" (p. 18). Tellingly, they find that no more than 24 percent of their sample answered that the history of the United States was the past they felt was "most important" to them, as opposed to the 50-60 percent who identified a more intimate past as central to their lives. The authors include considerable evidence to support these assertions, breaking down survey answers by ethnicity, education, and other indicators. While Thelen laments this development, Rosenweig is more optimistic about its implications for the cause of history in the twenty-first century.

Their findings are borne out by my own experience as a curator at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., and I see this concern for local and personal history expressed by visitors routinely at the museum. The National Air and Space Museum is the most visited museum in the world, and it certainly seems that an important part of its attraction is the result of the immediacy of the subject that it interprets. Repeatedly, visitors come looking for an artifact to which they, or a member of their family or a friend, had a personal connection. Steve Lubar, who curated the "America on the Move" exhibit at the National Museum of American History in Washington made the same point by observing that for all of the exhibit's otherwise spectacular features, the majority of visitors only really pondered its later parts where their personal memory allowed them to connect to the artifacts and story in a deeply personal and idiosyncratic manner. He noted that of the 15 sections of this exhibit, most people breezed through the first 12, and mostly stopped for extended periods in sections more recent in time and with artifacts, such as the Chicago elevated rail car or a used car showroom from 1949 or a traffic jam with numerous recent vintage and quite cherry automobiles to which they had a relationship. Dik Daso, a curator working on "The Price of Freedom" exhibit also at the National Museum of American History, similarly remarked on the popularity of the Vietnam War section of the exhibit as veterans attending the exhibit's opening ignored most of the artifacts and gathered around a large map of Vietnam and shared their experiences with one another. Their stories, furthermore, were highly personal; interlinking spheres of memory to find common ground in an unlikely setting. Like politics, to paraphrase Tip O'Neill, all history is local. That may be the fundamental message of "The Presence of the Past."

This begs the question, how do teachers of history relate larger themes in the American past to the intimate interests of those who must understand and hopefully use it? This is critical to the education of the next generation of Americans, but it is also important for the lifelong non-classroom learning that every individual is involved in. What might museums, historic sites, television documentaries, written histories, and related efforts do to help focus interest and enhance the diffusion of greater understanding? At least some of the answers revolve around the closer linkage of national and world history with personal and local concerns. How to accomplish this most expeditiously, of course, presents a challenge not without difficulties. But it is noble task, and I applaud those who undertake it.

The findings in this book help us to understand the complexity of the issue. Read and ponder, discuss and act.

In recent years it has been popular to lambaste the American as unlettered in history; gullible and vulnerable to the whims of the popular media. Rosenzwieg and Thelen take issue with this assertion through the results of their survey of popular American attitudes and perceptions toward history. In deference to the positive, they crafted their survey to discover what Americans do know about their past, and which aspects therein possess special meaning to the individual. Through their findings they hoped to locate a common ground that would engage both scholar and layman in the search for understanding in history.

Rosenzweig and Thelen found that many Americans regard the past as a well-spring for moral guidance and personal identity. In contrast to the professional historian, it is less the specific event (e.g. World War II) than the familial tie (e.g. grandpa going off to war) that determines relevance and interpretation for the layman. For many Americans history is alive and ever-present: through keepsakes, family lore, and observations. It is subject to an unending reinterpretation and definition, and, most importantly, it is what defines aspiration and identity.

Rosenzweig and Thelen also found little to suggest homogeneity among Americans in historical interpretation. In areas such as ethnicity and religion the variance was profound. Their findings suggested that such identifications influence meaning and interpretation, and speak of divisions within American society. This was particularly true in comparisons between the reminisces of European Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans. In some areas of history (e.g. slavery and the westward movement), there appeared little ground for a broad and unifying consensus.

Is there a paradigm that would unite scholar and layman? Rosenzweig and Thelen suggest it may exist in popular history, a form of historical presentation steeped in relevance to the individual. This 'democratization' of history would spring forth from a productive dialogue between the layman and the scholar. In the view of Rosenzweig and Thelen, the professional historian is wont to wallow in esoterica and narrow specialization. While impressive, such research does not engage the layman; instead, it perpetuates the popular perception of history as a dry compendium of dates and facts. Rather a productive dialogue could draw both layman and scholar in a common pursuit.

Does this mean that history is alive and well in the United States? Unfortunately, the optimism effused from Rosenzweig and Thelen's study provides little room for comfort. Despite their stated intention to survey a cross section of Americans, the design of their survey provides evidence they fell short of this goal. Asian Ameicans were under-represented, as were people living in multi-ethnic neighborhoods. Also, socio-economic status did not receive the attention it merited; previous studies have found correlation between socio-economic status and knowledge in many fields, including history. Yet, Rosenzweig and Thelen have provided both scholars and laymen with food for thought as to what direction history should be taken.

There is much to learn from Presence of the Past but notnecessarily what the authors have in mind. Rosenzweig and Thelenpurport to give us good news about the historical consciousness of the American people, finding that most Americans are, in some way, "connected to the past." They do this by defining down the definition of history to mean things like talking with relatives, keeping a diary, collecting antique motorcycles, and even attending Bible classes. History teachers become the heavies because they insist that students regurgitate historical facts about which average Americans express a profound lack of interest (although paradoxically they also say that they would like their children to have the same experience).

It's as if those who bemoaned the mathematical illiteracy of the American public were suddenly challenged by a survey noting that virtually all Americans could read house numbers, tell the time, and make change while using a calculator. These hypothetical respondents would probably also criticize their teachers for burdening them with irrelevant information.

Because the majority of the Americans surveyed for Presence of the Past have little sense of history outside their family or group, their knowledge of broader history is both sketchy and distorted. Rosenzweig and Thelen celebrate the fact that Americans put more trust in museums than in books for their knowledge of history, but such a faith only demonstrates naivete about museums. (In the wake of the Enola Gay fiasco at the Smithsonian and a subsequent symposium of articles in the Journal of American History, one JAH reader noted that the "true tragedy" was that "both sides believed that the people who saw the exhibit would be swayed, unquestioningly, by the 'facts' presented to them and that the visitors would not stop, even briefly, to think of possible biases in the exhibition itself, let alone about WWII-i.e. that they would think critically. Unfortunately, because of the state of education in this country, I agree with them.")

Using such a low common denominator to define history also reveals that those with the most congruent view of the past are "evangelicals" (defined by Rosenzweig and Thelen as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as well as Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals). Thelen notes that the appeal of evangelical religion is so powerful "that it seems the most likely common ground on which some respondents from different cultures can recognize each other." "What," asks Rosenzweig, "does a largely secular group like historians have to say to them?"

The authors' greatest fear is that the "privatized and parochial past" of their informants will not support history as "a vehicle for social justice" or inspire people "to work for social change in the present." Not to worry. Ignorance, parochialism, and naivete are a fertile soil for those who wish to use "history" as a tool to promote social and political agendas. "Black Athena" and its kin are only a recent example.

Awareness of one's own past is helpful (we often call it maturity), and extending understanding of the past to the lives of one's relatives is even better. But without an appreciation of the broader past, democracy is in danger. Much of what passes for present truth is, in the words of C. S. Lewis, "merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age."ÿ

In "The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life," Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen approach the subject of what history means to Americans in the course of their everyday lives. Through a nationwide survey, funded by the NEH among others, the authors seek a fundamental set of common references across race, gender, age, income, and education. Their findings indicate that Americans, across these aforementioned demographic characteristics, see history in light of a personal relationship. Rosenzweig and Thelen propose that a participatory historical culture exists and can co-exist with the traditional in this fundamentally historical culture. Recognition and empathy, resulting from "active participation with history as a process of inquiry and exploration," (p. 182), are vital elements in connecting people with themselves and others, as well as their past, present, and future. The "Presence of the Past" asks not only what purpose does history serve, but who will best record it in order to make it approachable. Americans responded to questions regarding trustworthiness of sources by consistently rating highest those willing to consider various points of view in presenting history. Museums, personal accounts, and college professors rated far higher than sources viewed as influenced by economic gain such as books, movies, and television programs. Oral histories played a significant role in giving history a personal connection as many respondents named not only family members but those who experienced situations first-hand as highly realiable sources while recognizing the limitations of time, memory, and bias. Rosenzweig and Thelen suggest that Americans themselves are, in fact, very comfortable recording and personalizing history in a variety of ways. This book encourages readers to redefine and expand their interpretation of not only what history is, but what it is good for. The standard of the traditional view of history out of a high school text is challenged by the inclusion of seemingly unconventional and unorthodox applications such as the use of inherited recipes at family gatherings, photography, hobbies, collections, gathering of genealogies, visits to museums and historical sites, reminiscing at reunions, re-enactments, and other escapist jaunts. Americans dispute the assumption that history is an ethereal manifestation that is to be beheld rather than experienced. Thus, this is a subject field that should be used and not just studied. According to the observations of the authors, content lacks connection without participation. To Americans, history is that which affirms a sense of self. The pursuit for roots, identity, and immortality emerge as the ultimate focus for the study of history. A need for a sense of placement within a framework of self, family, community, time, and therefore, immortality, seemed to be at the core of Americans' interpretation of what history is and should be. Personal, family, community, cultural, ethnic, religious, and national identities determine singularity as well as mutuality as barriers fade and blend with a changing society. Yet, "choice and invention," (p. 57), reflect not only standard history written by scholars and scoffed at by interest groups, but that personal history validated by individuals. Unsurprisingly, there were inconsistencies in certain voices. Evangelical Christians, noted for their dedication to the teachings of the Bible as an historical document, accepted such histories as authoritative, yet refuted others, such as the evolution of dinosaurs. A Virginia lawyer insisted the "most reliable is eyewitness testimony," (p. 94), when in her own court of law such testimony is not enough to insure a conviction. To individuals, choices as to what is most credible and acceptable to their own view of the world determine their personal identification with history. Thelen mentions that, "Hobbyists chose the arenas and terms of participation with the past," (p. 196). Perhaps this serves as an autobiographical comment for the authors as not only Americans, but historians also chose particular paths. The relevant questions asked in the survey reflect fresh directions historians seem to be following in their pursuit of knowledge and understanding. It is encouraging to find scholars such as Rosenzweig and Thelen willing to cross into and encompass other fields of study such as anthropology, psychology, and sociology in the clarification of man's relationship to and use of history. In separating cultural,ethnic, and racial characteristics for such a study, certain generalizations and extrapolations are inevitable. While Mexican Americans have a special position the history of the United States, they are not necessarily representative of all Hispanics, as was similarly noted in the study of the Oglala Sioux in respect to other Native Americans. And, unfortunately, the blatant lack of inclusion of Asian Americans ignores another large part of the population. However, in the realms of historical research, it is an eye-opening and encouraging study. Moreover, the fact that its findings promote further subsidy of public and non-profit association projects reflects well on the NEH's choice of funding. Regardless of the occasional typographical error, this work is reader-friendly, successfully bringing the allegedly dull subject of textbook history out of the classroom and placing it firmly in the hands of everyday Americans. With refreshing perpectives, Rosenzweig and Thelen present the consciousness of individuals and groups in such a manner that enables the reader to identify with this personalization of history and entice him or her with the ordinaryness of the observations and conclusions.

In the book The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life, Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen interviewed 1,500 Americans regarding their association to the past and how it impacts their daily lives and dreams for the future. They were motivated to write this book due to an acknowledgement that most professional historians were unaware of how non- historians felt about the past. The authors believe that most historians look "down" on the average American's knowledge of history. Yet Rosenzweig and Thelen argue that ordinary people "take and active role in using and understanding the past- that they are not just passive consumers of histories constructed by others (pg. 3)".

The authors labeled the responders by race (Mexican-American, Native American, African American, and White). They ignore d Asian-Americans for the vague reason that there were not enough interviewers who could speak Mandarin and it was not cost-effective. They didn't mention other Asian groups or any attempts to interview them. This struck me as odd since the United States has the largest Korean population outside Korea, the largest Vietnamese population outside Vietnam, and a large number of Filipinos. One trip to California could have added a fine balance to their research. While the authors mention a responder's occupation and location, they don't consider location and net worth to be a factor in the conclusions. Most of their conclusions are broken down to how a particular ethic group responded rather than to location or income level of the respondent. Perhaps they believed that an African-American in California is no different than a Black in the South, or that a poor factory worker might have a different opinion of the past than a wealthy factory owner.

They state that participation in historical activities is not for the most part tied to particular social groups or backgrounds Their findings would disturb most high school History teachers. They state that most respondents had little good to say about the actual classroom experience of studying history. Rosenzweig and Thelen conclude that while som e admitted that they admired History teachers who helped them to revisit and investigate the past for themselves, most related the word "history" to something dead and gone, irrelevant, beyond any use in the present. One overall conclusion that Rosenzweig and Thelen found was an: "overwhelming evidence that Americans participate regularly in a wide range of past-related activities (page 9).

The authors debate that an activity such as going to a museum, or looking at photos could be considered an involvement in preserving or presenting the past. For proof, the authors present very clear graphs show n the percentages of how many people looked at photographs, how many wrote in a journal, or participated in a "history-related" club. The respondents felt most strongly connected to the past when they either met with family members or did something "historical" like visiting a museum with family members. The authors repeatedly maintain that people have a deep appreciation of history if it involves them personally or their family personally. For example, one respondent enjoyed visiting Civil War sites, not because he was just interested in this time period but he had a past relative who fought in the War. Overall, if an event didn't involve one's past relatives, the responder wasn't interested. This presents a challenge for teachers of ancien t Greek history, for how many people can find a family connection to historical events so long ago. The authors fail to address this problem. None of the respondents mentioned an interest in history before the time of Christ. Do we ignore the ideas of Plato because students won't find a family connection? In several pages, the authors repeat themselves over and over how respon dents dreaded studying the past. History was boring. The authors argue that History teacher overall are the enigma. Teachers view the past as something to be memorized. Students desire to know their own personal background. The authors state that people can view the past as a "reservoir of experience they could use in their own lives." (Pg. 38). Students want to trace how they became the kind of person they came to be. Thus, while teachers lecture on European migration, their audience would much rather be learning about their family's migration or how their family was able to survive in the New World. As a whole, the authors found that responders wanted to make a difference in the world and that studying the past was a means to that end. They wanted to see how past figures responded to crisis situations to be able themselves to have a better response to modern situations. The authors fail to give concrete examples of how a teacher could meet this particular interest of students. Th e authors state:' responders admired teachers who helped them to revisit and investigate the past for themselves." An example was how one teacher took her students on frequent field trips to Civil War sites. But what about teachers in Oregon? Again, the authors fail to give some helpful teaching tips that an y teacher could use. Responders gave horror stories of teachers who "taught out of the book" (pg. 112). Yet the authors failed to mention the state exams tha t many high school seniors have to pass, or even the Advanced Placement exams. The authors conclude that many Black Americans are not interested in the Kennedy assassination (graph page 150.) But these students will probably be asked about this event on an exam. The trend now is for more exams to assess students. Teachers are pressured to have students perform well. Good bye fiel d trips. Hello rote memorization of facts. Rosenzweig's solution is to increase oral history and biography (page 185). Thelen's solution is to present students with artifacts, pictures, etc. ^Eintroducing them to a variety of perspectives on moral issues, etc. Both are fantastic ways to liven up the History classroom. But the government and school boards cry "assessment". Neither of these solutions will prepare students for the formal assessment tools which teachers are forced to use.

Ok, so I was forced to read this book for a public history class to help give me a better idea as to what Americans think about history. The first half of the book is beyond helpful and interesting. Rosenzweig and Thelen's argument that Americans understand and utlize history more than previously thought is a breakthrough. However, I have issue with the latter half of the book.

During the special minority interviews that took place after the general survey, specific follow up questions were asked to minorities that were not asked to the white participants. An example of such a question would be that Mexican Americans were asked whether they felt more connected to the past on the Fourth of July or Cinco de Mayo. Seriously. I live in New Mexico and I don't know a single Mexican who celebrates or cares about Cinco de Mayo. To me this question not only showed that the researchers wanted to paint a specific picture about Mexicans but also that they didn't even do research while thinking up the question they would use. There are SOOOOOO many more important Mexican holidays which would have been more akin to the Fourth of July, but no.

I'm also apprehensive of the Native American section. The Native Americans interviewed were all Sioux. The Sioux have a big beef (rightfully so) with the US so of COURSE they were going to answer they way they did. To then portray them as the ultimate NA source is stupid. The authors could have at least interviewed some Navajo to balance the bias.

Overall the book is a good tool. So long as the survey results are taken with a grain of salt, history students and historians can utilize the information within to determine what their audience knows and what they want. As somebody who wants to go into museum work and academic history, this book is a great tool to let me know what people want out of exibits and also how to best teach history. Definately a keeper.

In Presence of the Past, Rooy Rosenzweig and David Thelen use evidence from their extensive surveys of the American polulation in an attempt to better understand popular uses of hisotry in the United States for the purpose of connecting academic hisotry to broader audiences. Through comprehensive interviews geared toward determining how nad why people incorporate history int their lives, the authors present three main categories of statistical analysis and interpretation: how people use the past as a framework for both living in the present and shaping the future, which historical authirities people trust most and why they favor some sources over others, and the existence of a gulf between individual uses of the past and collective or national hisotrical themes. The strength of The Presence of the Past is the effectiv format Rosenzweig and Thelen use to border the elaborate and acutely researched stories of the presence of history in individual American lives. However, although the main ideas are adequately developed through such narratives, the book lacks a comprehensive critical analysis of the implications hidden within the text of the interviews. It is not until the end that the authors follow their own advice and "widen narratives and imagine how they make a differnce in the larger world" (204) by relating their own arguments to the context of the body of the work. Furthermore, the authors devaluate the role of the participants of the survey by excluding their input into the discussions of those implications and by limiting their role to subjects of study rather than contributors to the academic discourse so important to "linking the past and the present in an active and continuing conversation" (188).

I met ³Harvey² on the stairs leading to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. I was going up; he was going down. He had just dropped off wife and kids inside the museum, but preferred to listen to the hockey game in the car, rather than ³have anything to do with something historical.² I saw him two hours later. While looking for the restrooms, he had stumbled on a poorly lit room that hosted a small exhibit on toys from the 1940¹s to the 1970¹s. He was now talking with two men his own age, ³John and Steve.² Half phrases, shouted words, hands quickly drawing circles and lines, they were describing -- reliving I should say -- the games they used to play when they were kids. ³Oh, that was the best and....² ³....and mom would call and we kept....² ³But we didn¹t have all the....² While written specifically for writers, teachers, and professionals in the field of history, Roy Rosenzweig¹s and David Thelen¹s work is about people like ³Harvey, John, and Steve.² The Presence of the Past is an act of accusation toward the historical profession as a whole for the dicothomy created between History with the capital H, and the general public, increasingly alienated by its specialization and sterility. Taking advantage of the results of a national survey specifically tailored to their demands, the co-authors are convincingly able to demonstrate that if perception of scholastic history is still filled with adjectives like boring and useless, the average American considers a dip in the past a very exiting and a very purpeseful activity. To be connected with one¹s roots, to research one¹s who, where, when, what, and why serves many functions: it helps understand the present, connect with one¹s culture, and even go for the ultimate prize, immortality. As Rosenzweig notes in his conclusion, the professional historian¹s inability to make use of the past represents the general public¹s main complaint. Much can be said about the evidence presented by Rosenzweig and Thelen. If the two authors dedicate a full twenty-two page explanation to the why certain people were and were not selected, a few doubts still linger on the possibility that another result could have been obtained with a difficult system of selection (in particular with the minority groups). And it is somewhat surprising that twenty-three tables are used to describe what were for the most part, open-ended questions. Couldn¹t those pages be put to better use with the transcripts of a few interviews? But a mild critique of the selection and use of the evidence cannot hide the relevance of this survey at a time in which a renewed passion for history is flourishing on small and big screens, bookstores and travel agencies, while the soul of the discipline is confused by cries of cultural relativism, objectivity, and post-structuralism. The customers have spoken: they like the product, but not the way it¹s presented. Should history corrupt its ³purity² to meet popular demand for a simplification of its themes and a stronger emphasis on subjects closer to the general public? Or was history¹s ³purity² corrupted in the first place by its separation from a narrative more attached to people rather than abstract concepts like liberty, justice, or democracy? Through a skillful use of citations, Rosenzweig and Thelen have been able to show that history (as the aseptic, distant, formal result of research done by others) is out, while a personal quest for the past is in. Contents and even results are not nearly as important as participation or experience are. This is why the number one choice on how to connect with the past is the family gathering where ³historiae² are told, passed on, and, sometimes, invented. Studying history in school? Sixth out of six choices. Scholastic history is not viewed as relevant because the one offered in American schools is a prepackaged product that doesn¹t answer personal wants. In a society dominated less by conformity and more by individuality, a quest for one¹s past necessitates an attention to individual needs that modern history is unable to offer. It is ironic that two trained historians have raised the issue of scholastic history¹s inability to cope with people¹s demand (and its related problems), but now the ball is in their court.

Shocking news entered historian's ears as they listened to their life work being destroyed. The traditional teaching methods that have made up the whole of American history in the classroom, have lost the interest of their students, and created a lack of historical perspective in their citizens. How could students and others be uninterested in the identity and leading themes of their glorious nation? We must remain true to our methodological heritage, and breed a proud national identity. The history wars begin. The news that Americans are uninterested and disconnected with history is proved untrue in Rosenzweig and Thelen's, "The Presence of the Past". With a more broad and alternative survey of historical thinking, the authors point out that Americans have a love affair with the past, and incorporate it into their everyday lives. History is not dead, just the way it is taught is. In a 1500 person survey, including both the majority culture, as well as African Americans and Oglala Sioux, the book, "The Presence of the Past exhibits the importance that history plays in the lives of Americans. In conjunction with this, it shows a consensus of boredom with the traditional teaching methods of classroom history. Using a collaboration of questions and conversations, the book shows how Americans are in love with the past, as well as its study. Family history plays an important role in maintaining immortality for the aged, and shapes the present and future of the youth. In conjunction, Americans find history classes boring, and containing tedious lists of facts portraying an inaccurate past, that they fail to learn. Only nonfiction books and moviesfall below high school teachers on a survey of trustworthiness. In turn, Americans can't tell you the economic, and political causes of the Great Depression, however, could tell you exactly how it affected their parents, or grandparents, and in turn their own lives. After surveys such as the one taken by Rosenzweig and Thelen, Historians and teachers found that the uses and importance of history is changing. This creates a threat to the job security of history teachers, and a significant amount of fear for historians. In finding a solution to the changing role of history within American society, two schools of thought prevail. Some want to return to a more strict traditional teaching method, focusing on national identity, and facts, while others seek more hands on, and alternative ways of teaching. Rosenzweig and Thelen point out that the public doesn't want, or respond to traditional methods found in history classes, and desires change. The authors found through their survey that Americans respond to hands on history, such as that found in museums, and war reenactments. People seek historical truth for themselves, by going to museums, and interpreting the facts on their own. They in turn want to leave behind the biased realities portrayed by history teachers and movies, and move toward something they think is more accurate. The authors use this information and come to a two-part conclusion. Rosenzweig and Thelen seek a break with tradition. They want professional historians to get off their pedestals of authority, and teach context and foundation. The interpretation sector of history study becomes combined and shared with the students, rather than having one provided for them. Hands on history, using more primary sources, and trips to historical sites would substitute long textbooks, and the teaching of an absolute interpretation. Rosenzweig and Thelen conclude that people practice, and incorporate history into their everyday lives. Unbiased, accurate history means a great deal to Americans. People want to know the past, and be able to interpret it for their life experiences in the present. It is the responsibility of the historian to work with these people, since the people and their families are what make up the history we study, and the book, "The Presence of the Past".

In the book, The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life: the authors Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen, search to identify people's different interpretations and uses of American history and why is it important to study our past, through a national interview they conducted. They found for some Americans studying the past brings them a better understanding of the frustrations and conflicts in modern society. The explanation most given, by the respondednts, when asked abut their interest in studing the past, was to gain a "better understanding as too why things are the way they are today" and to understand who they are" and to leave a legacy for their children. (PG. 192) The survey that Rosenzweig and Thelen conducted was a random survey of different minority groups, including American-Indians, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Caucasians. Their national survey howeer, did not include a significant sample of Asian-Americans, due to their explanation that they could not come up with a cost-effective way of interviewing Asian-Americans and they therefore did not include Asian-Americans in their survey (Pg. 227) In the course of their survey the authors found that the majoirity of Americans were very aware of the past and ach perceived the past in many different ways, but they found that the different ethnic groups tended to view the past in a similar sense. They found that Caucasians viewed and pursued the past in an attempt to understand themselves and where they cam from in a very personal sense, they often studied the past in an attempt to preserve their family heritage and leave a legacy for their children. The authors found that for African-Americans and American-Indians, the pusuit of the past often sparked discussions amongst themselves in regards to how the past has affected them not only in a personal way but in a cultural sense, This viewpoint differed from the way history was viewed by Caucasians. African-Americans tened to think of the Civil Rights movement and Slavery in terms of 'we" meaning the culture of African-Americans whereas, the authors note, Caucasians tend to think of the past events such as World War II and the Kennedy Assassination in terms of personal connections and hw it affected their lives and the lives of their family members who had participated in these events. In the book the authors, reveal their findings in between responses elicited fro those they surveyed, through the survey they established the fact that Americans are very interested in the past and for different reasons and they rated the "trustworthiness" of historical sources very similarly. Most Americans rated highest historical sources as, a family member who livd through the experience, an eye witness, museums, and college professors. The lowest rated historical sources were high school teachers, movies and T.V. programs about historical events. The trustworthiness of the source deeply affected a person's interest in the past. Some respondents surveyed recounted, how they were interested in the past because of a relative' involvement or were not interested because of the way it was presented in their high school history classes. The respondents pointed out that they had a disconnected sense of history and that it id not really apply to them due to the way it was presented to them as they were growing up. The authors mentioned that minorities were oftern dissatisfied with the way history was presented in their high school classes because the teacher did not focus on minorities in history. This is a very important point with our country's increasing multi-ethnicity there is a direct need to focus on the history of the different ethnic groups that make up today's America. The book, The Presence of the Pst: Popular Uses of History in American Life, cold have gotten its point across in less verbiage and with less redundancy, it was interesting to read the different responses that were given but many of them were repetitive. The book brought up the relevance of why people study the past and the need for professional historians to reconcile or to adapt to a way of presenting the past to encompass a wider spectrum of the audience.