Close this browser window to return to the BCWRT site...

We sincerely hope that ALL of you take and read the Civil War News, the
best news source, bar none, about Civil War history today. If you are NOT
a subscriber, check them out at <www.civilwarnews.com>.
And, just in case you missed it, here is a column I sent in a couple of
weeks ago for the Feb.-March issue. Some of you may remember that, several
years ago, we had a regular column in CWN, but now appear about once a
year. CWN has probably reached more Civil War buffs with more news about
Civil War battlefield preservation than any other Civil War publication.
They deserve your support!

jlr



PRESERVATION COLUMN FOR CIVIL WAR NEWS
February/March issue 2002
"Rethinking The National Parks"
The Brave New World of the National Park Service

A couple of years ago, we were given a glimpse of the "brave new world" of
the Park Service by Kate (I Don't Want To Hear About Battles) Stevenson,
Associate Director for Cultural Resources Stewardship, National Park
Service, and Dr. Dwight ("The Entire Breadth of Human Experience")
Pitcaithley, Chief Historian of the National Park Service.
It became clear to one and all that "battles" were no longer "in" as far
as the interpretation of national Civil War battlefields were concerned,
and "causes-- specifically slavery" was in.
Further, the scope of battlefield interpretation was to encompass social,
political, economic, and cultural history--as Dr. Pitcaithley put it, "the
entire breadth of human experience."
Whenever a bureaucrat, especially a Member of Congress, is afflicted by a
brainstorm, a committee of "true believers" is appointed to recommend that
the bureaucrat's shining idea be implemented.
_Rethinking the National Parks For the 21st Century_, prepared by just
such a
committee, appointed by Democrat Bruce Babbitt, then the Secretary of
Interior, to focus on the purposes of the National Park System for the next
25 years, calls for a vast expansion in the interpretive mission of the
National Parks, with emphasis on "minorities."
We do not _need_ to "rethink" the National Park Service.
In _Rethinking_ it was stated that the National Park System is the most
admired institution, public or private in the nation, receiving a 95%
approval rating.
Not even God would get a rating that high...
This would indicate that the national parks system does not need
"rethinking," nor has the American public called for a "new direction" for
the National Park Service.
But Kate and Dwight think that we _do_ need that "new direction," and this
new report has their fingerprints all over it.
If the recommendations of this NPS _Rethinking_ Commission are
implemented, the role of the Park Service will go 'way beyond its
traditional mission: the preservation of the site and the interpretation of
the significance of the site--especially the interpretation.
The National Park Service is to become the nation's principal
_educator_--- reaching out beyond the park boundaries into the national
community, teaching history, biology, and the conservation of energy and
the environment.
Further, there will be a significantly increased emphasis on ethnic
diversity and the heavy interpolation of non-European/white cultures.
Where and how will this be done?
That question was not answered in the _Rethinking_ report.
Will new sites be required?
Will much of this be done at current sites?
There are indications that much of the new interpretation will be
presented at the traditional sites, which includes, of course, Civil
War/Mexican-American War/ Revolutionary War/Indian Wars sites.
And that, Dear Reader, can only mean less time for the traditional
interpretation of the site, or the events or persons associated with the site.
When something is added, *something else* _must_ be subtracted. Despite
what Dr. Pitcaithley has said, and written, interpretation is *not* a
"zero-sum" exercise.
Education has always been an important component of the National Park
Service mission, and we would not change that.
But, if anything is as sure as death and taxes, it is that the National
Park Service will be under-funded. For as long as I have had any contact
with the National Park Service--over 35 years--the lack of adequate funding
has been a major problem.
_Rethinking_ refers to this problem in the conclusion of the report. While
visitation at the parks has increased dramatically in the last decade,
budgets have not been kept up--much less increased, staff is inadequate to
service the growing number of visitors, historic structures are
deteriorating, and the infrastructure of almost every national park is in
dire need of major improvements.
The Park Service has been forced to go with hat in hand to the American
people, begging for additional money, asking Americans to "adopt" monuments
and provide the funds for their restoration and maintenance.
Will our Congress suddenly change its penurious ways and not only provide
funds for present needs, but provide additional *billions* for the new
programs and sites?
What if Congress fails to provide the needed funds? Will the present
sites *and programs* be robbed to pay for new sites *and programs"?
It is the scope and direction of interpretation at our national parks that
bothers me the most. The report decried the "lack of attendance" at the
National Parks by "minority" groups, and called for NPS to develop "new
parks and programs" that are "minority friendly". It then declared: "As
the demographics of America have changed, so too must the Park Service
educational efforts. Programs, exhibits, and audiovisual presentations
must be developed for different ages, and in multiple languages.
"Further," the report declared, "new methods are needed to reach audience
from disparate cultures. In an age of groaning cultural diversity, the
Service must continually ask whether the way in which it tells these
stories has meaning for all our citizens."
Finally, "The Park Service must place high priority on sites, themes, and
stories not well represented, including key aspects of
diversity...African-American and Hispanic-American history, the histories
of other minority groups, social movements,
the arts, and literature."
And yet...the Congress of the United States has decreed that the National
Park Service foster a "cumulative experience of a *single national
heritage*," and then not given them enough money to do that. How can NPS
possibly do *more*?
In the past, the major criterion for the establishment of a *national*
park has been the *national* significance of the site.
Will this continue to be the criteria in this age of "cultural diversity"?
I'm afraid this standard will be compromised.
Will "key aspects of diversity" be incorporated into the interpretation of
the Battle of Gettysburg? Or the Little Big Horn? Or Pearl Harbor? Or
how about the Martin Luther King, Jr., site?
The new premise is based on the belief, in some circles, that we are no
longer a unified nation...that we are a nation of disparate peoples. That
we are not Americans--we are a fragmented society of hyphenated creatures:
Hispanic-Americans, Afro-Americans, Native-Americans, Chinese-Americans.
(But, of course, NOT Confederate-Americans...)
There is no longer such a thing, these circles believe, as common
experience, or common language, or common culture.
The opportunity for a common educational experience is rejected in favor
of a multiple-cultural and bi-lingual education. The Melting Pot model is
rejected as unsuitable, and, besides, to try to assimilate ethnicity into
the mainstream American society is somehow wrong, if not a rank injustice
to these "peoples." Such assimilation into the mainstream American culture
is nothing less than cultural genocide for these "peoples."
Instead of assimilation, their "native" cultures should be nurtured, not
replaced by a white Anglo-Saxon European culture.
Isn't ethnic nurturing not what made American great?
The separation of Irish culture, and French culture, and Indian culture,
and Jewish culture, and Nordic culture, and Chinese culture, and German
culture, and Eastern European culture, and English/Scottish/Welsh culture
is what made us the strong and stable nation we are today, right?
Or...was it the amalgamation of all those cultures, plus others, into the
mainstream American culture that has contributed to America's strength and
success?
The problem of the Park Service's educational message is *not* a failure
to reach culturally diverse diverse groups, it is a failure of American
education to foster a common national experience and heritage. And for the
Park Service to "rethink" their approach would just be adding to the
educational failure.
This is the challenge facing the National Park Service in the 21st Century.
Save for America's public schools, no American institution has a better
opportunity to provide this common experience and unified national heritage
than the National Park Service.
The drift and creep toward cultural diversity and the balkanization of
American society is the critical issue facing our country as the century
has begun, and to face the challenges of the times, and the onslaught of
democracy's enemies, we must have a common experience, a common language, a
common bond that makes us unhyphenated Americans, one people.
Yes, we are different, but we must continue to share a common experience
as a people in order to maintain the traditions of freedom and liberty that
has sustained this nation for 225 years.
We must continue in the direction that Congress has charted for the
National Park Service: to strive for a "cumulative expression of a single
national heritage."
That should, must be the guide followed in developing interpretative
programs at all national parks.
The American education community, and the National Park Service, must work
hand in hand to provide the common experiences and ideals that make
Americans one people. Instead of separate experiences in the parks, and
making the parks more "meaningful" to minorities, the Park Service should
make *America* more meaningful to minorities. The Park Service must make
*America* more meaningful to all Americans.
We must all be *Americans*, not "ethno-Americans."
Independence Hall, Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, The
Constitution, Hyde Park, The Arizona Memorial, Jamestown, and Andersonville
are all a part of this nation's heritage, and must be a part of the common
experience that makes us one people and one nation.
These cannot be shared experiences unless the focus is the same for
all--in the case of the Park Service, a focus on the site, the event, and
the people involved.
This nation's future and survival rests upon all Americans having a shared
experience, a shared understanding of American history, a shared language,
and a shared culture--a culture that unites us, not one which divides us.
A culture, based on history, which makes us one nation, not several.
What is being called for in the _Rethinking_ report has already been tried
by the Park Service at Grant's Tomb in New York City, using the same
politically-correct rationale.
The Park Service tried to make Grant's Tomb "ethnic friendly" and
"relevant" to the Hispanic/Black neighborhood in which is located. "Ethic
art" was allowed to deface and desecrate the burial place of a former
President and one of America's great military figures, to make the site
"acceptable" to the ethnic groups in the area.
As a result, the condition of the Tomb deteriorated rapidly until an
outraged community demanded--through the Congress--that the Park Service
remove the offensive intrusions and restore the Tomb to its original
grandeur. All uses that are not respectful of the final resting place of
President Grant, and his wife Julia, have been stopped.
_Rethinking_ appears to say that the mainstream American experience has no
meaning for many Americans; that the Pilgrims, the American Revolution,
Yorktown and Washington, Longfellow and Andy Jackson, Gettysburg and Ford's
Theater have no meaning for some hyphen-Americans, that even Lincoln's
Gettysburg Address is not relevant to some unless the story is told
differently.
Yes, we all bring different backgrounds and experiences to the national
parks, but the *national* significance of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, or
the Battle of Gettysburg, is the same for all Americans; it must be part of
our common shared experience as unhyphenated Americans---pure Americans
regardless of ethnic ancestors.
On a recent C-SPAN program, the author Walter Berne was asked, "How is it
possible to have respect for law, ethics, and morals if we do not have a
common culture?" We can as plain Americans, sharing in a common experience
and culture, which is the bsis for the most significant of all American
ideals. Out of this sharing came a great nation, with new arrivals from
every part of the world adding new texture and color to American
civilization, but...those same new arrivals also became Americans and
joined in the common *American* culture.
The leaders of this nation have believed since its beginnings that it is
imperative for all to share this common experience, have one language, one
history, one culture, and one people.
The 1977 Management Plan for Richmond Battlefield Park proposed making the
Park ethnic-friendly to the Blacks of East Richmond by turning Malvern Hill
Battlefield-- commemorative site for one of several significant battles in
the Richmond area--into a playground for that part of the
city...ballfields, playgrounds, tennis courts, and recreational facilities,
to be constructed on the hallowed ground where thousands of Americans fell,
fighting for their beliefs.
Fortunately, this plan was never implemented. But now the Park Service is
back on the ethnic-friendly track, at the expense of the hallowed heritage
of these battlefields.
We must all remember that all battlefields are cemeteries. Fallen
soldiers throughout history have been buried on the site where they
fell...sometimes efforts were made after the battle to remove the bodies to
other sites, but these were almost never totally successful. So, all Civil
War battlefields are cemeteries, and should be given the same reverence and
respect that is given to cemeteries.
What does the latest Park Service effort at "cultural cleansing" mean to
our beloved Civil War battlefields?
Kate Stephenson gave us a glimpse: "I do not want to hear about battles
when I go to a Civil War park. I am not really interested in battles."
(Teleconference to National Park Service employees April 8, 1999.)
In the proposed new approach to battlefield interpretation, military
history, and the soldiers themselves, will receive much less time and
space. There will be less on the battle and more on social-cultural
history and issues.
The scope of interpretation will be broadened to include many non-battle
and even non-Civil War topics. The role of so-called minorities will be
given a disproportionate amount of time and space.
Any connection (no matter how small or inconsequential) a minority group
had with a site will be given special attention. The Park Service will
nurture cultural *differences* as a desirable objective.
And the more time spent on these broadened topics, the less time will be
spent on the battle and its participants--which Congress originally
designated as the reason for existence of these national battlefields in
the first place.
Please contact your U.S. Senators (c/o U.S. Senate, Washington DC 20510)
and your Member of Congress (c/o House of Representatives, Washington DC
20515) and urge them to admonish the National Park Service to *rethink*
_Rethinking The National Parks_. Ask them to convey to the Park Service
your thoughts regarding the proper interpretive approach at Civil War
battlefields, and your belief in a culture for all Americans and not just a
few here and a few there.
Ask them to contact the Park Service and find out what is going to be done
to maintain the traditional approach to interpreting Civil War
battlefields, focusing on the battle and the men who fought in it, as
Congress originally intended and decreed.
You owe it to those men who fought and died to help make this country what
it is today.

Jerry L. Russell
Chairman, Civil War Round Table Associates
Director, HERITAGEPAC

(NOTE: The foregoing was prepared with the significant assistance of Dr.
Robert Meinhard, who has served as Battlefield Preservation Chairman for
Civil War Round Table Associates since 1975.)

Close this browser window to return to the BCWRT site...