How do these four websites represent different approaches to history on the internet?

Assignment #2

For assignment #2, four websites will be reviewed. All four of these websites take a different approach to history on the internet. As such, all four of these have pros and cons with them.

Valley of the Shadow – This is the website for Edward Ayers’ Valley of the Shadow project and the accompanying book, In the Presence of Mine Enemies. This website, which very austere, has valuable links to newspapers, letters and diaries, census records, images and maps, and many more primary documents from a Virginia and Pennsylvania county during the Civil War. It is split into three sections, one before, one during, and one after the war. Its approach to history is straightforward and raw; it offers easy access to primary sources from the Civil War without any interpretation. This website is excellent for anyone doing research on the Civil War or a true Civil War buff, and the search function eases research. The content of this website would excite any historian doing research on the Civil War (including me, who will be doing a thesis on the causes of secession and will need this website!) However, the casual person interested in history could very easily get bogged down in the primary material.

History Channel – The History Channel website exists to promote the History Channel. As such, it is way more commercialized than the other three sites. It has links for upcoming shows and for their products for purchase, such as videos. Its approach to history retains the commercial and entertainment theme. The variety of topics (among which are Science and Technology, U.S. and World History, biographies, and military history) will attract almost everyone who has any interest in history, and other links, such as history games, will attract newcomers to history. It has a link providing visitors the history of their birthday as well as the current day. It is very user friendly, interactive, and visually attractive. The numerous visuals would hold and keep the attention of many people who otherwise would pass on a history website. A drawback to this is that it would be difficult to use this site for serious research. Further, the commercialization of the topic detracts from the serious nature of history. While entertaining for the sole purpose of entertaining is not a problem, the History Channel website goes too far.

Do History – www.dohistory.com is a website that offers people a chance to do the work of a historian. As the site correctly claims, it is “A site that shows you how to piece together the past from the fragments that have survived.” The site walks you through the case of Martha Ballard, a Massachusetts midwife, and how her life fits into the larger picture of American history. This would be a great website as an introduction to what historians do, perhaps as something to show children before they visit a museum. It has primary documents (including a diary, which is something most women did not keep in the late 18th century). It also has ads for a book about the life of Martha Ballard, and an elementary section on doing history on your own, showing that it is also lacking a very serious side to it.

NMAH – The Smithsonian’s website, much like the actual museum itself, represents serious history. Real artifacts are kept and preserved (my personal favorite is the flag that flew over Fort McHenry during the War of 1812). The website represents all this, and unlike the Smithsonian, is actually available to view before this summer. Unfortunately, it bears another similarity to the Smithsonian in that the website has so much that it appears cluttered. Items and artifacts (exhibits in the Smithsonian) are thrown together with no real sense of organization. It has links for children and educators, which are good, and the links actually lead to legitimate material not necessary for sale (unlike other websites listed above)

Conclusion – In Mike Wallace’s book Mickey Mouse History, he argues that many museums and other sources of history are commercializing history to the detriment of the subject. Historians and those taking the opposing viewpoint would argue that history has to be made interesting in order for people to begin to pay attention to it. The websites above present both sides to this quandary. Should historians worry about attracting people to history or simply reconstruct the past and let it speak for itself? The debate will go on as long as the subject itself is being taught.