Public History at Gloria Jeans

I was happily sitting in Gloria Jeans at Epping this morning, when I looked up and saw this message on a blackboard: “Blast from the Past Exhibition. In May – Bring in photos + paraphernalia from a previous era to contribute.” Perhaps they are hoping that such initiatives will make customers feel like it is “their” shop and boost customer loyalty. Or maybe I am just being cynical. Maybe one of the staff is interested in history and felt that since Gloria Jeans is a public space it would be a good place to hold an exhibition.

However, so far no one has contributed anything, or at least nothing was on display. While there is little doubt in my mind that the initiative has something to do with making money, I also think that it has the potential for being a democratic and powerful display of public history. People may not have the time or money to go to a museum, but they can experience a piece of history over coffee. What does everyone think, should we view such an idea as an aberration, an innovation, or both?

Favourite Australians, anyone?

The ABC has continued on in the tradition of their 'let's-create-a-list programs' My Favourite Book and My Favourite Film by calling for nominations for My Favourite Australian. Go to the website and you can nominate your favourite Australian ('living or historical') - either send your vote through the site or SMS (55c per vote!). The person who tops the poll will be immortalised in the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra, making this a very curious exercise in public history making, albeit one that owes more to the popularity contest model of Big Brother (or the Logies) than the scholarly selection process that comprises the Australian Dictionary of Biography. 

Looking at the lists of 'favourite Australians' on the site that are intended to 'inspire' you in your choice, you realise how bizarre this exercise is. Rove McManus sits side by side with Robert Menzies and Nellie Melba, Cate Blanchett next to Geoffrey Blainey and Burke and Wills. Is this an attempt to find a new figure of national identity? To celebrate our history? To further confirm our love-in with celebrity culture? 

But - there is hope. Just as the ABC's My Favourite Film poll produced a rather strange list that seemed to have been hijacked by the fans of Amelie and Lord of the Rings (are these really people's favourite films of all time? really?), then so might this poll be overwhelmed by fans of Carl Williams, or Shane Warne and be the subject of much mirth. But who knows? Maybe we can unite behind our favourite historical figure and throw the poll. How about Bon Scott? He's on the list, and I reckon he'd look great in the National Portrait Gallery - plus, he's already been honoured with a memorial sculpture in Fremantle, which surely puts him in a commanding position...

Adequacy Under Siege

During April 2008 a four part series, History Under Siege, aired on Radio National’s Hindsight. While the content was quite interesting, I was concerned that the producer failed to exploit many of the opportunities possible when working in radio. I only listened to the first part fully, which was on debates in Japanese history, and ten minutes of the second part, which was on debates in Argentina. The use of music and movie clips in the first part was quite sloppy, with music starting and then abruptly stopping for no apparent reason. What was the most soul crushing, however, was the theme music. I only realised that it was the theme when I listened to the second part. The music did not suit the documentary itself, or the documentary series as a whole. What is more, I could not understand why the producer decided to include theme music at all. Do listeners need to feel safe by returning to a familiar theme every week? Or was it sheer laziness? This series seems to be a work that simply happens to be a radio documentary, as opposed to being a work that exploits the medium in which it was created.

The Future of History

Today's Sydney Morning Herald carried a great opinion piece by young historian Zoe Pollock on the ways that history is under threat in an economic and cultural climate that increasingly demands that history (like most kinds of cultural activities) justify its existence in economic terms. While we are spending our time thinking about ways to communicate history to a range of audiences, it's worth reading this piece to remind ourselves of the increasingly straitened circumstances in which the discipline and practice of history finds itself.

Living History as Cultural Imperialism?

I recently discovered a new TV addiction: the Living History program Human Weapon.

Contrary to the rather meat-headish name, this program is far more than simply watching two grown men step into an arena and beat each other to a bloody pulp. Rather it seeks to enlighten audiences in the history of Martial Arts as its presenters (a Pro-Wrestler and MMA Fighter) travel to different locations around the globe to discover both the physical and spiritual diciplines needed to be a true martial artist. All the fights are real (non-sensationalized) and all the history seems well revised, even going as far as to explain each of the key strikes they are taught with regard to physics, giving insight into how and why these techniques are so damaging.

However, as fantastic a program as Human Weapon is, could it not also be seen as but another attempt by the West to commodify Martial Arts for a mass market. Now I could give you all a long winded account of how the East has been subject to Western media exploitation ever since the days of Bruce Lee, but that is a lecture for another time. Instead, I would like to draw attention to the fact that when I first saw the advertisements for Human Weapon my fears were that it would be nothing more than a remake of a British reality show called Fight School. In this rather Orientalist travesty of a program, a group of prodominently white "students" from various martial arts diciplines were made to live in a clearly fabricated monestary for six weeks and study under the tutilage of a supposed fight master who bore a striking resemblance to Tai Bo idiot Billy Blanks! If that wasn't enough, the show was full of Kung Fu movie cliche's taken straight out of 1970's fiction films like The 36th Chamber of Shaolin and offered no historical or cultural grounding whatsoever.

Clearly the program makers who concieved Fight School had never done any martial arts themselves because if they had they would understand that historical and philosophical theories play a crucial role in the teaching of martial arts (particularly Shotokan, Wushu and Tae Kwon Do). It also begs the question as to whether the program was made purely on the assumption that the Martial Arts alone would be enough to bring in the ratings, a myth which over the course of the 1990s was repeatedly proven to be false (if it wasn't Jean-Claude Van Damme would be as much of a megastar as Johnny Depp right now).

This is not to say that Human Weapon is without flaws as a series. Some would argue that, despite its naturalism, the program seeks to romanticise the violent nature of martial arts purely through the fact that it is being shown on TV, coupled with the fact that both presenters are Caucasian Americans, however, unlike Fight School and many of its other predecessors, one does feel that there is a growing sense of respect for the subject matter (a common factor in the screen production process) radiating from the on-screen experiences of the presenters, especially their willingness to put their own egos aside and humble themselves for their hosts. This is particularly evident in episode two when they under go Kyokoshin 'Iron Body' training where Bill (The Wrestler/NFL Player) admits the difficulty he had with "having to stand there and letting somebody punch" him.

Whilst this Worst Jobs In History approach to martial arts in the media is indeed a step in the right direct; it must also be noted however, that Western Media still has a long way to go before it will be able to give a truly accurate account into the nature of martial arts as a historical and cultural entity. Neither Fight School nor Human Weapon express the theory of responsibility in martial arts to a satisfactory degree, or explain the potential dangers that can arrise from teaching them to undisciplined children whose intellect has not sufficiently developed to accomodate or comprehend the deep issues within them. This area still lies very much in the realm of books and the hands of instructors, neither of whom are regarded with much reverrance by the wreckless arrogance of Western youth, and more work must be devoted toward rectifying these problems if the public is expected to treat these fighting styles with more respect than just as something impressive that they see in films or play in Videogames. Still, I highly recommend Human Weapon to any one who has an interest in Martial Arts or in the cultural/colonial histories of Asia.

Human Weapon is currently airing on Fox 8 but can also be viewed via the History Channel's website: www.history.com

The People's Princess?

The things I do for history... first, a confession. I was a childhood monarchist. Well, not so much a monarchist as a hard-core Diana fan. As an eight-year old, I watched the Royal Wedding with adoration (that dress! that train!) and I kept several scrapbooks full of pictures of 'Lady Di', cut from women's magazines (and because - oh joy! -  my parents owned a newsagency, I had an endless supply of mags to feed by habit). I soon grew out of my scrapbook habit, but I do remember where I was when she died in 1997 and watched her funeral with fascination and, if I'm honest, a touch of sadness.  So when it was announced that this exhibition was coming to Sydney, I thought that I should go along (in the interests of history, of course). I could persuade no-one to go with me (strange, that) so yesterday morning, I trudged up to the museum, joined the queues, and entered into the museum's hallowed, dimly lit Diana space.

This has got to be one of the strangest exhibitions I have ever seen. Organised by the Spencer family (or more correctly, the family estate at Althorp - Althorp teatowels for sale in the gift shop at 15 bucks a pop), the exhibition begins with a room of tiaras and jewellery from the Spencer women, before moving onto Diana's childhood artefacts (tap shoes, a hanky with her name sewn onto it, lots of family photos). Her wedding dress is the centrepiece of the exhibition, and it is presented (with photos and wall text) in ways that endorse, rather than challenge the Diana 'fairytale' (you won't be surprised to learn that Camilla Parker Bowles doesn't get any kind of billing here). We have a room of her frocks, a room devoted to her charity work, and then her death, and the funeral (Elton John's awful reworking of 'Candle in the wind' is on constant rotation in here, if the crowds aren't enough to hurry you along). For all of this, there is very little of Diana herself here - it is as if she never existed outside of her dresses or her photographs. It makes you realise how much of what we all knew of her was based on images, rather than even her deeds or words - perhaps she became so famous because in the end, she was a beautiful, vulnerable woman on whom all number of ideas could be projected. I'm sure the princess thing has something to do with her appeal, even though her entire adult life could be seen as a thorough debunking of the very notion of the fairytale ending. The exhibition's gift shop, with a startling lack of irony, was selling, amongst other things,  pink vinyl make-up bags embroidered with 'Princess' and a tiara in silver. Surely Diana was (to put it bluntly) screwed over by the system that granted her her 'princess-hood' - this is the way we celebrate her life?

Yet the most startling parts of the exhibition are those from people who were 'touched' by Diana: the most jaw-dropping room in the exhibit is the cabinets full of condolence books, filled with messages from ordinary people, sent from around the world after her death. If there is anything interesting left to be said about Diana then these books would be a good starting point. If Diana was really 'the people's princess', then I'd love to see someone explore what this meant. Judging by the crushing crowds, and the Museum's collection of stories posted by those who remember her, the popular history of Diana could be written yet. 

Anzac Day Contested Meanings

Anzac Day is here again, and it always puzzles me what to take from this day. It seems almost as problematic as Australia Day. The basic story is well known: on 25th April 1915 Allied forces invaded at Gallipoli with the intention of capturing Istanbul, capital of the Ottoman empire and German ally. The invasion was a failure, and after eight months of fighting the forces were pulled out. Losses were very high.

Now, instead of this story being interpreted as another example of Britain expecting Australians to fight on its behalf, it is often interpreted (as this blog comment does) to be about "freedom from tyranny in all its forms, so that our Australian way of life will continue". It gets better: "There is already anti Australian sentiment from Chinese, and muslims, and other races over our Australian way of life here, and we must do all we can to instil in all Australians, migrants included, what the humble digger died for." 

A less controversial site on Gallipoli is Sands Of Gallipoli which asks visitors to tell their own stories, or This One which has ample information on the natural history of the Gallipoli area. It seems that anything Gallipoli is fascinating to Australians. It has become defacto Australian soil, “hallowed ground” to which young “Aussies” (read: Anglo Australian) may make a “pilgrimage” (this word is actually used a lot in the media). 

Personally, without wanting to detract from the truly tragic losses incurred by many families, I fail to see how young Antipodeans invading Turkey has any real connection with the “way of life” of a 14-year-old nation on the other side of the earth. What it does say to me is that Australia was a “part” of Britain for many years after federation, and that myths are far more powerful than facts. 

As This Blog says: “Therein resides the ongoing tragedy of Gallipoli as a story that most assuredly condemns Australians to repeat the mistakes of a past half told. Pity the young for they will be sacrificed in its name. Anzac has a compelling storyline and narrative structure — these are protected by powerful custodians — but it is ultimately a legend that can kill.” Iraq, anyone? Some frightening resonances there.
What for me shouts “Quick, become a republic! Stop dying on others’ behalfs”, says “(White) Australia is based on important military sacrifice and the sacrifice of the individual for nationalistic ends,” to others. Strange, no? See you bright and early rain or shine ;)