History through Radio and Film

As new technologies within the world of communications evolved, historians and producers decided to take advantage of it by presenting history in a way that would appeal to the public, as discussed in Historians in Public by Ian Tyrrell. This trend of historians trying to pursue a general audience started as these new technologies were becoming available with several book series. Two of the most well known were: The Pageant of America (1925) and Chronicles of America (1918-1921), historians then tried to turn into a series of films.

Historians tried to expand their audience both through radio and through film and spanned everything from early documentaries to Hollywood classics. One of the first films with historical themes to appear on the sliver screen was Birth of a Nation, which was created in 1915. There was a great deal of controversy over this film, as it was seen as overtly racist and contained Southern bias.



Some early documentaries were made in the late 1930s by Pare Lorentz, including The Plow that Broke the Plains (1936) and The River (`937).

The Plow that Broke the Plains (1936)

The River (1937)

Despite numerous attempts at reaching audiences through film, historians' strongest successes came from radio productions. One of the first national radio productions centered on history was the Cavalcade of America, which ran from the 1930s through the 1950s and had 6 million listeners nationwide. An index of episodes can be found at archive.org. Other popular radio shows include: America's Town Meeting of the Air and History behind the Headlines.

In the end, the historians of the 1930s through 1950s struggled with where the line is between public appeal and academic integrity. Today it seems that professional historians have decided to stay firmly on the side of academic integrity, while leaving Hollywood to create the films that teach the general public (often incorrectly) about history.

This situation, though sad in itself, opens up a wonderful opportunity for teachers to connect the academic-based curriculum with entertainment based films by having students write reviews of popular historically based films like The Patriot, Glory, Anne of the Thousand Days, A Man for all Seasons, Gone with the Wind, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, etc. They can asses the movies for historical accuracy in terms of events, culture, and individuals. Much the same thing can be done with historical fiction, either in print or as a film adaptation. This way students leave with information that is more interesting to them, and they serve as ambassadors between the academic and general worlds by correcting the errors that are created through entertainment-driven media.

Historical Works By Amateurs and Professionals

In chapters 3 (Searching for the General Reader: Professional Historians, Amateurs, and Nonacademic Audiences, 1890-1939) and 4 (The Crusade against Pedantry and Its Aftermath: Allan Nevins and Friends, 1930s-1950s) of Ian Tyrrel's book Historians in Public, Tyrrel discuses how the most popular historical works read by non-academic audiences were those not written by professional historians. On cause of the elaborate and often tedious writing style of many professional historians compared to that of many authors with backgrounds in professional writing or journalism, as well as the failure of professional historians to assess the needs and desires of the non-academic audiences, this trend of amateur historians writing the history read by the public continues to present. Fortunately for a time, professional historians did spend time publishing reviews of popular amateur works, so that the public had a strong idea about which sources were accurate.

Today there is a greater struggle for while there is a plethora of interesting and popular amateur writings on historical topics (New York Times Bestseller Lists: Hardcover Nonfiction and Paperback Nonfiction) it is not always clear how trustworthy the source may be. There are obvious things to look for of course, like the author's background and motivation for writing, along with the sources he or she cited. Unfortunately, there are many works out today that may pass a quick assessment for inaccuracy, but may indeed be extremely problematic. This begs the question of the best ways to discern an accurate and interesting historical text from an interesting and questionable one.

Personally, as a future teacher I really struggle with the question of discernment of non-academic texts. As a teacher, I will need to continue to be learning about all different areas of history. I have always believed that one of the most effective ways of keeping material interesting and fresh for students is to always be making a concerted effort to always be learning more about the material oneself. In addition, students need more than a text book and lectures to get a wide perspective of history: they also need supplementary material in the form of primary and secondary sources. Depending on the level of students, it may be unreasonable to ask them to read the latest academic article on any given subject from a journal such as JSTOR. What they may really need is additional information on specific subjects that is both readable and accurate to help them to expand their historical knowledge. Towards the endeavor of finding these sources, I do not know of any excellent resources that review main-stream histories for historical accuracy or of any efficient way of sorting through numerous books and articles to figure out which ones are reliable.

Public History Readings

For Tomorrow's class, our professor asked us to read a journal article by Alan Brinkley entitled "Historians and Their Publics" found in a special issue of The Journal of American History on The Practice of American History. In it, Brinkley discusses the ways that historians have lost touch with the public and the ways that they have continued to maintain influence. He discusses how few works by historians ever reach out to a general audience, and that this is because in the academic world there is no reward for doing so. The complex and often dry language of many historians discourages non-academic readers from delving into these academic works. In addition, the specialization and fragmentation that has occurred in the historical profession over the last 30 years has lead experts to write about subjects that are not as interesting to the general public. Brinkly goes on to discuss the conflict of how to create a history that is user-friendly to the general public, without losing its academic rigor. He concludes with a warning about the important of historical knowledge for the general public and insists that historians must find a way to bridge the gap between the academic and non-academic worlds.

We were also required to read the first part of Ian Tyrrell's book entitled Historians in Public: The Practice of American History, 1890-1970. While not as engaging as Brinkley's article, in his first chapter, Tyrrell discussed many of the same issues that were discussed in Brinkley's article, though I am not sure that he is as optimistic about the position of historians as is Brinkley. In his second chapter, Tyrrell begins to dig into the issues and progression of American historiography. The text is slightly confusing, but shows a general trend of specialization and conflicts between academic historians and politicians. It discusses numerous journals and associations that emerged over time, first separating from the general public and then from one another by specific category.

The progression is very concerning for me considering that I would like to teach history at the college level and would like to be able to supplement the textbook with various articles and excerpts from monographs, but fear that students would really struggle for understanding within much of the opaque writing of many academic historians. Another concern that I have is that if those who are most qualified to be giving the public information about history are failing to do so, where are everyday readers getting their historical knowledge from? Should we really trust journalists, writers, and television personalities to be the only sources of history accessible to the public?