THE LAST WORD---DWIGHT PITCAITHLEY
When it comes to the care and preservation of a national treasure or a national idea or happening, Congress and the American people require information, background -- and informed decision making.
That expertise is supplied by the folks behind the scenery, or the historic home or the battlefield; the biologist, the ecologist, the geologist, the paleontologist, curators, historical architects, park planners and historians.
These are the people that are seldom seen by the park going, tax-paying public but are absolutely vital to the mission of the National Park Service.
An NPS biologist in South Florida might be required to perform some "routine" task as analyzing the stomach contents of exotic Burmese pythons -- or he/she might be required to testify before a congressional committee that wealthy sugar cane farmers who contribute mightily to the Republican Central Committee, are causing undesirable changes to the ecology of South Florida
An NPS geologist at Grand Canyon may be asked to identify a rock -- surely an innocuous task...but then he/she may be asked to debate with creationists as to whether he/she can REALLY prove that rock is older than Noah's Ark.
NPS historians are not immune from controversy. Historical controversies are no longer tweedy, pipe smoking, sherry drinking discussions on the exact role of Betsy Ross in the design of the American flag. Nowadays historians challenge the very basics. Should we automatically consider ourselves the "Good Guys" in the American Revolution? What about that "massacre" of an American patrol at Palo Alto that started the Mexican War? Should "Custer's Last Stand really be "Crazy Horse's Best Stand" and what about that Civil War (or was it "The War between the States"? What was the REAL cause of that unpleasantness?
Now neighbors, you can see that the above controversies can have real career mangling consequences for those supposedly far behind the lines in the NPS trenches. There are "True Believers" that have strongly held attachment to their versions of the "Facts".
These strongly held beliefs could make you, the well meaning Federal bureaucrat, an " object of controversy " as in letters to Congress wondering, "How we can get this guy or gal fired?"
So let's talk to one of these "controversial" folks, retired NPS Chief Historian Dwight Pitcaithley.
First, let's provide a little historical background for those of you who haven't met Dr. Pitcaithley.
Dwight T. Pitcaithley was born in Carlsbad, New Mexico in 1944 to Al and Lynne Pitcaithley. His parents were professional actors who ended up in Carlsbad during World War Two after his father had been drafted and sent to the Army air base there. His father became a local radio personality and his mother a teacher. He is one of two siblings; his sister Sandra is a professor of veterinary medicine at Colorado State University. (The family name is Scottish, if you are curious) After graduation from Carlsbad High School his academic career consisted of a B.A and M.A. from Eastern New Mexico University and a Ph.D. in History from Texas Tech University.
He was a research historian in the Southwest Region in 1976 and became the Regional Historian of the old North Atlantic Region in 1979. In 1989, Dwight became Chief of the Division of Cultural Resources for the National Capitol Region, a position he held until his appointment as Chief Historian of the National Park Service in 1995
Pitcaithley retired from that position (and the National Park Service) in 2005. He is currently a professor of History at New Mexico State University
He is a winner of The Sequoia Award (2002) and Distinguished American Scholar Fulbright New Zealand Board of Directors (2000) among many other honors.
Among his colleagues, Dwight became well known as an uncommonly helpful straight shooter in a discipline where sharp elbows are not unknown.
Here are a few comments from people who have worked with him:
"More than any other historian I've ever met, Dwight Pitcaithley has gracefully, masterfully, and always with good humor fought the great fights of public history and the culture wars. Always the outcome has been to transcend inertia, division, and narrowness of focus. He continues to motivate crucial allies within academia to work with Park Service staff and with other public historians for the long haul, and has been particularly effective at the crucial moments when it mattered most."
------- John Dichtl, Executive Director, National Council on Public History"Former Chief Historian Dwight Pitcaithley has been responsible for professionalizing the practice of American History in the National Park Service."
------- Lee Formwalt, Executive Director, Organization of American Historians"Dwight Pitcaithley is like NPS sites themselves, a national treasure. During his successful tenure as NPS's Chief Historian, Dwight was engaged with any number of controversial issues, not the least of them clashing interpretations of the causes of the Civil War. Dwight dealt with everyone, no matter what their conviction, no matter what their level of civility, with respect and a clear declaration of what the NPS's stance was, and it was so."
------- Ed Linenthal, editor, Journal of American History"Dwight served as a lightning rod for criticism as Civil War related sites, including battlefields, began expanding interpretation to discuss the causes and consequences of the war. His ability to channel the criticism into discussions based on sound historical scholarship was phenomenal."
------- Pam Sanfilippo, historian, US Grant NH
So then, let's ask Dwight some questions.
|
DWIGHT, YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A "PUBLIC" HISTORIAN. WHAT EXACTLY, IS A PUBLIC HISTORIAN?
The term public historian was coined around 1980 to describe historians whose primary audience is public rather than academic. So, historians who teach at colleges and universities are generally termed academic historians while those who work at historic sites, museums, archives and other places where the public is the primary audience are termed public historians. That is not to say, however, that academic historians cannot work in the public realm, and, of course, many of them do. DO PUBLIC HISTORIANS GET INTO TROUBLE MORE OFTEN THAN ACADEMIC HISTORIANS? Probably, but that depends on your definition of "trouble." Academic historians generally operate within an environment of freedom of thought and expression although they, too, often run afoul of the thought police. Public historians are more vulnerable to public criticism because they are more exposed to the public and do not enjoy the cover of "academic freedom," although, of course, they should. Frankly, getting into "trouble" is not necessarily a bad thing. If a member of the public complains about an historical interpretation at a public site it means two things: 1) that person cares about history, and 2) someone is paying attention to your presentation of the past. I would be more concerned if the public never complained about the discussion of history in public places. YOU DIDN'T SET OUT TO BE CONTROVERSIAL. DESCRIBE GROWING UP IN CARLSBAD, NEW MEXICO Growing up in Carlsbad, along the banks of the Pecos River, was idyllic in many ways. Frequenting the "beach," a recreational area on the Pecos developed by the Works Progress Administration during the 1930s was a major part of my summer activities along with Little League baseball (at which I was poor at best), and attending Boy Scout camps in town and in the nearby Sacramento Mountains. I BELIEVE YOU ACHIEVED A "D" IN HISTORY IN HIGH SCHOOL I did and was relieved that the grade wasn't any worse. In spite of the best efforts of Ms. Connie Chapman, I was not a great student. I matured late and scholastic skills took awhile to develop. IF NOT HISTORY, THEN WHAT WAS YOUR ACADEMIC INTEREST? Does music count? In junior high school, I joined the band as a drummer. As time passed, I became quite good at it and upon graduation from high school in 1962 was selected to join the United States High School Band of America which played for the International Lions Club convention in Nice, France and then toured Europe for two weeks. I also tried drama during high school with the encouragement of my parents, but with little success. I was fired from the senior play "The Lark," due to insufficient acting skills. CARLSBAD CAVERNS NATIONAL PARK WAS ONCE "THE BACK DOOR INTO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE." WERE YOU TEMPTED TO GO THAT ROUTE AS A TOUR GUIDE? I worked as a seasonal at Carlsbad Caverns for three summers, two as a laborer (while I was flunking out of college) and one as a park guide (after I returned to school). I enjoyed all three seasons, but did not consider the jobs as more than summer employment. Cleaning toilets 750 feet underground, picking up litter, and digging post holes was a great way to make money, but I didn't see much of a future in it. During the summer of 1967 I was a park guide and while I enjoyed everything about it, I didn't then consider a career with the National Park Service a possibility. By that time I was a history major and fully expected, to the degree I thought about it at all, to teach history when I graduated. THE 1960'S WERE TRYING TIMES. BOTH OUR ESTEEMED PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT WERE SUCCESSFUL AT AVOIDING VIET NAM. HOW DID YOU AVOID THE DRAFT? I avoided the draft by enlisting in the United States Marine Corps. To quote Steve McQueen, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." Directly out of high school, I had enrolled in college at Eastern New Mexico University as music major. It seemed the logical path to take as I was a good musician and not much good at any other academic subject. What I came to learn, however, is that majoring in music is damned hard, one that requires many hours outside the classroom practicing instruments... other than percussion instruments. And music theory might as well have been Greek. Your readers might be interested to note that I took History of Music two semesters making a C the first semester and an F the second. Majoring in music was not working out and after my second year, when my cumulative GPA reached 1.623, I was placed on academic suspension. With the draft breathing down my neck, I joined the Marine Corps one month before the August 1964 Golf of Tonkin incident that began the country's long misadventure in Viet Nam. Perfect timing! WHAT HAPPENED IN VIET NAM? After boot camp in San Diego and later training at Camp Pendleton, California and at Kaneohe Marine Air Base in Hawaii, I ended up landing at Chu Lai in early 1966 as a forward observer radio operator for a 105mm howitzer battery. The job of a forward observer team was to accompany the infantry into the field to call artillery fire as needed and that is what I did for six months. On August 10, 1966 I was wounded by shrapnel from a 60mm mortar when the group I was with was attacked by two regiments of North Vietnamese regulars. After being taken to a naval hospital in Da Nang, I was moved to Japan for an operation on my left ulnar nerve (which had been severed by one of the pieces of shrapnel) and then to San Diego for a year of recovery. DID YOUR EXPERIENCE IN VIET NAM IGNITE YOUR INTEREST IN HISTORY? In retrospect, it probably did. Long hospital stays are conducive to reading and I read extensively my last year in the Marine Corps. While I found a fair amount of political fiction interesting (Fletcher Knebel, William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, in particular), I read a great deal of non-fiction on Viet Nam including the work of Bernard B. Fall, David Halberstam, John Sack and others, mostly trying, I think, to make sense of what I just seen and experienced. YOU RETURNED TO EASTERN NEW MEXICO UNIVERSITY AND ACQUIRED A MASTER'S DEGREE IN WESTERN HISTORY AND A WIFE. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? Knowing that I didn't want to make a career our of the Marine Corps, I reapplied to Eastern New Mexico University and to my astonishment was readmitted although a condition of readmission was that I make a 2.5 every semester until all deficiencies were removed. Majoring in history appealed to me very possibly because of the reading I had been doing. At any rate, my second semester back I took two history courses and did well in them both. Lacking any other possibilities, I became a history major. During my last year in the Marines, I was on leave in Lubbock, Texas visiting friends whom I had known at Eastern. As it turned out, my friend had a student teacher working for her that semester she thought I might like. My friend arranged a blind date and the rest, as they say, is history. Sabette and I will celebrate forty years of marriage this August. WHY DID YOU GRAVITATE TO WESTERN AMERICAN HISTORY? I suspect I went into western history because I wanted to learn more about Carlsbad and the environment in that part of the Southwest. Also, western history seemed easier than intellectual or political history. Who would have guessed then that I am presently writing a book on political history? WHAT BROUGHT YOU INTO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE? In 1974, Texas Tech University, where I had gone for my doctorate, applied for and won a contract to inventory old buildings along the Buffalo National River in Arkansas, a park which had been established two years earlier. Ike Connor, the chairman of my doctoral committee, thought I would enjoy the project because of my earlier work at Carlsbad Caverns. The inventory led to my dissertation on the social and cultural history of the Buffalo River watershed. While working on the dissertation, I wrote letters to NPS offices in hopes of finding a job upon graduation. I also visited Santa Fe and lobbied Dick Sellars for a job. Two weeks after I graduated, Dick called and offered me a four month temporary job in Santa Fe. After five years in Lubbock, Texas, we jumped at the chance. REGIONAL HISTORIAN DICK SELLARS AND REGIONAL SCIENTIST MILFORD FLETCHER INTRODUCED YOU TO NEW LOWS IN HISTORICAL RESEARCH. COULD YOU DESCRIBE? After I had been in Santa Fe for six months or so, and knowing my interest in caves, Dick asked me if I would like to visit a back country cave within Carlsbad Caverns National Park and look at the remnants of bat guano mining equipment. I immediately said yes. It was only then that Sellars told me that Ogle Cave could only be reached via a 180-foot vertical shaft! Not wanting to alienate my new supervisor by yelling, "Are you nuts?" I calmly reaffirmed my acceptance. Milford Fletcher was the resident cave expert in Santa Fe and over several months taught me how to rappel and ascend on the tiniest of ropes. I made the trip....and still consider Dick Sellars a good friend. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE DICK SELLARS AS YOUR NPS MENTOR? In 1976, Dick had been in the NPS for about three years, first in the Denver Service Center then in Santa Fe working for the incomparable Bill Brown. By the summer of 1976, Bill had moved to Alaska and Dick had taken his place as regional historian. From the beginning, Dick was an excellent supervisor. Long before it was an accepted practice in the NPS, Dick encouraged me to pursue "academic" projects along with my regular work. Presenting papers at academic gatherings and writing articles for publication in quarterly journals were what Dick thought NPS historians should be doing on a regular basis. At that time, Dick was also beginning to lecture and teach at Albright Training Center and he most unselfishly shared some of those teaching responsibilities with me. I have been most fortunate throughout my career to have supervisors who respected me and my work. Working for Dick in Santa Fe was the perfect introduction to the NPS. YOUR FIRST PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT WITH THE NPS WAS AS REGIONAL HISTORIAN FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION. WHAT WERE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES? We moved from Santa Fe to Boston in August 1979. In addition to the culture shock of moving from small, sleepy Santa Fe to the enormity of Boston, everything was a challenge. New job, new environment, eastern history as opposed to western history, commuting on public transportation (there are no subways in Santa Fe), it was all new and challenging and exciting. Neither of us had lived in a large city before (Lubbock doesn't count, in spite of being in Texas), so much of the excitement was in trying new things. The fundamentals of being regional historian were pretty much the same. At that time, as now, most of the work of the regional historian was managing cultural resource management issues, Section 106 paperwork, designing research contracts, and the like. But the resources were quite different. Working with places like the Vanderbilt Mansion or Thomas Edison's home and laboratory was quite different from working with Ogle Cave or Fort Davis. THE NORTH ATLANTIC IS A HISTORY RICH REGION. WHAT WAS THE ATTITUDE OF ACADEMIC (THAT IS, UNIVERSITY) HISTORIANS TOWARD NPS HISTORIANS AT THAT TIME? By and large, they didn't think about them at all. During that time there was very little communication between NPS historians and their academic counterparts. Across the Service, very few historians were encouraged to write for publication and attend professional meetings (even those with research in their position descriptions), so there was no framework for thinking about or understanding one another. The problem had two faces: one was that NPS historians had convinced themselves that the academic world was not interested in what they did or thought and therefore tended to ignore academics, and the other was that, for the most part, academic historians really weren't interested in the history programs of the NPS and tended to dismiss it as second rate history. During that period, I remember Heather Huyck trying mightily to get NPS employees to professional history gatherings with some success, but I think it was not until the 1990s that there was any consistent and fairly widespread interaction between the two. The change came about because the NPS started to stress the importance of such interchanges, and because, probably because of Dr. Huyck's efforts, organizations like the Organization of American Historians started to see NPS historians and interpreters as participants in the formal conversations held at those gatherings. COULD YOU DESCRIBE THE "CONSENSUS" SCHOOL OF HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION AND WHY YOU DIFFER? The "consensus" interpretation of the American past grew out of a rejection the earlier "progressive" school of thought and a post-World War Two desire to weave the story of the United States upon a framework that emphasized the commonalities throughout our society and culture. It was also very much a product of the Cold War emphasis on the defense of freedom as an essential element throughout American history. It reigned for possibly twenty years until a generation of historians who came of intellectual age during the Vietnam era looked at the fissures in our society caused by that conflict and began exploring dissenting voices in the American past. They also consciously began looking for voices that were absent from the historical narrative. Historians began focusing on the history of women, African Americans, Hispanics and other minority groups, and the history of labor as opposed to that of capitalists. The new emphasis on race, class, and gender moved our understanding of history in a new direction. I differ with the consensus view of the past largely because I was a part of that new generation of historians who simply looked at history through a different lens. I also find the new broader exploration of our past more interesting and useful for NPS purposes. It is interesting, however, how the consensus interpretation can still emerge within the NPS just as it did only a few years ago in a draft exhibit text for the Liberty Bell which could have been written in 1955. The "New Social History" or as it is now referred to as the "New American History" that started in the late 1960s and replaced the consensus view of the past has even now not been completely embraced by the NPS. Its emphasis on individuals, however, was incorporated largely at battlefield sites as parks developed exhibits on "soldier life" and day-to-day experiences of the "common man." THE DESIGN OF ELLIS ISLAND PROVED TO BE A PROFESSIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL TURNING POINT FOR YOU. COULD YOU ELABORATE? During the early 1980s, Lee Iacocca created the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Centennial Commission and a related foundation to raise money for restoring those two islands in New York Harbor. The Foundation quickly hired F. Ross Holland away from the NPS as its director of restoration and preservation. Holland and Dr. Heather Huyck who at that time was working in the NPS's interpretive division, convened a gathering of immigrant and ethnic historians to advise the Foundation on issues relating to interpreting the Statue and the facilities on Ellis Island. The historians quickly became a standing committee and advised on all aspects of the NPS interpretive programs on the two islands. To my knowledge, this was for first time the National Park Service had worked on a sustained basis with academic historians for interpretive purposes. As regional historian, I was an ex officio member of the committee and participated in most of the subsequent meetings over the next five or so years. It was during this period that I began formulating a sense of possibility for the NPS history programs. The gatherings between NPS interpreters and history scholars were stimulating and exciting as the collected scholars struggled with expressing their expertise in films and exhibits rather then in books. These were animated meetings at which there was a refreshing blending of NPS interpretive needs and requirements and cutting edge immigration scholarship. The resulting film, by Charles Guggenheim, and exhibits were far more instructive and meaningful than they would have been had the NPS not involved the academic community. Rather than ignoring history scholars at colleges and universities, I came to the conclusion that the NPS should engage them on a regular basis in the development of interpretive programs and media. WHEN, IN YOUR OPINION, DID THE DISCIPLINE OF HISTORY BECOME FULLY PROFESSIONALIZED IN THE NPS? I don't know that it has yet. The oddest aspect of being a historian in the NPS is that most historians work in cultural resource management rather than in interpretation. In other words, professionals who have been academically trained to interpret the past have very little influence over the interpretation of the past to the public. This is not to say that historians should not be engaged in CRM issues; only that I have always found the organizational separation between historians and interpreters an inefficient use of historians' skills. I don't think the discipline will be fully professionalized in the NPS until there is a seamless relationship among historians, interpreters, and scholars in the development of interpretive programs and media throughout the NPS. YOU SUCCEEDED ED BEARSS AS CHIEF HISTORIAN OF THE NPS IN 1995. WAS HE A HARD ACT TO FOLLOW? Colonel Bearss was an impossibly hard act to follow. Not only had he held the position for almost fourteen years, but his photographic memory allowed him to speak on most historical topics relevant to the NPS. In addition, he is legendary as a history tour leader, particularly of Civil War battlefields. I believe every history fan in this country should take at least one Ed Bearss tour during their lifetime. If I had tried to follow directly in his footsteps and tried to accomplish all that he accomplished, my tenure as chief historian would have been a dismal failure. Luckily, I don't have the energy Ed has so I had to chart a different path for the program. SPEAKING OF THE CIVIL WAR, UNTIL NEARLY THE TURN OF THE 21ST CENTURY, THE NPS HAD PUSSY FOOTED ABOUT THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR -- SLAVERY. WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THE 1998 NASHVILLE CONFERENCE THAT CHANGED ALL THIS? When the NPS inherited the Civil War battlefields from the War Department in 1933, the interpretive programs for the parks focused on the battles themselves and contained nothing on the reasons why the battle occurred. The NPS purposefully continued this practice until the 1990s when John Tucker installed a small exhibit at Fort Sumter that linked slavery with secession. By the late 1990s, the Civil War battlefield superintendents decided that with the approach of the 150th anniversary of the war, the NPS was obligated to include in its interpretation something about the causes of the war. The Nashville meeting resulted in a unanimous decision on the part of the managers to include the causes of the war, and specifically the core cause of slavery, in new exhibits and brochures. It was, of course, the right decision. CERTAIN HISTORIANS MANAGED TO TURN THE OLD BROMIDE "HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE VICTORS" ON ITS HEAD PORTRAYING THE CONFEDERACY AS MISUNDERSTOOD, HEROIC UNDERDOGS FIGHTING FOR THEIR "STATES RIGHTS" AGAINST BRUTAL INVADERS. DID YOU FIND THIS A CHALLENGE? The Lost Cause interpretation of the war which was developed in the decades following Appomattox using the histories of the war written by Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens and other former Confederates, held that protection of states' rights not property rights (slavery) was the principal cause of secession and war. The teaching of Southern history over the years anchored this interpretation of causality not only in the South, but in many places in the North as well. And while this interpretation still carries great weight in the public discussion of the war, scholars for the past forty years or so have focused on debates over the future of slavery as the central cause of secession. Having said that, I must quickly say that it is equally incorrect to argue that the war was prompted because Northern voters wanted to rid the country of the institution because of moral objections to it. So it gets complicated, and therein was the challenge the NPS faced in inserting information about the coming of the war into its interpretative programs. THE SOUTHERN LEADERS AND THEIR SOLDIERY WERE ACTUALLY MORE COLORFUL, ROMANTIC, AND MILITARILY MORE CREATIVE AND COMPETENT THAN THEIR NORTHERN COUNTERPARTS, SO ANY INTERPRETATION BASED ON STRAIGHT MILITARY "FACTS" PUT THE NPS IN THE POSITION OF SUBTLY ENDORSING THE SOUTHERN POINT OF VIEW. DO YOU AGREE? Whether southern leaders were more colorful, romantic, and creative than their northern counterparts is a question you will need to ask Ed Bearss. You would be hard pressed, however, to find a more colorful figure than Dan Sickles before, during, and certainly after the war. But the point is well taken that by focusing strictly on military action one avoids the larger issues at play during the war. Superintendent John Latschar at Gettysburg has written about how the names of various parts of that battle emphasized the southern, more than the northern, point of view. After all, we do call it "Pickett's Charge," rather than "Meade's Defense." THE SONS OF THE CONFEDERACY, VARIOUS CIVILWAR ROUND TABLES, NUMEROUS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS GENERATED MORE THAN 2500 LETTERS STATING THAT THE NPS WAS HI-JACKING AMERICAN HISTORY BY STATING THAT SLAVERY WAS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE WAR AND MUST BE SO ADDRESSED BY EACH PARK. THESE LETTERS ENDED UP ON YOUR DESK. HOW DID YOU RESPOND? Diplomatically, I hope. The letters actually contained two arguments. One was that battlefields were not the place to talk about causality; that introducing the reasons for the war diminished the importance of the combatants. This was an argument I never understood believing that a complete understanding of any battle must be based on why the war started in the first place. The second was that slavery was not the cause (or at least not a significant cause) of secession and war and the NPS was simply being "politically correct" in suggesting that it was. Even before the letters started pouring in, I did a great deal of homework by speaking and corresponding with the leading Civil War scholars in the country. Once the letters started arriving, I knew two things. First, that every letter must be answered because, as taxpayers, every writer had the right to hear what the NPS was planning and why. Second, I knew that my response had to be historically correct and based on the best of current scholarship. So, we responded with a two and a half page letter explaining the intentions of the NPS. In several cases, we received follow-up letters which we also answered. These were especially interesting as I and the correspondent were able to delve more deeply into the reasons of causality. I wrote about this at length in my chapter in Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American History (2006). DID YOUR MILITARY BACKGROUND AND PURPLE HEART PROVE USEFUL? One of the striking aspects about a large percentage of the letters was that the writer would begin with a paragraph on his military experience and/or the military traditions of his family. The intention, I believe, was to establish the notion that veterans knew how to interpret battlefields and bureaucrats in Washington did not. After a while, I started including a bit about my experience in the Marine Corps and Vietnam to help balance the playing field. I also started wearing my Purple Heart lapel pin when addressing Civil War gatherings. At the end of the day, I don't know how much my military background helped; I am certain it didn't hurt. WHAT WAS YOUR MOST USEFUL TOOL IN THE DISCUSSION? Well, I began these conversations quoting the best Civil War historians in the country, historian like Jim McPherson, Gary Gallagher, Eric Foner, Ed Ayers, and others, but they were dismissed as either "Yankee" historians or "Scalawag" historians. So I started using primary sources which are readily available. Charles Dew's book on the secession commissioners was helpful. I also used quotes from the four declarations of secession from South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas, as well as quotes on the problems facing the country from leading elected officials including James Buchanan, Alexander Stephens, and John J. Crittenden. WHAT WERE SOME EXAMPLES? Mississippi's declaration of secession was pretty clear, I think. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world." In early 1861, Texas Governor Sam Houston observed to John Reagan, who would soon become the Postmaster General of the Confederacy, "Our people are going to war to perpetuate slavery, and the first gun fired in the war will be the knell of slavery." G. T. Yelverton, a delegate to Alabama's secession convention, famously remarked that "The question of slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause of secession." There is no shortage of examples. The South, or at least the slaveholding portion of the South, believed the incoming Republican Party intended to abolish slavery throughout the country and the only hope for the South and its "peculiar institution" was secession. Southern politicians were highly educated, intelligent, well-read, and articulate. One has only to read their speeches and letters to understand why the Southern states seceded. NOT TOO MANY YEARS AGO, I NOTED THAT THE "PIONEERS" IN THE 1930'S DIORAMAS AT CUMBERLAND GAP NHS WERE STILL BEING MOLESTED BY "SAVAGES". WHEN DID THE NPS START TO CHANGE ITS VIEW OF THE CLASH OF CULTURES? I think an argument can be made that it started with the legislation changing the name of Custer Battlefield to Little Bighorn Battlefield in 1991. Since the 1940s, the battlefield had been managed as a shrine to George A. Custer. Intellectually and historically the legislation was the right move at the right time. Western historians like Patty Limerick, Richard White, and Bill Cronon had started changing our collective perceptions about Western history during the previous decade, and the Little Bighorn legislation built on that new scholarship. The legislation, of course, did more than simply change the name. It authorized a monument to the Indians who fell that day in 1876 and insisted on a more balanced interpretation of the battle, one that presented the views of both sides. CHOOSING FROM THE MENU OF MASSACRES, WHY WAS THE WASHITA OR SAND CREEK SELECTED OVER SAY, WOUNDED KNEE FOR COMMEMORATION? I suspect the answer here relates to the reasons why any one place is selected for inclusion in the national park system over others. Because the Wounded Knee site is in the middle of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, the other two sites were probably more available. Because one is officially labeled a "massacre" and the other a "battle" in NPS nomenclature, the names themselves provide an educational moment on how this generation views the respective events. THERE WAS SURPRISING RESISTANCE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MONUMENT AT MANZANAR TO HONOR THE JAPANESE AMERICANS WHO WERE IMPRISIONED. WAS THIS RESIDUAL RACISM OR SIMPLY HISTORICAL IGNORANCE? I think it was both. We are incredibly short sighted in this country when it comes to remembering our past. We tend to forget many of the important messages from the past and misremember the rest as we surround those memories with romance and make one-dimensional stick figures out of the players. We should also never underestimate the role of racism in the past and its capacity to pop up regularly in the present. SPEAKING OF HISTORICAL IGNORANCE, AMERICANS ARE AMAZINGLY HISTORICALLY ILLITERATE, NOT BEING ABLE TO PLACE PRESIDENTS IN THE PROPER CENTURY AND SO ON. DO YOU BELIEVE THE NPS CAN BE PART OF THE SOLUTION AND IF SO HOW? One of the interesting developments over the last fifteen years or so is the realization that the preservation and protection of park resources is the beginning, and not the end, of our work. The NPS was conceived as an educational organization that preserved spectacular places as a means to that end; and yet over the years, partly because of insufficient budgets I suspect, we came to believe that preserving parks was our ultimate goal. We started to recapture that earlier vision in The Vail Agenda and then more recently in the Advisory Board's Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century. Instead of focusing our vision inward, these reports focused the NPS vision outward, looking toward the larger value the NPS can play in American society. In caring for parks, the report concludes, "we care for ourselves and act on behalf of the future." So to get back to your question, the NPS has a fundamental educational role to play in this country inside parks and outside parks. We require the study of history in our schools to develop a more informed citizenry, so that the decisions we make today are based on some knowledge of how similar issues were handled in the past. The value of historical parks is their infinite capacity to inspire us at places where this experiment in democracy, this journey of participatory government, plays out. The stories imbedded on the landscape of Gettysburg and Manzanar, and Little Bighorn, in the library at Adams NHS, and in the asphalt of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma all provide lessons in courage and determination and hope. They make us proud and they make us sad, and most of all we hope, they make us think about the future of the country and how we as individuals can improve it. Natural parks also contain stories, quoting from the Advisory Board report again, useful to "building a citizenry that is committed to conserving its heritage and its home on earth." NPS environmental education programs should also look beyond park boundaries. We should envision parks as exemplars of environmental stewardship that will encourage increased awareness of environmental concerns in our backyards and city parks and the public places where we live, not just where we visit. The goal of our education programs should not be, as a recent NPS publication proclaimed "to care about and care for parks," but to develop an informed citizenry that has an increased capacity to care for and about our experiment in democracy and to care for and about our global environment. The NPS can indeed be a part of the solution to a public uninformed historically and environmentally, but it must greatly expand its vision of itself if it is to play a more productive role in this effort. POLITICIANS ARE KNOWN TO VIEW HISTORY AS PROPAGANDA AND CONTRARY VIEWS AS DISLOYAL. EVEN LYNN CHENEY, WIFE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS CRITICIZED AS BEING "INSUFFICIENTLY PATRIOTIC" FOR HER SUPPORT OF THE "NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR HISTORY" WHAT WAS CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT THESE STANDARDS? Lynn Cheney first supported, and even funded, the development of the standards when she headed the National Endowment for the Humanities. When the standards were published and she was no longer with NEH, she attacked them as did most of the political right. Unfortunately, the standards came out around 1994 when the "Contract with America" was being formulated and the right wing of the Republican Party was attacking everything that didn't measure up to its standards of patriotism. You'll recall that the Smithsonian's exhibit on the Enola Gay and its exhibit on painting of the American West were equally assaulted at this time. Part of the problem with the national history standards was that they reflected the broader sense of America's past that had informed scholarship over the previous two decades or more. A more inclusive past involved more than political, military, and industrial history and the standards were attacked for including lesser known aspects and personalities in the nation's past. They were eventually and modestly revised to their critic's satisfaction. Many state standards of learning are now based on them. I have quoted from the introduction on many occasions. It contains an excellent justification why students (of all ages) should study the past HISTORICAL PARKS MAKE GREAT STAGES FOR POLITICS. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE OTHER SIDE ASKS FOR EQUAL TIME? Asking for equal time is most appropriate if the historical record contains another view. Often, however, a "balanced" view is not realistic. Would we ask, for example, for equal time for the opposing view if the subject were the Holocaust? Part of the problem with the story-line earlier presented at Little Bighorn was that a viable "other side" was not being interpreted, so asking for equal time there was most appropriate. A few years ago, several Congressmen were bothered by the film in the lower level of the Lincoln Memorial because it contained too much footage of groups protesting for gay and lesbian rights and freedom of choice. They asked the NPS to edit the film to include conservative protest footage. After researching film taken at the west end of the Mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial, the NPS "discovered" what it had suspected all along and that was that conservative groups tend to protest at the east end of the Mall in front of the Supreme Court Building. There was no, or very, little footage of conservative protests to include in the Lincoln film, and to insert footage taken elsewhere would have compromised the historical integrity of the film. To my knowledge, the original film is still being shown. CONSERVATIVES BELIEVED THAT THEIR HERO, PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN WAS UNDER ATTACK AT, OF ALL PLACES, WOMEN'S RIGHT NHS. WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM? The initial exhibits in Seneca Falls contained one panel that provided historical context for the site contained a paragraph or so that represented President Reagan's environmental policies in rather harsh terms. A member of Congress who had visited the park protested and demanded that the text be amended. I contacted a small group of presidential and environmental scholars and asked their help in re-drafting the panel. In surprisingly short order, the group agreed to a revision that both accurately portrayed Reagan's environmental record and satisfied the critics of the exhibit. The Department approved the revised panel and the park installed it. As far as I have heard, everyone is happy. IS IT POSSIBLE TO KEEP "POLITICS" OUT OF HISTORY? IF SO, WHAT IS THE RECIPE? If your question is "is it possible to keep politics out of the interpretation of history by the NPS?" I think the answer is probably a qualified "yes." In my thirty years as a historian in the Service, I never was required, or even asked, to change a message or text for political reasons. When one is interpreting history in the public sector or, as Ed Linenthal describes it, "committing history in public," there will always be those who have a different view of the past and will argue the point. The antidote is a strong understanding of the past based firmly on primary source material. Quoting, in context of course, the voices of the participants of historic events does not leave much room for argument. I don't want to be too simplistic here, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the NPS might be asked to develop an interpretation not based on the evidence, as it was at the Lincoln Memorial. My experience, however, has been that if the agency bases its interpretive programs on historic evidence, it can steer clear of most political obstacles. YOU RECENTLY OBSERVED THAT THE NPS WORKED WITHIN A CULTURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL POVERTY. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? Over the past thirty years, the budget of the NPS has increased modestly, but has never kept pace with the needs of the new parks, which keep being added by Congress. The current budget of the agency is around $2.4 billion to manage 391 parks. While that number seems enormous, the National Parks Conservation Association, through a series of independent studies, has estimated that most parks operate on only two-thirds of the funding required to preserve, research, and interpret the incomparable collection of places we call the national park system. This means that nationwide, the NPS is operating on an annual shortfall of $800 million. In addition, because inadequate annual appropriations have forced parks to forestall needed repairs to buildings, roads, sewage systems and other park facilities, the NPS is facing a maintenance backlog of between $8 and $9 billion dollars. While the Bush administration has annually allocated $178 million on to the backlog, this money was re-directed from other NPS programs, and even at that rate it would take 220 years to address the backlog of all facilities... excluding roads. By any measure, the park service is grossly underfunded. IN 2016 THE NPS WILL CELEBRATE THE 1OOTH ANNIVERSARY OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT. WILL THE SERVICE'S CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE ADDRESS THE FINANCIAL WOES OF THE AGENCY? Minimally. The Service has always accepted private money for specific projects and will and should continue to do so. Building its centennial around donations from the public, however, will not get the NPS where it needs to go. "Signature projects" are fine as far as they go, but a project that will attract private donors may or may not be the park's greatest need. In addition, I don't believe the Service has made a compelling case for the additional public money it is asking of Congress. In my opinion, the NPS needs to develop a budget for itself that will convince Congress that the woeful condition of the agency will change with the additional funds. It needs to assure Congress, and by extension, the American public that no park exhibit or film will be more than twenty years old. The average of interpretive media presently is twenty years, which means that some parks have exhibits that are forty years old (Saguaro); the film at Shiloh is fifty years old. It needs to develop budget proposals that ensure that visitor use and historic buildings are adequately preserved; that the maintenance backlog is reduced over the next ten years to a manageable level. It needs to beef up its research budget for natural and cultural resources that will allow managers to understand far better than they do the nature of the resources they are charged with managing. What this means, is that the NPS needs to become far more attentive to its core mission of preservation, research, and education. These programs need to work together in an interrelated manner and become the point of the NPS's efforts. HOW HAS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TREATED THE SERVICE? Not terribly well. Over the eight years of this administration the annual NPS budget increase has been .6% compared to the annual increases over the Clinton administration of 6.5%. Additionally, we all recall the attempt by Paul Hoffman in the Gale Norton's Interior Department to subvert the Service's Management Policies to minimize conservation and maximize recreation. While exact figures are unclear, the maintenance backlog during the last eight years has grown between $3 and $4 billion. Finally, while political interference with management decisions has been growing since the 1970s, this administration has been fairly blatant in its willingness to involve itself in NPS decision making river management at Grand Canyon and snowmobile and road management at Yellowstone are only two of many examples. AS WE SPEAK, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS BUILDING A VERSION OF THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA ALONG THE MEXICAN BORDER. WILL THIS INHIBIT CULTURAL EXCHANGES SUCH AS THOSE PROMOTED BY CHAMIZAL NATIONAL MEMORIAL AT EL PASO-JUAREZ? Now you are asking me to foretell the future. Only time will tell, but I cannot see how the barriers, which are massive, would promote cultural exchanges. WHAT ARE YOUR RETIREMENT PROJECTS? I teach two courses at New Mexico State University, one each semester. In the fall, I do the Civil War (emphasizing politics, not battles), and in the spring, I teach a course titled, "Interpreting Historic Places." I am also in the middle of writing a book on the efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution during late 1860 and early 1861 in hopes of preventing secession and war. It is designed to bring a bit more clarity on the reasons why the South believed it needed to secede. In case you were wondering, my interpretation is in complete agreement with Mississippi's quoted earlier. Secession had everything to do with protecting the institution of slavery. IS YOUR DAUGHTER FOLLOWING ON THE HISTORY TRAIL? No. Her interests follow more closely my parents' profession. She is studying acting and film-making here at New Mexico State University. DWIGHT IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE AND AN HONOR TALKING WITH YOU. My pleasure also! |
THE SAFETY MESSAGE, OR REAL MEN DO EAT QUICHE
(Or Jesus loves you but He likes me a whole lot better)
Now neighbors, if you plan to go kayaking in the C & O National Historical Park on a summer's weekend, you are going to have trouble finding a place to park unless you get there WAAA-Y early.
Should you be tardy, you will have to wait however wisdom comes to those who stand and wait and I was to learn a valuable safety lesson.
Joan and I arrived late at the Violette Lock parking lot. It looked like I was fated to park on the access road and portage our tandem kayak farther than preference would indicate.
But hark! Was someone leaving? An early bird kayaker who had risen before dawn to fulfill his aerobic and Spiritual Rejuvenation Requirements?
Huzzah! Jesus truly loves us! A young lawyer-lobbyist looking chap appeared to have just placed his kayak atop his Ford Explorer and looked like he was putting his gear away.
I moseyed our Toyota Tacoma over to a respectful, but vigilant distance, as one does in a crowded parking lot, very much the way a polite turkey vulture will sidle up to a dying jackrabbit.
The kayaker finished putting his helmet, paddles and wet suit top in the back of the Explorer.
He then tightened and checked the tie downs of his kayak, very leisurely.
We waited expectantly.
He got in the Explorer. Nothing happened. No "STRUM!" of 6-8 perfectly synchronized gas-guzzling cylinders, roaring into life. Nothing.
After a moment or two, Joan decided to inquire as to the driver's plans for the future.
I reminded her to be careful. She agreed that she would.
I had faith in her. My spouse is an extroverted, positive, logical, Type A personality, willing to share her opinions with others. That can get you in a whole lot of trouble in today's America.
Over the years, I have finally, finally convinced her that it is VERY unsafe to get into arguments with strangers in traffic or in parking lots. This is because a significant percentage of American drivers are well, strange.
A driver's license may require that you wear glasses while operating a vehicle, but no license requires that you be sane. (The ACLU and the United Maniacs of America would sue on the basis of cerebral discrimination.)
Joan, however, has finally accepted that a 9 mm Glock under the driver's seat will trump an Ivy League degree in any traffic debate.
Joan politely asked the driver about his immediate plans.
The driver was rude, but Washington DC Subtle Rude, rather than in your face New York City Rude which will strip varnish off furniture.
He allowed as how he would eventually leave but only when the spirit moved him and that we should enjoy the day until that happened.
Annoying, yes, but insufficient justification to light into him with tire tools. We patiently waited.
After an interval had passed that indicated he was his own master of the universe and no one could tell him what to do, he drove off.
"Strange" Joan observed.
"What's strange"? I asked
"You didn't notice?" Joan said archly (I find that I am always playing Dr. Watson to her Sherlock Holmes; probably due to her anthropology background.)
"Notice what?" I inquired, Watsonly.
"His bumper sticker", she observed Holmesianly. "It was VISUALIZE PEACE! He apparently has not quite internalized the concept".
"Perhaps Peace is hard to visualize in Washington, DC" I said philosophically.
"Perhaps" agreed Joan "Let's go kayaking."
And so we did, and I thought no more of rudeness and bumper stickers.
Until the next morning, when the WASHINGTON POST brought up the idea of bumper stickers as a safety issue.
It seems, according to an article in the June 16 issue of the POST that if you want to avoid aggressive drivers, Road Rage, and the attendant court and hospital appearances, you should try to avoid drivers that have bumper sticker slogans on their cars.
Now neighbors, this sounds like everyday common sense.
That is, it is prudent to avoid drivers whose bumper stickers say:
"YOU CAN TAKE MY GUN WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!" or
"MY KID CAN WHIP YOUR HONOR STUDENT'S ASS!" or
"GOD, GUNS, AND GUTS ARE WHAT MADE AMERICA GREAT!"
However, according to a study by Colorado State University Social Psychologist William Szlemko, it does not seem to matter whether the message on the bumper sticker is about Peace & Love, or Patriotism, or War, The Second Amendment, Left Wing or Right Wing.
You are just as likely to trigger a homicidal response from some citizen who has an "ENVISION PEACE!" Or "WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER" sticker should you cut him/her off in traffic as from drivers sporting traditionally truculent statements such as "THIS CAR INSURED BY SMITH & WESSON!"
Does this mean you could get blown away by someone with a "JESUS LOVES YOU" bumper sticker?
Yup! At least according to the Colorado State study.
How does Professor Szlemko know this for a fact?
Well, like a good social scientist, he ran an experiment; and a risky one at that.
A volunteer driver would drive into the left turn lane at a busy intersection. When the green turn arrow appeared, he would not move. He did not move until the car behind him honked. An observer with a stop watch noted (A) how long it took the subject car to honk after the light turned green and (B) the presence or absence of bumper stickers, decals or personalized license plate and (C) The nature of the statement on the bumper sticker, decal or personalized plate. They apparently repeated this aggravating stunt hundreds of times to secure their data.
The team found that the drivers of cars with bumper stickers, decals, or personalized plates, honked a good two seconds earlier than drivers who did not have bumper stickers, decals or personalized plates.
According to the Colorado State University study, the reason for the aggressive response from drivers with bumper stickers is territorial. Drivers who individualize their cars using bumper stickers, window decals or personalized license plates see their cars in much the same way as they see their homes and bedrooms -- as deeply private space. What the aggressive driver forgets is that while you are in your private space, that private space is traveling along a public space -- the road.
"The more markers a car has, the more aggressively the person tends to drive when provoked. Just the presence of territory markers predicts the tendency to be an aggressive driver." according to Dr. Szlemko.
So neighbors, does this mean that when you are on patrol on Natchez Trace Parkway and spot a car with a JESUS SAVES sticker being driven erratically, does this mean that you should unsnap the keeper on the holster of your Sig-Saur before making that stop?
Not necessarily.
There may be other reasons why people have bumper stickers on cars.
Joan has a bumper sticker on her Toyota Camry. I asked her if it indicated a vicious streak (Admittedly, I could have used better phrasing, considering the response.)
Her bumper sticker says SCOTTISH COUNTRY DANCERS DO IT BETTER!
Now then, does this mean that Joan will lop off your head with her trusty Claymore if you cross her in traffic?
Not at all. It is true that Joan is passionate about her hobby of Scottish Country Dancing and is indeed the Vice-President of The Washington DC chapter of the Royal Scottish Country Dancing Society. However, this does not mean she will pull a Mel Gibson on you even if you have a SCOTLAND SUCKS bumper sticker on your own car
You see, Joan has another motive in putting a bumper sticker on her car.
According to Joan "Toyota makes a generally excellent car, but Toyota bumpers are crappy."
The bumper sticker neatly covers an unsightly crack in the bumper; nothing more significant or profound.
Additionally, the presence of a bumper sticker may not indicate Aggressiveness or potential Road Rage as much as a (possible) heightened sense of alertness and awareness of surroundings on the part of the driver. After all, some drivers DO require the tap of the horn to remind them of the green light.
So we have (as far as THUNDERBEAR is concerned,) the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" in the case of bumper stickers and Road Rage.
However, just as certain tattoos raise the alertness level of the prudent LE Ranger, it may be wise not to put too much faith in the owner of an ENVISION PEACE or JESUS LOVES YOU bumper sticker.
DE-TOXIFYING MANAGEMENT: PART II
Welcome to Part II of former Chief Ranger Jim Brady's essay on Toxic Management and what YOU can do about it. We heartily agree that meeting the Equal Employment opportunity Goals of the NPS and eliminating Toxic Management can be done at one and the same time.First, a little feed back from one of our readers on Part I, which appeared in issue #276 of THUNDERBEAR.
"I read your article on DE-TOXIFYING MANAGEMENT and it hit the nail right on the head with the major problem in the NPS today!
I started in the NPS in 1982 as a Ranger Technician (lifeguard) took my first law enforcement position in 1984. After working seasonal for over another decade I finally took a position with the Army Corps of Engineers in 1985 and in 1998 returned to my beloved NPS. Last year I left the NPS. I used to bleed green and gray until the NPS mismanagement bled me dry.
I am one of many that have left the NPS in utter frustration, taking all my skills and training to other agencies in the last 10 years. Incompetency breeds incompetentcy. The hiring of managers based on political needs rather than the ability to do the job is killing the NPS. Rick Smith's "Top Ten Characteristics of a Toxic Manager" is a prime example of this.
Every one of the listed items identifies my last supervisor. She actually wrote me up for insubordination for mentioning to the Chief Ranger that I could save the park money by hosting a training course that I needed for recertification. Six months later, I was told I needed her permission to put on a class. I told her I did not put on a class. She told me that I needed her permission to look into hosting a class. I told her I did not even look into putting on the class; I merely mentioned it as a cost saving measure. I was then informed that in the future I needed her permission before I thought about putting on a class. Now I need permission to "THINK"
Regretfully,
Agent "X"
Another Federal Agency
Someplace, USA
Wow! All Ten Toxic Management Characteristics! Agent "X" 's bad luck rivaled that of the Biblical Job! He wound up with a veritable "Lady Voldemort" as a supervisor!
But is "Lady Voldemort" all that evil?
Now neighbors, no one, not you, not I, not even Robert Mugabe, thinks of themselves as a villain. President Mugabe does not kiss his wife and sing "Hi Ho, Hi Ho! It's off to Murder, Torture, and Repression I go!" As he heads out the door for another day's work destroying Zimbabwe
Granted, Mr. Mugabe is truly evil; but you, myself, and even "Lady Voldemort"? No! We are Misunderstood, Underappreciated People with difficult jobs working with difficult people! " So there!
Actually, "Lady Voldemort" may be more to be pitied than censured. She sounds like a frightened, confused, paranoid type of manager, fearful that her subordinates may be plotting against her, not sure where to turn for help.
Perhaps then, we need to recall John Muir's favorite poet, fellow Scot Robert Burns who classically remarked:
"O would some power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us
It would from many a blunder free us!"
Indeed it would, neighbors!
It MIGHT be helpful for all concerned if there were some sort independent, non- partisan, disinterested group, sort of like the old "operations evaluations team" that would travel around parks and politely point out that "Gee Whilikers, Superintendent Voldemort, you're something of an Anal Aperture, now how do we change that?" (Actually, isn't that the job of Voldemort's boss?)
However until that happy time, we must rely on you to improve yourself, trusting that you are not at the Mugabe end of the Management Spectrum.
This brings us to PART II of "De-Toxifying Management " brought to you by Jim Brady.
DETOXIFYING MANAGEMENTSolutions and Considerations for Achieving and Maintaining a Positive Workplace Environment "If you want one year of Prosperity, grow grain. If you want ten years of Prosperity, grow trees, if you want one hundred years of Prosperity, grow people" Chinese Proverb Introduction Developing and maintaining a "positive workplace atmosphere" is really the keystone for "getting the work out" and achieving outstanding mission-based results. Success demands your personal commitment and skill as a manager/supervisor, in providing and managing for employee job satisfaction and the opportunity for their personal growth and development. The critical by-product of these focused efforts is that overall positive reputation for action. This means a reputation that facilitates both employee recruitment and retention and creates those positive emotions and dispositions that permeate and define the workplace environment. All of which are primary ingredients in the overall factors of morale and the related "happiness factor." Actually, what we have described is way beyond important; it is critical to any work unit in either the private or public sector...that is looking to achieve a fully professional level of operations and that all-important reputation for outstanding results. So, why then is achieving a "positive workplace atmosphere" such a struggle" for so many work units? As mentioned in the previous article, mostly because we have employees, supervisors and managers who either; "Don't Know or Don't Care or Both! The good news is these barriers can be removed, remodeled or reduced with some behavioral and attitudinal modifications and appropriate educational and skills development.
The purpose of this article is threefold:
Let's get started with the ...... first or most important step... ATTITUDE AND ACTIONS: We know that establishing/maintaining trust within your work group is the single most important ingredient for that positive workplace environment. Trust means: "That all involved have a confident expectation in the actions and behaviors of others." In what follows, we will identify the kinds of behaviors and subsequent attitudes that promote trust. Recognize and accept that as the Manager/Supervisor of your work unit, you have an affirmative responsibility for your work units' results /achievements and the welfare and opportunities of your employees to fully develop and apply their strengths, talents and skills toward that objective. Remember: supervision is both. "Getting the work out and developing your Employees" Also: the job of a fully-professional Manager in today's milieu is to: Recruit and select employees for talent, set expectations and define the right outcomes motivate by focusing on strengths, and develop people by finding the right fit. Your responsibility is largely to function as a 'Catalyst' in the ever- changing crucible of the workplace. If you are" too busy "with "other" work priorities to spend quality and priority time in the "care and feeding" of your employees, you need to take a long look in the mirror and get some help in re-evaluating what you see. 'The ship is about ready to go aground....And you're the captain." Certainly, individual employees have responsibilities as well. For example, the "Art of Followership "is often overlooked and each employee should understand what this means in relationship to their job. For example: Ask: "How can I make myself more valuable to my organization? Do I really understand how my job accomplishes the mission?" Do any or all of these things sound like anyone you know? If so, read on..!! Remember that attitude is more than how one feels about something. It is also a reflection of what one values. So, as a "Boss", with the right attitude and commitment to a "vision for improvement," let's examine what else is needed to achieve and maintain that 'Positive Workplace Atmosphere or ambience.
DEFINE YOUR CURRENT SITUATION:
Review your work units "current working atmosphere" and identify: A helpful exercise, used by many successful work units, is to initiate the Stop-Start-and Continue staff survey. Let's find out in our work unit: What actions need to be stopped? What actions need to be started? And what actions need to Continue? This can be most revealing and is a great way to get the ball rolling toward any needed changes. It also communicates a strong intention for workplace improvements and the commitment to follow-up with action.Yahoo!! Conversely, after asking for input, failure to give feedback on these kinds of suggestions, some of which can and should be implemented or cannot, for a variety of reasons (budget, facilities, etc), will signal the "death knell" for this process. Not a pleasant sound. Now, that you have some factual data and some specific suggestions, get ready to....... DEAL WITH CHANGE: Clearly, improving the workplace atmosphere will likely involve implementing some changes (Some big, some little.) Consider that, change, which is constant, falls into two categories: Accidental and imposed or.......... planned and negotiated. In reality, managers of park operations must deal with both. Again, it is not only "the what but the how, as well." In terms of creating a positive workplace atmosphere, the emphas needs to be in the "planned and negotiated areas." Also, it is important to know that the predictable stages of change in any arena are: Denial, Resistance, Exploration and Commitment. Knowing this, one has to plan to deal with each factor to ensure the right successive outcomes. This entails using some behavioral strategies and effective communication techniques. For example, during times of change it is not "business as usual," so concentrate on shaping employees behavior instead of grading employee's behavior, promise change, but sell it carefully. We know that communication = behavior. So, everything you say and don't say and do and/or don't do sends a message. An example might be: "Yes, Susie .... We are serious about this, what can we do together to make it happen?" Then complete the agreed upon action...!! Remember the stakes: The integrity and professional reputation of your work unit, (including yours, your employees and that of your organization) At this juncture, we are now ready to examine the most critical or core elements of this progression: "The heart of the matter, so to speak."
SPECIFIC BELIEFS-ATTITUDES THAT EFFECTIVE MANAGERS USE "I love Human Beings... It's People I can't stand."
1. People are the most important resource of any organization.
2. Conventional Wisdom ---- often "sucks."
3. Great Managers -- capitalize on their "own style." Using their own style, each manager should focus on the four core activities of being a Catalyst: "Select a person, set expectations, motivate and develop the person."
4. Talented Employees need Great Managers...
5. An Employee's Relationship with his/her Manager is Critical...
6. As a Manager your job is to turn the talents of an employee into Focused Performance.
7. A Manager is" On-Stage" every day...
8. Change is a Fact of Modern Life .....
9. And number nine is....
In the book "First Break all the Rules," over 1,000,000 employees and 80,000 managers were interviewed and of the thousands of survey questions, the following 12 questions (and their answers) served to distinguish outstanding performance by a work group--- from all the rest. In essence measuring the strength of a workplace can be simplified to 12 questions... They don't capture everything you may want to know, but they do capture the most information and the most important information. They measure the core elements needed to attract, focus and keep the most talented employees.
1. Do I know what is expected of me at work? The key here is "to set consistent expectations for all your people yet at the same time treat each person differently. You have to make each person feel as though he is in a role that uses his talents, while simultaneously challenging him to grow." Buckingham. Now, for a different perspective on abilities. IDENTIFYING AND UTILIZING INDIVIDUAL TALENTS -- Building on STRENGTHS
"People don't change that much. Don't waste time trying to put in what was left out. Try to draw out what was left in. That is hard enough." In his books First Break all the Rules and Go Put your Strengths to Work, author Marcus Buckingham observes that: "Each person is true to his unique nature. Great managers recognize that each person is motivated differently, that each person has his own way of thinking and his own style of relating to others." They know that there is a limit as to how much remodeling they can do to someone. They don't bemoan this--- they capitalize on it. They try to help each person become more and more of who she already is. This one insight has been echoed by tens of thousands of great managers. It is the foundation of their success as managers. Moreover, it explains why great managers do not believe that everyone has unlimited potential. Talent has been defined as: "A recurring pattern of thought, feeling or behavior that can be productively applied." They are behaviors that you find yourself doing often. Examples include: empathy, assertiveness or competiveness. Striving talents explain the Why of a person.... Why motivated, etc. Thinking talents explain the How of a person..... How he thinks, comes to decisions, etc. Relating talents explain the Who of a person; whom he trusts, builds relationships with. Your instinctive ability to remember names, rather than just faces is a talent. Your fascination with risks, crossword puzzles is a talent. Great nurses, truck drivers and great teachers all have talent. Every role performed at excellence requires talent. A managerial talent is the ability to individualize. It is not that experience, brainpower or will power are not important. It's just that an employee's full complement of talents--- what drives her, how she thinks, how she builds relationships... is more important.
Strengths are a combination of talents, skills and education. A thought to keep in mind for managers and employees is: "You cannot be anything you want to be -- but you can be a lot more of who you already are......" Tom Rath CLOSING CONSIDERATIONS AND THOUGHTS: As my friends Rick Tate and Dr. Julie White have observed in their book "People leave Managers ...Not Organizations:" "Optimizing human performance is an ongoing condition of a manager's life and requires constant treatment to produce desired results." The most critical skill as a supervisor/manager is ---your ability to deal effectively with your employees --one at a time, conversation by conversation, as you make that valuable connection to performance. Your job as "Counselor or Coach" is to make a deliberate effort to help the employee become more valuable. What can you do to connect their strengths to the mission and work plans of the organization? "Employees want to be recognized as individuals. They want a chance to express themselves and gain meaningful prestige for that expression. Only you as a manager can create the kind of environment where each person comes to know his or her strengths and express them productively." By now, you know (if you didn't already) that understanding and managing human behavior is the most complex aspect of achieving a positive and productive workplace environment. It is the "real key" to sustained high morale and the associated "Happiness Factor." Remember: The most important employee needs fall into three categories: Opportunity for meaningful work, Chance to help define what that means, and appreciation and recognition for a job well done. So, how are we doing folks? Do any of these ideas or suggestions spark some interest For improving your workplace atmosphere? If the answer is yes, then consider this: A good place to start is ...... with the notion of evaluating yourself as a manager.... And the atmosphere of your workplace, against the concepts and techniques presented in this article. Also, as everyone has a boss, these concepts and techniques apply as well to managers, who are also employees: If you have identified some areas for change or improvement for either you or your staff and would like more information as to how to make that happen.............. Read On..!! SELF -- DEVELOPMENT IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS: More often than not, time and money or a question of what to buy or where to get help is the limiting factors for pursuing additional training or development. This need not be the case. I am recommending for your consideration, three of the best books (training/development) many of us have ever read or used. ...On these subjects. They will enable you to expand and/or follow-up with the ideas, concepts and techniques presented in this paper... and apply them to your work group.
1. First Break All the Rules. ..Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman
2. Go put your Strengths To Work ...Marcus Buckingham
3. People Leave Managers.... Not Organizations . .... Rick Tate and Dr. Julie White. So, there you go.... For about $160 you can start up your own self-development program and/or train and develop your employees. "Right on your own front porch." If you need some help, individual assistance or coaching is available from a variety of sources, both in-house and out-house. If I can help you get started, contact me at: jgbrady@bresnan.net So, what's holding you back? As Thunderbear might say: 'Rock on and make the world a better place -- One park at a time." Work can be fun and enjoyable and success does bring some well-deserved smiles. "Happiness is truly a journey-not a destination." Only good things like "excellent morale," will follow...
Remember: "Great managers are carried to Success on the Shoulders of their Employees" Thanks to the Bear for allowing me to share some ideas and experiences. It has been an honor. Jim Brady |
WHEN DOES A FAKE BECOME "HISTORIC"?
Readers will remember from issue # 276 where THUNDERBEAR cataloged the rather short list of buildings associated with the Founding Fathers that have been entrusted to the care of the somewhat late coming National Park Service.
The names and exact number of Founding Fathers (No Founding Mommies as yet!) is necessarily subjective (Some historians like Paul Revere and Ethan Allen, others do not), but generally speaking, if you messed around with the Continental Congress and got your name on the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution, then you were in as a Founding Father.
There were (are) about 150 of them. Although revisionist historians such as Charles and Mary Beard have exaggerated the wealth of the Founding Fathers, most were men of at least quiet substance, which meant a sturdy brick or wooden house, which could be eventually translated into the prized possession of a local historical society and (more or less) be preserved to await the coming of the NPS
A passing tourist pointed out that THUNDERBEAR had shamefully omitted one of the proud possessions of Colonial National Historical Park, the home of Thomas Nelson Jr, signer of the Declaration of Independence from Virginia.
The Nelson House is a nice two story brick Georgian built in 1730 by Thomas "Scotch Tom" Nelson, an immigrant from that hardy and hard-bitten land. His son, Thomas Nelson Jr, inherited the house. who joined Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Virginia meddlers in differing with the King and his ministers on the governing of North America.
Some historians, particularly Marxist historians such as Howard Zinn, tend to regard The Founding Fathers as self-serving fascist creeps who had Their Own Interests at Heart.
Well, no. Now it is true most people Have Their Own Interests at Heart, including You and I, even when we are doing good (The most recent example is the Oklahoma Hedge Fund operator T Boone Pickens who wants to save us from the Arabs by selling us his wind farms; not entirely a bad idea as ideas go, but not entirely selfless either. T.Boone is also interested in buying up the Ogallala Aquifer, so if you want a drink of water, you will have to ask T. Boone).
Thomas Nelson Jr. on the other hand, appears to have been cut from different cloth than T. Boone Pickens. He appears to have been a genuine revolutionary altruist.
You see, signing the Declaration of Independence was not necessarily a good career move. It was certainly not something you'd want on your resume if the British won, and a British victory was not out of the question. Unlike the Second World War, the Revolutionary War was a real cliffhanger right up to the end. George Washington, though the noblest of us all, was not very ept as a general; his main talent being a charismatic ability to stave off total defeat for seven years. That hiatus allowed His Majesty's government to hunt and harass the Signers for those seven long years. The penalty for treason could be death, torture, or both.
To his eternal credit (and good example) General Washington forbade the torturing of prisoners. The British, however, employed a number of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that might be of interest to the Bush Administration. Indeed, several signers were captured, beaten, or otherwise tortured for their interest in independence. Others, perhaps the majority, had homes and businesses destroyed or careers put on hold if not ruined. Many were bankrupted.
Thomas Nelson Jr. was one of these. Although he was never captured by the British (Tarleton's men came close on several occasions,) Virginia's war time governor spent most of his considerable fortune financing the Revolution and died in Spartan circumstances.
He was unique in that he personally sacrificed his own home to the revolutionary cause.
It was rumored that Lord Cornwallis was using Mr. Nelson's home as his headquarters at the climactic battle of Yorktown.
The rumor was false, but that did not deter the patriotic Governor Nelson.
He approached the Marquis De Lafayette who was directing artillery and told him to open fire on his house, stating, "It is mine and the best one in town. There you will be almost certain to find Lord Cornwallis and the British Headquarters. Fire upon it, my dear Marquis, and never spare a particle of my property so long as it affords a comfort or a shelter to the enemies of my country."
Now neighbors, you don't have to be Howard Zinn to find this highly suspect. I mean Nelson was a politician; can you imagine Bill Clinton or "Dubya" saying, "Blow up my stuff! No sacrifice is too great for my country!" Not bloody likely!
The story goes on to say that Nelson even offered 5 guineas to every gunner who scored a hit on the house. (A guinea was a little over one pound sterling; translated into rapidly receding Bush dollars, that would be about $350 per hit, not a bad incentive!) HOWEVER, "If in doubt, ask a ranger". So I checked in with the public affairs officer of Colonial National Historical Park, Mike Litterst.
Mike says "The veracity of Thomas Nelson Jr. directing cannon fire against his home has never been established through contemporary accounts of the siege, but then again, there's nothing to disprove it either. We generally lead with "Tradition states..." or some similar qualifier. The story is first told by Lafayette during his return visit to Yorktown in 1824, 43 years after the event purportedly took place. George Washington Parke Custis (Stepson) gives a very similar account in "Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington" published in 1860."
According to Mike, "The issue of the five guineas being offered to the first crew to hit the house doesn't appear for the first time until 1881 in The Yorktown Centennial Handbook: "It is tradition that the patriotic gentleman (Nelson) presuming that his house would offer shelter to the British officers, offered a reward of five guineas to every gunner who would strike it with his fire."
"While it is not possible to determine the exact number of times the house was struck (and no contemporary account exists) at least half a dozen battle scars are easily discerned today, both inside and outside the house."
Well now, friends, so far, so good. According to the testimony of Lafayette and Washington's stepson, Parke Custis, Thomas Nelson really WAS a selfless, dedicated patriot who sacrificed his house for the Cause. Close enough for government work!
However, there is an almost irrepressible human desire to make a good story better; to gild the lily as it were.
It seems that there are two cannon balls embedded in the east wall of the Nelson house.
Further verification?
Nope!
As Ranger Mike dryly points out ". ...Cannonballs do not "stick" when crashing into brick" (Now neighbors, if you think about it, the whole idea of cannonballs is to punch through a barrier and raise holy hob with what's on the other side, not to provide a decorative wall motif as if Martha Stewart was conducting the battle!)
According to Mike "Neither of the cannonballs is naturally occurring; both were placed, the lower one with liberally applied mortar, the higher one actually held in place with an iron rod."
So, who placed the cannonballs?
Here it gets interesting. . According to Ranger Mike "It was long believed that the cannonballs were placed by the family who purchased the house in the early 20th century." (Now neighbors, that would be a logical assumption, given the tub-thumping patriotism of turn of the century America. The cannonballs in the wall would make your children swell with pride, your neighbors green with envy and cause the resale value of your house jump a number of digits.
However, historians cannot afford to make assumptions, no matter how "logical".
It seems that while the cannonballs in the wall are "fake", they are historical fakes!
Ranger Mike points out that the cannonballs in question are not Civil War surplus, but are "of the period", that is, Revolutionary War vintage. Moreover, Civil War soldiers stationed at Yorktown during that war commented on the house with the cannonballs in the wall.
Does this add credence that the balls in the wall are the way it happened?
No. As Mike pointed out "Cannonballs don't stick to brick". Ranger Joe Craig of Saratoga NHP, and black powder expert, points out that a revolutionary War cannonball would leave the muzzle at upwards of 350-450 mph. This results in an incredible amount of inertia even when the cannonball is apparently "spent". Many 18th and 19th century soldiers were killed or maimed attempting to stop a "spent" cannonball bouncing or rolling along the ground.
So what happened?
Well, from the evidence, written and physical, we can venture that the cannonballs have been in the wall of the Nelson House for 146 years and probably longer.
How much longer?
Well now, that's hard to say.
This is where we get into speculation.
It could well be that the proud patriots, rebuilding their homes decided to incorporate battlefield cannonballs into the reconstructed walls to commemorate the battle in the absence of the future National Park Service.
And what of the other "cannonball houses" scattered up and down the East, veterans of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 or the Civil War?
Well, now, neighbors! Perhaps it's unkind to step on other people's legends!
LIVING AND WORKING IN MEXICO, PART II
Well now, neighbors, you will remember that in issue # 276 of THUNDERBEAR, we discussed the scary part of Mexico (and the United States) that 120-mile wide, 1,069 mile long, tough as beef jerky strip of land known as La Frontera, The Border as a place for you to relocate.
I must confess that the Border is not my can of Tecate, though many people, including Roger Siglin, former Chief Ranger of Yellowstone, would live no other place. As far as I'm concerned, La Frontera is a bit too hot, dry and wild for my taste.
That leaves us with the other 98% of Mexico, a country, that in my opinion, has the best climate in the world, summer or winter, as well as friendly, hospitable people.
Friendly, hospitable people? Yup! For some strange reason the Mexicans sort of like us.
Why they like us beats the hell out of me! We hi-jacked two fifths of their country in a war to expand slavery, a curse the Mexicans had already abolished in 1820. We make even temporary entry into our country difficult and dangerous for a people who are basically North American Indians and have more right to the continent than you or I. (Unless your last name is Running Bear.) We managed to destroy their agriculture with the North American "Free" Trade Agreement, and our insatiable lust for narcotics (matched only by our hypocrisy) has corrupted their police and judiciary and warped much of their economy.
Texas ranks right up there with dear old Red China in its enthusiastic use of the death penalty (Mexico has abolished the death penalty) Texas regularly executes Mexican nationals, occasionally without involvement of the Mexican consul in the trial, which is against international law.
In spite of all these irritations, the average Mexican likes the average American, often much better than he/she likes Mexican cops, politicians, or employers.
How come?
Well, of course, we pay better; on the ratio of 10 to one: The famed question "Do you want to work for $10 a day in Mexico or $10 an hour in "El Norte"? Is answered every day and every night on the border.
But it is not just the money. Mexico, with all the revolutionary rhetoric about the equality of all Mexicans, is still a hard-bitten, class driven society, where the Doors of Opportunity have many locks and few keys.
"In the US, you can learn something new" One young Mexican told me.
"Like what?" I asked
"Like making really good hand thrown pizza," He replied.
He patiently explained that most Mexican pizza was factory-produced cartwheels of plastic pasta and chemical goo masquerading as cheese. (That seemed like an accurate description of many American pizzas, but I let it pass.)
It seems that he had journeyed, legally or illegally to San Francisco and there in the North Beach district of that city, he had an epiphany; Seen the Light, as it were. He observed pizza dough shaped and formed by being thrown in the air; one of the most athletic and entertaining of the culinary arts. He sampled the end product; why, he asked himself, should Mexico, perched on the edge of being middle class, be deprived of this carbo-protein nectar?"
He quit his job and took a cut in pay (down to $7 an hour) so that he could apprentice at the hands of the Italian-American Masters of hand thrown pizza.
Now he was back in his native land, ready to conquer the world with hand thrown pizza. He had an option on a friend's restaurant and was the chief attraction, all thanks to his American education.
Mexico has a labor shortage and it is indeed caused by the siren call of "El Norte".
"Mexican workers are unreliable and unpatriotic" One Mexican builder told me.
"How so? I inquired.
"They'll take a job and work at it just long enough to pay a Coyote a down payment to take them across the border!" It seems that my contractor acquaintance wanted to pay them the proverbial $10 a day whereas his erstwhile employees preferred the $10 an hour in" El Norte."
"What can you expect? They're Indians!" The contractor spat, reflecting the often-unconscious racism of Mexico's Caucasian minority.
Mexico's amiable, hard working Indians have been ambling North for some time now, but they have also been ambling back, bringing the requisite gifts for the extended family and needed cash, but they also bring back experience -- and experiences, mostly positive.
Their skills, whether mechanic, electrician, plumber, bricklayer, or laborer are usually acquired or enhanced by their sojourn in the US. Understandably they do not particularly like living 10 to a dorm room or trailer, without family, but they have a surprising liking for Americans.
Or perhaps it is not so surprising.
It may be liberal heresy to say so, but we Americans are a pretty likable bunch. Indeed, we are among the least racist, friendliest and most accommodating people in the world.
Huh? Americans are the Good Guys?
Yup!
Think about it. How many Black guys are running for the president or premier of Russia, France, Great Britain or Japan? How many Jews are in the Saudi Arabian Civil Service? How many Indians of American ancestry are governors of states in India? (The governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal is of Punjabi Indian ancestry) and so on and so forth.
The reason for our success as Good Guys in not racial or cultural superiority but rather that we are a Universal People, a nation of immigrants or, to be blunt, a bunch of mongrels. We are not pretentious or snobbish and are generally very helpful and useful. (This does not mean we are not occasionally world-class pains in the posterior: The Bush Epoch being one of those periods)
The Aztecs and Mayan Indians have noticed our good points and have decided to join us, sometimes seasonally, sometimes permanently.
Unlike European and Asian immigrants who tended to clump in specific areas (Scandinavians in Minnesota and the Pacific Northwest, Jews in New York, Irish in Boston, Japanese in Hawaii and California etc, Mexicans have tended to go wherever there was farm labor, construction or service work, which essentially means all over the United States. This is why you find Spanish language newspaper dispensing boxes even in out of the way towns in Appalachia, the Deep South and Maine.
According to the Census people, us White folks will be a minority by 2042 as our population approaches 440 million souls.
Does this mean that our Aztec and Mayan fellow citizens will build pyramids in our major cities and start sacrificing Republican virgins? (Now THERE'S a thought, neighbors!)
Nope!
America will remain the same socially conservative, generally optimistic, go-getter nation it has always been. We will be more resistant to skin cancer due to increased melanin in our skin and we will be a bit stockier in build, averaging half an inch shorter than present. To the horror and dismay of liberals, Pentecostal Protestantism will be the dominant faith. English will remain the dominant language, but most people will also be fluent in Spanish.
So what does all this have to do with your second home in Mexico?
Well, neighbors, it is important that your future hosts know and understand you.
As the Mexican Diaspora spreads into every nook and cranny of the United States, Mexicans are learning a great deal about us. Not too many Americans know very much about the town of Uruapan in the state of Michoacan or Jerez in the state of Zacatacas but a surprising number of Mexicans know about Storm Lake, Iowa or Durham-Raleigh, North Carolina.
This means that soon virtually every Mexican will have a cousin in Toledo, Ohio, Bangor, Maine, Portland, Oregon and points in between.
Having relatives or experience in the United States helps the average Mexican at least partially understand the average gringo and what we are up to.
This will be beneficial to you as a sojourner in Mexico.
Now does this mean that you will be greeted as a long lost "pariente" when you show up in Mexico looking for a place to live?
No, they are unlikely to "Put another camaron on the barbe for you" as in the Australian tourism ads, but the Mexicans will be almost unfailingly kind and helpful should you indicate you have a problem. Other than that, they will generally leave you alone. (On the other hand, some Yank tourists "down under" who rather naively believed the "Crocodile Dundee" ads have been rudely surprised by an anti-American truculence that does not always differentiate between President Bush and the average American.)
Mexicans, in short, are rather used to us and understand our foibles; Uncle Sam being an unpredictable but not unkind relative.
(TO BE CONTINUED; IS MEXICO SAFE AND HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO LIVE THERE?)