Book review: Mickey Mouse History, and other Essays on American Memory Part III

In the third section of his book Mickey Mouse History, and Other Essays on American Memory, Mike Wallace focuses on the history of historic preservation in the United States, first by giving an overview on the subject from its beginning to the 1980s, and secondly by focusing on the most recent years (his first article was written in 1986, and then second probably around 1994-1995). It seems that Wallace’s goal is to give a general summary of the historic preservation movement in the United States, showing how it began, the different struggles it met along the way, as well as the involvement and withdrawal of the State. Wallace pertinently strikes out at the history of disregard in historic buildings and constant drive for profit in the country, and keeps it as a thread for both his article. Starting with the colonial period, he then goes on to what he calls the “preservation pioneers” and presents four groups that have been of importance between the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century (the Brahmins, descendants of the antebellum planter class, multimillionaire industrialists and professionals). If the concern to preserve built traces for the past started primarily as an individual one (and from social elites too), the State became involved from the 1930s on. One of the most important step was the 1935 Historic Sites Act, which “authorized the Department of the Interior, acting through the National Park Service, to acquire property, preserve and operate privately owned historic or archeological sites, construct museums, develop educational programs, and place commemorative tablets.” (p.184) For Wallace, the intrusion of public (federal) concern for historic preservation enabled the broadening of the meaning of “historic” from what had been previously defined by a limited group of people. Saving some historic buildings, which would not have been seen as worth saving earlier. Then followed a larger preservation movement in the 1960s with groups of people being opposed to urban renewal and the destruction of housing buildings and entire neighborhoods. The second half of the 1960s also brought an interesting new allied force to the movement: middle class professionals who were seeking profit by avoiding the destruction of existing structure. This is what Wallace refers to as “adaptive reuse”; the main idea was to recycle old buildings, keep their exterior (or at least the front façade) and find new and profitable uses for the interior. Wallace goes on to describe meticulously the ups and downs of the historic preservation movement, with new legislations, support from the upper-class looking for profit, etc. His first article ends with the backlash of the 1980s, with the oppositions of large firms to the control and restrictions deriving from preservation laws (designation as historic landmark without the owner’s consent), as well as the anti-preservation moves from Reagan’s government. Wallace’s second article on the subject focuses on the second half of the 1980s and then goes on to the 1990s. He mostly explains the intrusion of business in the preservation movement, and the consequences of the drive for profit being more important than they “why” of preserving historic places. He eventually concludes describing the three renewed claims of historic preservation (reaching out to a multi-cultural embrace of the past, being concerned with housing issues, and working together with the environmental movement). For Wallace, the preservation movement cannot survive and be a winner if they do not collaborate with other minority groups.

A problematic aspect of Mike Wallace’s work is that he cannot retrain himself from strongly commenting things, and has to use a socio-political prism for all of his analysis. If it is true that issues cannot be removed from their social or political context, it is sometimes too much to try to introduce “class-struggle” everywhere. Wallace calls for the American preservation movement to reach out to a larger base, to work with the labor class, and other minorities. For him, the fight to save historic buildings should be combined with demands for additional and cheaper housings. But Wallace does not stop there. He goes much beyond that point, using historic preservation as a political soap box, when he declares that “{…} if we enhance popular control over the production and distribution of goods, including housing, if we provide shelter for those who need it and make resources available to those who want to fix up their own neighborhoods, people would likely be more than willing to honor collective memories.” (p.210). Wallace calls for a new social system, which would enable collectivization of goods, sufficient housing, and… historic preservation. But is Wallace approaching the issue in a relevant and constructive way? What does it bring to introduce a “class-struggle approach” in this issue? Is Wallace hoping for a social revolution, which would gather all those oppressed and unheard groups and launch the end of his much-hated Republican party? Isn’t it, maybe, time to go beyond such an approach? To look at it a little differently so as not to be mocked by people who remember that communism might be rolling towards extinction ? Maybe the problem lies somewhere else in American society. How does our society combine the omnipotence of private property, individual freedom and capitalism, with a humble respect and homage to the past? How to combine a never-ending thirst for profit and the preservation of a historic heritage that might not be money-wise profitable but “only” culturally profitable? What are our priorities? Further, how can antagonist priorities cohabit? Are we going to keep annihilating our historic heritage in the name of profit, or are we going to try to learn from our European neighbors who have been able to preserve a lot of their historic heritage, which is so much older than ours? Much seems to have been lost already, but it is never too late to keep trying. Trying to work on people’s sensibility and respect towards history might be a little easier and more realistic nowadays than calling for a pseudo-communist regime to seize power.