Cleverly-Named Introductory Post

"First post!" as they say over on Slashdot. Not quite as satisfying since I'm the only one who can post here, but oh well. That just means I can claim the right to a moderately rambling and self-indulgent introduction, doesn't it?

Who I am can be seen off to the right of this post, and this blog exists as a component of that public history program. Specifically, it's a component of History 513, also known as Digital History: Methodology for the Infinite Archive, taught by Professor Turkel here at the University of Western Ontario.

One of the fun things about being in a program as (relatively) obscure as public history is the raised eyebrows. If I had a nickel for every time in the last few months I've been asked "public history? What's that?" I would probably be gazing down upon you all in air-conditioned comfort from the privacy of my newly-purchased space hotel. It tends to result in interesting discussions, at least, and the topic is usually quickly understood, even if it's seen as a bit weird, not the standard "History of [Topic] in [Place] during [Time]" that most people associate with history classes.

When course schedules come up, and it's learned that I have something called Digital History on Wednesday afternoons, the same sort of question shows up, with a little less confusion, a little less "what's that?" and a little more incredulity, a little more "why's that?" Shouldn't history courses, after all, deal primarily with the hows and whens and whos and whats of the past - preferably involving, to complete the cliche, Dusty Old Tomes and entweeded professors with four hyphens in their surnames? Short of its use as an archiving tool, maybe, isn't most modern technology either irrelevant to the study of history or even an active hindrance to it?

I obviously don't think so, otherwise I wouldn't be here, doing this.

On the one hand, I'm well aware of the arguments and controversies and confusion and even contempt about the ubiquity of technology in modern life. I remember the large part of it firsthand, particularly the aspects to do with the Internet back in the early nineties. ("The Information Superhighway: Threat Or Menace?") On the other hand, I grew up sufficiently around and engaged with most of it that I take much of it completely for granted, wondering what the fuss over new technology is rather than wondering what the point of it is.

It's an interesting position to be in. Even though I can sympathise with some of the revulsion towards the more absurd or annoying[1] aspects of connected culture, and tend to take issue with a lot of the jargon and hype within it - I'm allergic to the prefixes "cyber" or (when followed by anything other than "-mail") "e" - I probably qualify as one of the digerati or whatever term is used to describe netizens this week. At least, I've been around net.culture long enough to remember "what's your major?" being a pickup line or understand why today's September 5122, 1993, so I know it's got its share of unique quirks and familiar mundanities. I think I've chosen my camp.

So here I am, in any case, one more drop in a delightfully growing noosphere. Obviously I'll be posting about digital history; it is, of course, required on the syllabus a terrific confluence of several of my main interests. This kind of topic, the wealth of resources and opportunities under its umbrella, brings together a lot of things: history proper, its research and presentation[2], ways of outreach that bring the materials to an audience outside the classroom or archives, and the various facets of digital and online cultures. It helps create the kind of environment in which someone can easily read Herodotus in the original, catch radio shows on obscure conspiracies, see the past without the monochrome, discuss counterfactual history (or more conventional fields) in a lively and active environment... the list goes on, and I am most happy that it does.

Much as I am aware and understanding of the anxiety and controversy over many aspects of the Net in this day and age, and much as I wonder about some of the people on it at times, I remain a pretty enthusiastic supporter of its adoption by historians (and people in just about any other field, from mathematics to metalworking). It's an area where a lot of the potentials are only starting to be tapped, and a lot of the concerns are, I believe, somewhat overblown, and it's something I intend to explore in considerable detail.

When I first became aware of this sort of field, back before I had a name for it, I almost immediately thought "I want in on this." As I start the transition from "just" studying history to "doing" it, that remains the case.

[1] - Don't lie: you've done this.

[2] - One of the more amazing examples of this I've encountered can be seen here. In this video, Professor Hans Rosling, a professor of international health at the Karolinka Institute in Sweden, makes a point of the usefulness of new technologies as teaching tools that is hard to ignore. Taking the fairly abstruse topic of developing-world demographics over the last several decades, he handily spins together a presentation which is both riveting and very easy to understand. Rosling's point - that a lot of relevant, important, practical information is lying fallow, and could be understood and applied very easily were it just for a different perspective - becomes clear as day starting at about five minutes in.