Changing Ideas About Heritage and Heritage Resource Management in Historically Segregated Communities

Abstract

America's history of racial segregation has played a critical role in shaping both what is publicly acknowledged, remembered, and preserved with respect to heritage and what is forgotten, whispered about, or relegated to the status of other in many communities. In this paper, I discuss how the community of Sulphur Springs in Tampa, FL, in partnership with students and faculty from the University of South Florida, has begun to address issues of identity and representation in the marketing of heritage as a key cultural resource. Issues confronted by this community underscore the role that heritage research, preservation, and management plays in defining the present and creating the future. Lessons learned from a previously conducted study of the Kingsley Plantation community in Jacksonville, FL, inform this analysis.

An Archaeology of Struggle: Material Remnants of a Double Consciousness in the American South and Danish Caribbean Communities

“…The implications of this research reach far beyond the field of archaeology, into the disciplines of cultural anthropology, history, human ecology, economics, and political anthropological studies that continue to explore how differing levels of power, or the capacity to transform a given circumstance, impact social interactions among groups (Odewale, Foster, and Torres ) as well as how access to important natural and cultural resources are connected to expressions of heritage in the community (Hauser ; Holt ; Jackson ; Shackel ), material culture (Agbe‐Davies ; Galle ; Hauser ), and shared cultural landscapes (Dunnavant et al. ; Wood ).…”

The Possibilities and Obstacles to Creating an Inclusive Register of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina – An Anthropological Analysis

“…(čl. 194) Anksioznost dominantnog stava antropološke zajednice i onih autora koji pišu u okviru kritičkih studija nasleđa prema etničkoj atribuciji nasleđa može se sumirati na sledeći način: procesi selekcije i zaštite elemenata nasleđa i same treba posmatrati kao kulturne artefakte -oni nisu ni objektivni ni prirodni, već procesi kojima oni koji mapiraju, istražuju, prikupljaju, promovišu ili na drugi način učestvuju u menadžmentu kulturnog nasleđa to nasleđe ne samo da čine dostupnim, već ga oblikuju, obnavljaju pa i kreiraju; i onda kada je racionalizovana sekundarnim funkcijama (političkim, ekonomskim i drugim), zaštita nasleđa predstavlja homogenizujuću aktivnost, često latentnu i vidljivu samo specijalistima, i to i manjinskih i većinske populacije; u ovom procesu nameće se poželjno i isključuje nepoželjno nasleđe -i to ne suprotno međunarodnom pravu nego urpavo zahvaljujući njemu; to nametanje se najčešće sprovodi standardizacijom neke partikularne istorije/kulture kao opšte; standardizacija podrazumeva legitimaciju, a ona se po pravilu zasniva na mitologizaciji, koja istovremeno veliča tradicije dominantne kulture ili društvenog sloja, dok isključuje alternativne verzije istorije, posebno ukoliko su karakteristične za manjinske identitete; tokom tog procesa, manjine se zatvaraju u sebe i postaju "ostrva kulture", prividno homogeni entiteti koji nad svojim priadnicima počinju da čine nasilje identično onom koje nad njima samima vrši većinska kultura... U takvom ambijentu ne čudi da opšti stav antropološke zajednice, prema kojem zaštita nasleđa sadrži toliko ozbiljnu strukturnu inherentnu manu, da ju je nemoguće popraviti -tretira kulture kao celine, a identitet kao realni fenomen, zanemarujući sve što nas društveno-humansitičke nauke od svoje akademske institucionalizacije uče o kulturno-istorijskom konstruisanju identiteta kao hibrida koji se neprekidno rekreira i reinterpretira (Bortolotto 2010;Bendix et al 2013;Kurin 2007;de Cesari 2010;Jackson 2010;Oldham and Frank 2008;Brumman 2015;Brumman and Berliner 2016;Eriksen 2001;Nielsen 2011).…”

Wealth in people and the value of historic Oberlin Cemetery, Raleigh, North Carolina

“…Our community‐driven participatory work follows the interests and efforts of the local community. These interests include reflective studies on the nonprofit organization itself, preservation assessments of the cemetery and other historic resources, and broader research connecting Oberlin Cemetery to regional and national heritage trends and movements, especially relevant archaeological research and preservation efforts within and by African American communities (e.g., Agbe‐Davies ; Armstrong ; Burg ; Jackson ; LaRoche and Blakey ; McDavid ; Mullins ).…”