Citation
Whose Past? Whose Present? Tourism & Local History, Peter MacFie. Tasmanian Historical Research Association, v 39, No. 1 March, pp 54-60, 1992.
Outline
A discussion of the ‘ownership’ of local history – both artifacts and the stories. As ‘history tourism’ develops, the ownership of this history by local residents has a tendency to be lost.
Link to THRA
Download pdf
Whose Past? Whose Present ? (2018-06-04).pdf
Excerpt
In 1988 while working as historian for Port Arthur, I was fortunate to meet a group of twenty or so local people from the Tasman Peninsula who believed the Peninsula wasn’t just Port Arthur – and that its post-convict history was as interesting as the earlier period. With the strong support of the local community (and council) our magazine, The Tasman Peninsula Chronicle grew from a first issue of 200 to 600 for the fifth and sixth issues. The first two issues were reprinted. The group’s self-confidence and pride in the district strengthened and it now plans to open a history room at Nubeena. The magazine is keenly read and goes as far away as Queensland.
While the community put its history into words for the first time, at Port Arthur Historic Site, under the new Management Authority, the presentation of history for visitors and the promotion and handling of 170,000 people a year grew by trial and error into an art form.
For the first time Port Arthur became marketed and promoted in a direct way, and a toll-gate was put in place to pay for the forty or so staff. Promotion of the site’s history was taken out of the hands of locals and heritage professionals of the previous Conservation Project and put in the hands of advertisers, as the site became more important than ever as a marketable commodity. The training of the guides for whom I was responsible, and the knowledge they accumulated, was also seen as a commodity. To attract visitors, new discoveries in historical research were eagerly grabbed by journalists, anxious for ‘new copy’, and promoted both nationally and overseas.
The contrast between the love and enthusiasm of the local history group, where locals talked and reminisced, and the pressures of a high profile historic site raises questions about our positions and responsibilities as keepers of the past and the threat to history from so-called ‘heritage’.
Neil Cossons, Director of the London Science Museum, asks ‘can truth survive the pressures of a disposable income and the power of the tourist industry? Both generate wealth but they challenge those who aspire to purvey the truth’[1]. What will our approach be? Speaking on the economics of truth, Cossons observes:
Our job as interpreters (historians and preservers) stems primarily from a range of qualitative values … and manifest themselves from the consumers’ point of view in terms of truths … Some will say that truth will wither away when the user pays; a cheap thrill will be more tempting than authoritative interpretation based on sound scholarship.[2]
As others have noted, there is a desperate need for passion in the interpretation of our history. ‘Our history’, Uzzell feels, ‘is in danger from within – from the history industry itself, due to the abandonment or compromising on the values of stewardship, scholarship and the sense of identity wherein lies the true worth of heritage’.[3]
Images of Tasmanian history are being created by advertising agencies and sold by state government promotion campaigns without any contribution from historians or local history societies. Yet the image being conveyed ‘sells’ an impression of the past which will have an impact on local communities, particularly in the expectations of tourists. A current report prepared for Tourism Tasmania highlighting the financial value of cultural tourism indicates that the promotion of the island as a cultural tourist destination is underway.
Cultural tourism can also contribute to the cultural vitality of local communities, by identifying, documenting, upgrading and promoting local cultural resources for their own enjoyment. In fact, it will be essential to involve them in the process of product development. Much of the cultural heritage of a region resides in the memories of its older residents or families and it is this input which makes it come alive.
Festivals or fairs related to the specific economic or cultural activities of a region are an excellent way of promoting both local and visitor enjoyment of a community’s cultural resources.
Those experiences which are offered under the cultural tourism banner need to be selected on the basis that they are unique, have drawing power, can be managed in a way which is sustainable and can be provided with a high standard of interpretation.[4]
History, it seems, ‘is gradually being bent into something called heritage’, where an image of the past becomes the reality, and the past becomes fixed and separate from us. One author argues that ‘our cultural knowledge of the past and understanding of history is weakened at all levels from the universities to the primary schools ‘. No historical training is at present provided for people working in the heritage field, including park rangers and guides at historic sites or travel agents – though moves to establish a course in Public History are currently being pursued. While primary, secondary and tertiary curricula have, in the main, been neglecting Tasmanian history, membership of genealogical societies and local history groups has grown rapidly.
Once history has received the ‘high gloss of presentation’ from the new breed of ‘heritage managers’ who succeed in presenting a curiously unified image there is no ‘change, conflict and clashes of interest are neutralised’ and there are no winners and losers.[5]
The attraction of tourism for groups involved in local history and museums is the possibility of receiving some funding for a history room and the advantage of keeping visitors overnight in local accommodation, a point considered very favourably by local councils and businesses. But how are we to guarantee we don’t lose our integrity and enthusiasm if our local history is to become a pawn in the tourism game?
End of Excerpt
To read more, download as required from above.
Footnotes from excerpt
[1] N. Cossons, ‘Plural funding and heritage: the visitor experience’, in D. Uzell (ed), Heritage interpretation, London, Bethel Press, 1989, vol. 2, pp. 16-17.
[2] ibid., p. 17.
[3] D. UzeH, ‘Introduction: The natural and built environment’, in ibid., vol. 1, p. 3.
[4] The implications for the emerging market for Tasmanian tourism, Hobart, Tourism Tasmania, 1990, pp. 36-7.
[5] R. Hewison, ‘Heritage: an interpretation’, in UzeH, vol. 1, pp. 21-2.
End of footnotes from excerpt.
Index
Australian Archaeologists Association
Australian Museums Association
Ballarat
Beechworth
Bothwell
Bruny Island
Burnie
Campbell Town
Channel
Circular Head
Colonial Accommodation Group
convict cringe
convict stain
Cossons, Neil
cultural tourism
Derby
Eaglehawk Neck
Evandale
folk museums
Furneaux
Hamilton
heritage tourism
historic walks
historical societies
history rooms
history theft
Institute of Architects
Institute of Landscape Architects
Institution of Engineers
Kelly, Ned
Koonya Church Committee
Launceston
local history societies
Longford
murals
Museums Association of Australia
National Estate grants
National Trust
Nubeena
oral history
Pacific Travel Writers Association
Port Arthur
Professional Historians Association
Queen Victoria Museum and Art
Richmond
Ross
Sovereign Hill
St Helens
Swansea
Tasman Peninsula
Tasmanian Historical Research Association
The Tasman Peninsula Chronicle
The Tasman Peninsula Historical Society
THRA
Tourism Tasmania
travel writers
Uzzell, David
West Tamar
Copyright Peter MacFie 2018