The Destructive Forces of Urban Renewal

St. Louis is a city that is proud of its history. By 1904, we were the fourth largest city in the United States, host to the World’s Fair (or Louisiana Purchase Expedition) and location of the first Olympics held in America. In the first century and a half of the city’s existence, settlers passed through the Gateway to the West by steamboat or wagon. Some came to stay, making their livelihood working on the levee or on the deck of a steamboat in the City’s thriving river trade, in the clay pits or as bricklayers, or perhaps even in breweries that would go on to be household names like Anheuser-Busch. Prosperity seemed to be on the horizon. The 1947 City Plan even predicted that 900,000 people would live in the City (vs. the County) by 1970.

This forecast turned out to be overly optimistic. Black migration from the South added to the city’s population slowly, but it could not compete with the flood of white people escaping to the County. They were moving alongside stores and jobs, taking newly completed highways. They were fleeing deteriorating houses and neighborhoods that had once been home to the notable names of St. Louis and their fellow members of the upper- and middle-classes.

 In short, they were going where African Americans couldn’t follow them. Racially restricted housing restrictions locked most non-whites out of the County and into the most derelict areas of the City. Massive urban renewal campaigns that spanned decades and declared areas blighted left and right wholesale ignored the poorest and most rundown areas in favor of downtown and the old industrial hubs.

This deplorable pattern leaves me wondering, which histories do we consider most important? Why are some considered the central narrative and others are pushed to the side, almost like a local history elective?

The answer is clear in regards to the present day people of St. Louis. The actions of the St. Louis City renewal authorities blatantly show that they valued the lives of the white people they had lost to the County more than the black people living within their borders. Every move they made was a calculated attempt to entice white people to move back or at least shop, dine, and be entertained downtown.

Just as these officials showed little to no respect for black lives, they showed no respect for black history. A prime example is Mill Creek Valley, a historically black neighborhood that had thrived in the early 20th century and had been called the heart of black St. Louis. It, like much of St. Louis’s black population, was struggling in the 1950s. Instead of using federal money and urban renewal energy to try to make a change and resurrect the neighborhood, it was completely leveled starting in 1959, scattering the residents into other blighted neighborhoods in North St. Louis or into pockets of the County that did not block them out.

Nestled between 20th Street and Grand, running from Olive Street to the train tracks, Mill Creek Valley was the very soul of African American St. Louis. Ragtime had thundered out of its clubs and caught fire as a nationally recognized genre of music. Josephine Baker was born here – she had once performed for pennies outside of the Booker T. Washington Theatre, one of the first theaters created by black people for black people in the United States. The local bank was black-owned. Black doctors set up shop in the neighborhood and black lawyers opened offices.

Over several years spanning the 1950s and 60s, Mill Creek Valley was wiped off the map. The land where it stood was unrecognizable. To add insult to injury, redevelopment in the area stalled and the land lay vacant. Locals began to call it “Hiroshima Flats,” comparing it to an atomic wasteland. Only a few pieces of the neighborhood survived the bulldozers – a few churches and a few schools. St. Louis destroyed a cultural enclave and in the process destroyed a crucial part of its history as a city. Mill Creek Valley isn’t remembered alongside the World’s Fair and the golden era at the height of the steamboat trade and in my opinion, that is a real shame. The memory of Mill Creek Valley lingers, waiting to be resurrected, waiting to claim its place as an important part of St. Louis history.

The Exciting Possibilities of Digital Public History

How do we make history relevant, interesting, and engaging?

How do we get important, exciting, or even fun and wacky stories out to the widest possible audience?

How do we bridge the gap between academic research and the general public?

These questions have driven the work of public historians (a relatively new breed of historian) since the 1970s. The advent of the digital world has given the public historian a whole new toolbox to work with and created a new sub-field – digital public history. So, what is digital public history? And what new avenues has it opened for the profession and, of particular interest to me, the history museum?

Today, we’re going to dive into a few sources that explore these questions. The first is a post on Digital History from The Inclusive Historian’s Handbook (https://inclusivehistorian.com/digital-history/). Author Shelia A. Brennan cites the opportunity to share the voices of minorities, the oppressed, and the underrepresented as the most thrilling possibility of digital public history. Digital platforms allow historians to reach a wider audience and, more importantly, allow those people or their descendants to participate in the telling of their own story.

Digital public history is particularly exciting because it is comprised of seemingly limitless possibilities. Brennan provides us with a series of examples from collaborative databases of digitized collections from over 40 institutions in the Caribbean to open, online access to primary sources relating to key moments in United States history for American schoolchildren, community-based efforts that seek to salvage and preserve forgotten history (my favorite example is close to home, The St. Louis LGBT History Project [http://www.stlouislgbthistory.com/]) and interactive games.

(Funnily enough, I have some experience with making a digital Make-Your-Own-Adventure-style game as part of an undergraduate class. My intention was to make a game that would bring the challenges of living as a woman in 14th century London come to life. Each choice may lead you to business success or a happy marriage but it could also lead you to starvation, desperation, ruin, or death. Digital games certainly have the ability to make history feel much more real than when you read about it in a textbook.)

Brennan praises digital platforms because they allow the public historian to think outside the box. Instead of taking a chronological approach, he or she can organize a story thematically. Text can link to other text to provide more information or define unfamiliar concepts. Michael Frisch, in “From A Shared Authority to the Digital Kitchen and Back,” presents further possibilities (particularly in the realm of oral histories) including mapping, transcribing, indexing, and most interestingly, involving the public in the creation process.

These ideas are not entirely unfamiliar to museums. Some museums have created entirely digital exhibits, others supplement existing exhibits with online materials, and finally others create digital content completely separate from any exhibits up within the museum’s four walls. For example, the Missouri Historical Society regularly updates their blog, which posts stories that are pulled from all over St. Louis history (https://mohistory.org/blog/). Also, the idea of shared authority is on the rise. Digital platforms certainly could allow museums to engage their audience in the exhibit creation process.

This all sounds great, but two major question sticks in my head. How do museum professionals gain the skills necessary to complete these projects? and How do fiscally restricted museums incorporate these projects at the lowest possible cost?

Andrew Hurley’s Chasing the Frontiers of Digital History presents a case study outside of the museum realm about how community organizations can utilize Google Earth software to challenge their neighbors to think about where their neighborhood has been and where it is going. He also provides an important reminder – digital is not the end all, be all. You may cast a wider net through the internet, but you are sure to lose others. In this increasingly digital age, this may become less and less of an issue, but still no museum professional or public historian should make unfounded assumptions about this subject.

Truly, the possibilities do seem limitless. The questions I posed truly are timeless and I hope that in the coming years, more studies come out on the effectiveness of digital techniques.

On Attempting to Define “Digital Humanities”

Most museum professionals will tell you that digital is the future. The writing on the wall seems to be “do or die”: adapt and draw in new audiences or be seen as irrelevant and out of touch. If matters are truly as crucial as they appear to be, it seems natural that we attempt to establish as basic definition of the matter at hand:

What are digital humanities? What does a digital humanist do?

For this post, I rely on the expertise of two sources. The first is the introduction and glossary of “The Digital Age Humanities: A Primer for Students and Scholars” by Eileen Gardiner and Ronald G. Musto. The second is Chapter 24 of Debates in the Digital Humanities, entitled “The Digital Humanities or a Digital Humanism” by Dave Parry (found at https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled-88c11800-9446-469b-a3be-3fdb36bfbd1e/section/c3127960-92ee-4b32-8b69-38f87aa2d9c5).

Both discuss the digital humanities from the angle of academia, but nonetheless the wisdom from both can easily apply to more public-facing projects inside and outside of the academe, including museum and other institutions centered on the humanities.

Computers have revolutionized the world, so it’s no surprise to discover that they have also revolutionized the various disciplines of the humanities and fundamentally altered the ways in which we as humanists research. Databases chock full of scholarly sources make it easier to dig for that perfect article that fits our specific need. Many museum collections are now scanned and available online. At the click of a button, you can zoom in close to analyze the details of a Monet or compare a 19th century bonnet housed in New York to another in Paris. Newspaper archives are coming off microfilm and online.  And these are but a few of the examples of how digital projects have transformed humanist study.

Our first source (Gardiner and Musto) comes attached with a handy glossary that breaks digital tools, like some of the ones mentioned above, into four neat categories. They are: text-based, data-based, image- and sound-based, and outcome-based.

Text-based tools, as the name implies, scan and sift through text, perhaps to detect and analyze patterns or highlight key words and phrases.

Data-based tools deal with databases and data collection, analysis, and visualization.

Image- and sound-based tools, essentially self-explanatory, include image and audio creation, modeling, and processing tools.

Finally, there are outcome-based tools. This category is a bit more nebulous and acts as sort of a catch all. They include blogging (the platform I’m currently using) as well as tools that aid in collaboration, brainstorming, and publication, among other things. A lot of digital museum work falls under this category and use these types of tools because they help connect scholarship to the public.

With a basic framework of the tools used in the digital humanities established, we turn to our second source (Parry). This source deals with the semantics of the digital humanities and questions how they have impacted the realm of the humanities and pushes for more to be done.

Parry, (in my opinion) correctly contends that “digital” and “humanities” no longer exist as separate components. Not only has the digital world entirely changed our way of looking at the humanities, it also has permeated every aspect of the scholastic world.

Parry already sees academics falling back inside the box – using technology to speed up their research but staying firmly locked inside the ivory tower, keeping their knowledge locked up with them. Parry urges them to look outward, to utilize the digital world and its tools to engage with the public.

Museums are the perfect forum for this work and collaborations between digital humanities departments in universities and museums could prove extremely fruitful. Museums have already begun to make strides through the previously mentioned online collections databases, blogs, podcasts, online exhibitions, and more.

An increasingly digital world means have to think more and more outside the four walls of their building in order to stay relevant. Rising to the challenge is a matter of survival.

Introducing Me

My name is Lindsay Davis and I’ve known I want to work at a museum “when I grow up” since the 8th grade. Now, as a first year student in the Museum Studies student at the University of Missouri – St. Louis, I am well on my way to turning that dream into reality.

To me, museums present wonderful opportunities to make people fall in love with history by employing a variety of engaging methods, including elements that allow the audience to interact and even participate in the collective story of our past. The high school history textbook that represents the extent of the general public’s knowledge (and usually hatred of) history simply cannot achieve this.

This blog is a space first and foremost for me to learn and to dabble in the subjects that fascinate me and the stories that excite me. If you choose to follow along, I hope you learn something too.

Welcome to Museum Musings. (Yes, I thought I was very clever coming up with that name.)

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started