In which I get worried over my faith in humanity

So the readings for this week's introductory digital history class are completed, and two thoughts came to mind. Well, more than only two thoughts, but you know what I mean. Today's post will deal with the first.

I felt surprise at certain opinions given in Nicholas Carr's Is Google Making us Stupid?. He (and his colleagues) claim that the internet, the new medium of choice for the late 20th century, had warped their minds to the point that they had lost the ability to concentrate on old-fashioned, hand-held, time-consuming books, or even long articles. Then could no longer focus their attention, and had no interest in doing so.

While the article is undoubtedly McLuhanesque in nature (his name is mentioned on the first page), with his famous "the medium is the message", one must remember that his statement was made more than 50 years ago. I took a Canadian media course in my last year of undergrad, and we discussed McLuhan and his overshadowed colleague, Harold Innis, whose theory can be related to "the medium biases the message". The effects of new technologies have been discussed for many years, such as in the new age of radio and television, as well as with the rise of daily newspapers. One need only to think about how a medium such as the nightly news or a newpaper biases the messages towards the sensationalistic, the quick, the snappy, the attention-grabbing, the famous newscaster line "and now... this" or the headlines in a newspaper (dead body found! taxes rising! Canadians getting fatter!). Our attention spans were being shortened for a much longer time than the 1980s/1990s/2000s. Were people worried about the effects? Of course. But were they having personal meltdowns and losing the ability to read an article from start to finish, to read a book, to concentrate longer than two minutes? I don't think so. So the question is, what makes the internet so different?

The fact that many of the people quoted in Carr's article are former "literary" types, as he calls them, makes me worry. It's one thing when someone who wasn't very inclined to read a book would rather skim an online article, but quite another when someone who loved to read has lost the ability. Is it really the ability, or just the interest? Part of me thinks this must be some sort of personal choice, even a laziness on their parts. Adapting to one medium is fine, but why does one need to lose other interests? This is a harsh opinion, and a personal one I admit, coming from someone who spends a lot of time online but can still spend hours reading a book. Maybe I'd just like to have faith that our brains can't really be permanently rewired thanks to the abundance of online sources and the prevalence of the internet in every facet of our daily lives. There's nothing wrong with adaptation, in fact its incredibly important (we're all here to hop on the digital history train, no?), but this loss makes me worry.

The internet isn't only here for skimming and skipping around - many valuable sources online are long in nature, and reading through it all at a fast pace is doing a disservice to those who spent so much time writing or digitizing those articles, and wasting a great opportunity to learn through a convenient medium. Take advantage!

Introduction

Aaah, the internet.  I had been without you at home for seven long days, and now that you're back I can rejoice.  I will be the first to admit that this past year, I used the internet for the most banal of activities (*ahem* celebrity gossip *ahem*).  Living without it, however, when moving to a new city, starting a new school and new programme was challenging at best. Arguments with one national telecommunications company, a switch to the Other national telecommunications company, two rescheduled appointments and one broken telephone jack did not make things any less irritating.  It all makes one wonder - the internet is so completely prevalent in our daily lives, so why is something as simple as setting up a connection sometimes so difficult?  But enough about my frustrations.  This blog is here to talk about everyone's favourite subject, public history.

Public history is still a bit of a mystery to me, one I am looking forward to unraveling as the year goes by.  As I understand it, it is history as it is related and communicated to the public.  Museums and historical sites are key, but for those whose interests in life may not include history (unbelievable as that is to me!) we must remember the incredible importance of popular culture: movies, novels, maybe even video games.  A young adult historical novel I read in middle school got me interested in Henry VIII and Tudor England, an interest that still exists ten years on.  I even had a Scottish friend explain to me this summer how the movie Braveheart rekindled national interest in William Wallace, surprising because the movie was made in Hollywood by an Australian/American.        

A big part of public history now is of course the internet.  Many believe the internet to be a necessary evil.  Evil, however, is too harsh of a word.  The internet has been a wonderful development for the study of history, not least in the field of public history.  The internet has the power to make accessible so much information, from archives, to historical documents, to interactive exhibits from world-famous museums.  Their are pitfalls of course, such as the loss of stringent academic rules, which has already been pointed out by a colleague on their blog.  Historians, however, are trained to be critical of all sources they use, whether they be primary or secondary.  Clearly with the rise of the digital age, this training will be even more important.  

The internet will never replace the feeling of holding an 800-year old manuscript in your hands, or standing in the middle of an ancient Greek temple, but it can help foster interest in new students, as well as be an invaluable resource for historians around the world.