Jerru Russell on Rethinking The National Parks

A couple of years ago, we were given a glimpse of the "brave new world" of the Park Service by Kate ("I Don't Want To Hear About Battles") Stevenson, Associate Director for Cultural Resources Stewardship, National Park Service, and Dr. Dwight ("The Entire Breadth of Human Experience") Pitcaithley, Chief Historian of the National Park Service.

It became clear to one and all that "battles" were no longer "in" as far as the interpretation of national Civil War battlefields were concerned, and "causes — specifically slavery" was in.

Further, the scope of battlefield interpretation was to encompass social, political, economic, and cultural history — as Dr. Pitcaithley put it, "the entire breadth of human experience."

Whenever a bureaucrat, especially a Member of Congress, is afflicted by a brainstorm, a committee of "true believers" is appointed to recommend that the bureaucrat's shining idea be implemented.

"Rethinking the National Parks For the 21st Century," prepared by just such a committee, appointed by Democrat Bruce Babbitt, then the Secretary of Interior, to focus on the purposes of the National Park System for the next 25 years, calls for a vast expansion in the interpretive mission of the National Parks, with emphasis on "minorities."

We do not need to "rethink" the National Park Service. In "Rethinking" it was stated that the National Park System is the most admired institution, public or private in the nation, receiving a 95 percent approval rating.

Not even God would get a rating that high... This would indicate that the national parks system does not need "rethinking," nor has the American public called for a "new direction" for the National Park Service.

But Kate and Dwight think that we do need that "new direction," and this new report has their fingerprints all over it. If the recommendations of this NPS "Rethinking" Commission are implemented, the role of the Park Service will go 'way beyond its traditional mission: the preservation of the site and the interpretation of the significance of the site — especially the interpretation.

The National Park Service is to become the nation's principal educator — reaching out beyond the park boundaries into the national community, teaching history, biology, and the conservation of energy and the environment.

Further, there will be a significantly increased emphasis on ethnic diversity and the heavy interpolation of non-European/white cultures. Where and how will this be done?

That question was not answered in the "Rethinking" report.

Will new sites be required? Will much of this be done at current sites?

There are indications that much of the new interpretation will be presented at the traditional sites, which includes, of course, Civil War/Mexican-American War/ Revolutionary War/Indian Wars sites.

And that, Dear Reader, can only mean less time for the traditional interpretation of the site, or the events or persons associated with the site.

When something is added, something else must be subtracted. Despite what Dr. Pitcaithley has said, and written, interpretation is not a "zero-sum" exercise. Education has always been an important component of the National Park Service mission, and we would not change that.


But, if anything is as sure as death and taxes, it is that the National Park Service will be under-funded. For as long as I have had any contact with the National Park Service — over 35 years — the lack of adequate funding has been a major problem.

"Rethinking" refers to this problem in the conclusion of the report. While visitation at the parks has increased dramatically in the last decade, budgets have not been kept up — much less increased, staff is inadequate to service the growing
number of visitors, historic structures are deteriorating, and the infrastructure of almost every national park is in dire need of major improvements.

The Park Service has been forced to go with hat in hand to the American people, begging for additional money, asking Americans to "adopt" monuments and provide the funds for their restoration and maintenance.

Will our Congress suddenly change its penurious ways and not only provide funds for present needs, but provide additional "billions" for the new programs and sites?

What if Congress fails to provide the needed funds? Will the present sites and programs* be robbed to pay for new sites and programs"?

It is the scope and direction of interpretation at our national parks that bothers me the most. The report decried the "lack of attendance" at the National Parks by "minority" groups, and called for NPS to develop "new parks and programs" that are "minority friendly." It then declared: "As the demographics of America have changed, so too must the Park Service educational efforts. Programs, exhibits, and audiovisual presentations must be developed for different ages, and in multiple languages.

"Further," the report declared, "new methods are needed to reach audience from disparate cultures. In an age of groaning cultural diversity, the Service must continually ask whether the way in which it tells these stories has meaning for all our citizens."

Finally, "The Park Service must place high priority on sites, themes, and stories not well represented, including key aspects of diversity … African-American and Hispanic-American history, the histories of other minority groups, social movements, the arts, and literature."

And yet...the Congress of the United States has decreed that the National Park Service foster a "cumulative experience of a ‘single national heritage,’" and then not given them enough money to do that. How can NPS possibly do more?

In the past, the major criterion for the establishment of a "national" park has been the "national" significance of the site.
Will this continue to be the criteria in this age of "cultural diversity"?

I'm afraid this standard will be compromised.

Will "key aspects of diversity" be incorporated into the interpretation of the Battle of Gettysburg? Or the Little Big Horn? Or Pearl Harbor? Or how about the Martin Luther King, Jr., site?

The new premise is based on the belief, in some circles, that we are no longer a unified nation...that we are a nation of disparate peoples. That we are not Americans — we are a fragmented society of hyphenated creatures: Hispanic-Americans, Afro-Americans, Native-Americans, Chinese-Americans. (But, of course, NOT Confederate-Americans...)

There is no longer such a thing, these circles believe, as common experience, or common language, or common culture.

The opportunity for a common educational experience is rejected in favor of a multiple-cultural and bilingual education.

The Melting Pot model is rejected as unsuitable, and, besides, to try to assimilate ethnicity into the mainstream American society is somehow wrong, if not a rank injustice to these "peoples."

Such assimilation into the mainstream American culture is nothing less than cultural genocide for these "peoples."

Instead of assimilation, their "native" cultures should be nurtured, not replaced by a white Anglo-Saxon European culture.

Isn't ethnic nurturing not what made American great?

The separation of Irish culture, and French culture, and Indian culture, and Jewish culture, and Nordic culture, and Chinese culture, and German culture, and Eastern European culture, and English/Scottish/Welsh culture is what made us the strong and stable nation we are today, right?

Or...was it the amalgamation of all those cultures, plus others, into the mainstream American culture that has contributed to America's strength and success?

The problem of the Park Service's educational message is not a failure to reach culturally diverse groups, it is a failure of American education to foster a common national experience and heritage. And for the Park Service to "rethink" their approach would just be adding to the educational failure.

This is the challenge facing the National Park Service in the 21st century.

Save for America's public schools, no American institution has a better opportunity to provide this common experience and unified national heritage than the National Park Service.

The drift and creep toward cultural diversity and the balkanization of American society is the critical issue facing our country as the century has begun, and to face the challenges of the times, and the onslaught of democracy's enemies, we must have a common experience, a common language, a common bond that makes us unhyphenated Americans, one people.

Yes, we are different, but we must continue to share a common experience as a people in order to maintain the traditions of freedom and liberty that has sustained this nation for 225 years.

We must continue in the direction that Congress has charted for the National Park Service: to strive for a "cumulative expression of a single national heritage."

That should, must be the guide followed in developing interpretative programs at all national parks.

The American education community, and the National Park Service, must work hand in hand to provide the common experiences and ideals that make Americans one people. Instead of separate experiences in the parks, and making the parks more "meaningful" to minorities, the Park Service should make "America" more meaningful to minorities. The Park Service must make "America" more meaningful to all Americans.

We must all be "Americans," not "ethno-Americans."

Independence Hall, Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, The Constitution, Hyde Park, The Arizona Memorial, Jamestown, and Andersonville are all a part of this nation's heritage, and must be a part of the common experience that makes us one people and one nation.

These cannot be shared experiences unless the focus is the same for all — in the case of the Park Service, a focus on the site, the event, and the people involved.

This nation's future and survival rests upon all Americans having a shared experience, a shared understanding of American history, a shared language, and a shared culture — a culture that unites us, not one which divides us.

A culture, based on history, which makes us one nation, not several.

What is being called for in the "Rethinking" report has already been tried by the Park Service at Grant's Tomb in New York City, using the same politically-correct rationale. The Park Service tried to make Grant's Tomb "ethnic friendly" and "relevant" to the Hispanic/Black neighborhood in which is located. "Ethnic art" was allowed to deface and desecrate the burial place of a former President and one of America's great military figures, to make the site "acceptable" to the ethnic groups in the area.

As a result, the condition of the Tomb deteriorated rapidly until an outraged community demanded — through the Congress — that the Park Service remove the offensive intrusions and restore the Tomb to its original grandeur. All uses that are not respectful of the final resting place of President Grant, and his wife Julia, have been stopped.

"Rethinking" appears to say that the mainstream American experience has no meaning for many Americans; that the Pilgrims, the American Revolution, Yorktown and Washington, Longfellow and Andy Jackson, Gettysburg and Ford's Theatre have no meaning for some hyphen-Americans, that even Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is not relevant to some unless the story is told differently.

Yes, we all bring different backgrounds and experiences to the national parks, but the "national" significance of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, or the Battle of Gettysburg, is the same for all Americans; it must be part of our common shared experience as unhyphenated Americans — pure Americans regardless of ethnic ancestors.

On a recent C-SPAN program, the author Walter Berne was asked, "How is it possible to have respect for law, ethics, and morals if we do not have a common culture?" We can as plain Americans, sharing in a common experience and culture, which is the basis for the most significant of all American ideals. Out of this sharing came a great nation, with new arrivals from every part of the world adding new texture and color to American civilization, but...those same new arrivals also became Americans and joined in the common "American" culture.

The leaders of this nation have believed since its beginnings that it is imperative for all to share this common experience, have one language, one history, one culture, and one people.

The 1977 Management Plan for Richmond Battlefield Park proposed making the park ethnic-friendly to the Blacks of East Richmond by turning Malvern Hill Battlefield — commemorative site for one of several significant battles in the Richmond area — into a playground for that part of the city...ballfields, playgrounds, tennis courts, and recreational facilities, to be constructed on the hallowed ground where thousands of Americans fell, fighting for their beliefs.

Fortunately, this plan was never implemented. But now the Park Service is back on the ethnic-friendly track, at the expense of the hallowed heritage of these battlefields.

We must all remember that all battlefields are cemeteries. Fallen soldiers throughout history have been buried on the site where they fell...sometimes efforts were made after the battle to remove the bodies to other sites, but these were almost never totally successful. So, all Civil War battlefields are cemeteries, and should be given the same reverence and respect that is given to cemeteries.

What does the latest Park Service effort at "cultural cleansing" mean to our beloved Civil War battlefields?

Kate Stephenson gave us a glimpse: "I do not want to hear about battles when I go to a Civil War park. I am not really interested in battles." (Teleconference to National Park Service employees April 8, 1999.)

In the proposed new approach to battlefield interpretation, military history, and the soldiers themselves, will receive much less time and space. There will be less on the battle and more on social-cultural history and issues.

The scope of interpretation will be broadened to include many non-battle and even non-Civil War topics. The role of so-called minorities will be given a disproportionate amount of time and space.

Any connection (no matter how small or inconsequential) a minority group had with a site will be given special attention. The Park Service will nurture cultural "differences" as a desirable objective.

And the more time spent on these broadened topics, the less time will be spent on the battle and its participants — which Congress originally designated as the reason for existence of these national battlefields in the first place.

Please contact your U.S. Senators (c/o U.S. Senate, Washington DC 20510) and your Member of Congress (c/o House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515) and urge them to admonish the National Park Service to rethink "Rethinking The National Parks." Ask them to convey to the Park Service your thoughts regarding the proper interpretive approach at Civil War battlefields, and your belief in a culture for all Americans and not just a few here and a few there.

Ask them to contact the Park Service and find out what is going to be done to maintain the traditional approach to interpreting Civil War battlefields, focusing on the battle and the men who fought in it, as Congress originally intended and decreed.

You owe it to those men who fought and died to help make this country what it is today.

Jerry L. Russell is Chairman of Civil War Round Table Associates and Director of HERITAGEPAC. This column was prepared with the significant assistance of Dr. Robert Meinhard, who has served as Battlefield Preservation Chairman for Civil War Round Table Associates since 1975.