A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15861547-a-misplaced-massacre?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=bYyvSJUvpL&rank=1

This was another book I had to read for my graduate level course in Historiography at Adams State University. This book is actually very important for people to read right now. On a top level it deals with public history and the creation of a historical site. On a deeper read it deals with history as memory and how sites of all kinds serve to help us remember our past. With historic sites being destroyed by both our government and common people right now, we need to remember why they are there in the first place. Even if we do not agree with what they represent or if they are in the way of building a wall, they should not be destroyed. This book covers some of the tough questions and situations that are ran into when a site is trying to be formally recognized. 4 stars out of 5 or a B+. Below is a more detailed book review that I did for the class.

Finding ways to preserve a historical site can be a struggle, especially when not everyone agree on what actually happened. Ari Kelman tackles the events around the Sand Creek Massacre and the creation of the Sand Creek Memorial in his book A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek. In this work Kelman goes into the history and perspectives of the major players around the event. At the same time he also talks about the creation of the historical site and how history impacted its creation. Even though Kelman was involved with the creation of the site, he tries to step back and tell the story from a third party perspective. The book’s primary focus was on how the history of the site impacted its creation and could be seen as a case study for how events play into the preservation of history.

Ari Kelman had already been an award winning historian before this book, but this book helped him get at least five additional awards.[1] This meant that he already know what it would take to get his work recognized. He is also very active with public history both for the media and on the ground. Taking these into account it is interesting that he did not come at this book from the first person perspective. He had done many interviews on the subject and had even been present at the site’s dedication, yet he separated himself off from the subject matter. I personally feel that if he would have told this from a 1^st person account it would have given more life to the subject matter and would have shown how personal connections can be built with history so that historians are not just observers, but active participants in its preservation. This would have made a stronger case as well for the public history approach he was trying to take.

Public History is a methodological approach that is different than what most historians focus on. Public history focuses on meeting the needs of a people and presenting history in a public way. By showing the struggles in the site creation and its complicated history Kelman is not only address the topic at hand, but how complicated public history can be for those who work in the field. If he would have put more of this into a personal perspective he could have also used this as a helpful resource for people new to the field. In his introduction he talks about the story not being ‘his’ and that was the reason for his approach.[2] This could been seen as being not truthful since he was active in the site’s creation and could be considered an expert on the subject (if nothing else for the ‘over a hundred’ interviews he did). It can be understandable to be critical of those who claim a link to history they research, but Kelman was active in its creation of its memory. It could be argued that if he had not wanted to be a part of the sites history that he should not have taken part in things like the site’s meetings or opening or have even produced a book on the subject. By even writing on the subject, he gets linked to its memory. These concepts of memory can also be seen in Jay Winter’s “Sites of Memory”. Winter counted Kelman’s removal of himself from the story when he says, “the critical point about sites of memory is that they are there as points of reference not only for those who survived traumatic events, but also for those born long after them.”[3] This shows that these concepts are dynamic and that they are ever being added to.

            At the same time, Kelman did at least give himself credit for all the interviews he did as part of the research for the book. One of the major issues with this book is that he did not do a bibliography at all and the only way to analyze his sources is by digging through his notes section. This makes the book appear as less then professional. I have actually never before read a nonfiction book that did not have a bibliography and this makes the book stand out in a bad way. This also makes analyzing his sources harder. It seemed like most of his items were published in the 1990s or newer, with some older source material mixed in (like newspapers). There are a lot of notes, but without a bibliography it is hard to tell when he is just using the same material over and over again vs. actually having diversity in his source material.

The book over all seemed to have a positive reception by others who have reviewed it. Most of the reviews were done by those that dealt with public history. Kelman’s approach to the subject was not necessarily new, but his take as an active participate in the creation of history as memory got people’s attention. Chuck Vollan made an interesting point when he said that the focus of the book was how “individuals and societies negotiate, remember, and memorialize the past.”[4] This is a spot on review of what Kelman was presenting, because he not only provided facts around what happened but also included his interactions around the creation of the historic site. Laurie Arnold saw this book as teaching the ‘best practices for doing history’ by how Kelman approached the subject.[5] The reviews seemed to be mostly focused on Kelman’s approach and not really on the creditability or fact checking of the material he presented. This could speak to either how highly they viewed his expertise on the subject or just how innovative they found his methods. Either way, his fellow academics strongly supported his work. I do agree with William Van Arragon’s assessment that jumping back and forth between the present and past is unconventional and disjointing.[6] I believe it would have been more meaning full if Kelman would have done the first part of the book talking about the history of the massacre, then talked about the controversy, and finally finished up with the creation of the site. The way the book is currently written reads more like a personal journal that cannot keep its focus.

            A Misplaced Massacre will have a lasting significance to the study of history. This is because it is not just a straight history of a subject, but also covered how that history influences its historic site and modern conversations on the subject. This is also a good example of how history needs to be pulled apart and analyzed to make sure that its portrayal is as accurate as possible. This book also shows the complexities in public history and how history is a living breathing creature and not just locked in the past. It could change how people perceive history if they do more than just a top level reading of the book. Overall the book expands on complex historical topics to renew interest in the subject as the new memorial gains a foothold as a historical site. 

 

Bibliography 

Arnold, Laurie. “A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek.”  The Public Historian 37, no. 1 (2015): 123-124. 

Kelman, Ari. A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.

University of California Davis. “Ari Kelman.” Accessed June 15, 2020. https://history.ucdavis.edu/people/akelman/

Van Arragon, William. “A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek.”Canadian Journal of History, no. 1 (2014): 134-136.

Vollan, Chuck. “A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling Over the Memory of Sand Creek.”  The Western Historical Quarterly 45, no. 1 (2014): 72-73.

Winter, Jay. “Sites of Memory.” In Memory: Histories, Theories, Debates, edited by Susannah Radstone and Bill Schwarz, 312-324. New York: Fordham University Press, 2010.

---

[1] UC Davis, “Ari Kelman.”

[2] Kelman, A Misplaced Massacre, x.

[3] Winter, “Sites of Memory”, 313.

[4] Vollan, “A Misplaced Massacre,” 73.

[5] Arnold, “A Misplaced Massacre,” 124.

[6] Van Arragon, “A Misplaced Massacre,” 135.