Federal funding is allowing Fort Union National Monument in New Mexico to update its museum exhibits, which have grown outdated down through the years.
This three-year project is being funded from the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, with a phase completed each year. FLREA funds come from the recreation fee revenues – entrance fees – and must be used directly for visitor enjoyment. The project is intended to address major deficiencies in outdated museum exhibits constructed in the early 1960s at the park's visitor center.
Fort Union National Monument commemorates the largest frontier military post in the Southwest and multi-cultural stories of Hispanics and Native Americans of the region. Although “state of the art” when built, displays are outdated in content, theme, perspective and relevance to our changing society, park officials said.
Rehabilitated exhibits are expected to provide visitors a better view of the changes brought about by the U.S.-Mexican War, Fort Union and the U.S. Military, the Civil War, the Santa Fe Trail, and the American Indian and Hispanic cultures of the region. New exhibits and interactive displays will focus on the multicultural aspects of the Civil War in the New Mexico Territory, Civil War battles, Indian Campaigns and Great Plains tribal communities, women’s history, and lasting impacts to the local economy and political scene.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I'm not quite sure how the "theme, perspective and relevance" of something from 150 years ago changes because of a different society today. Do we have to rewrite history to make it politically correct?
EC--
Or, an alternative perspective is that since the 1950s & 1960s, historians have figured out more about what was happening then and there, especially about the lives of the travellers on the Santa Fe Trail and the local natives, traders, and settlers. Society today seems to want to understand those stories, too. Is that rewriting history to make it politically correct, or just including _more_ history and more understanding, including the scholarship of the last 50 years? Al? Harry? What say you?
Beyond that, I recently saw the 1970s era displays at FWS Patuxent visitor center, so I have a sense for that era's state of the art displays, especially interactive displays. We're talking about flat metal cutouts of birds or hunters that either arc across the sky on a track, or swing on hinges from the painted reeds, when visitors push buttons or levers. See for example:
https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Patuxent/visit/exhibits.html which doesn't do it full justice (hint: that's a painting on the other side of the glass)
https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/national-wildlife-visitor-center-laurel?... (flat birds that swing out)
https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/national-wildlife-visitor-center-laurel?... (flat biologist who may or may not move)
Such displays really need to be updated to be relevant and interesting to visitors today. [I'm clearly a nerd: I thought the Patuxent dioramas were retro. Then again, I was there for a training workshop on wildlife statistics: ubernerd.]
From a much more practical standpoint, by law FLERA funds from entrance fees (in this case shared from entrance fees at other parks because FOUN has no entrance fee) can only be spent on discrete projects of direct benefit to visitors. They can't save up across years to pay for larger projects like re-sealing their parking lot. So, updating the museum exhibits in 3 annual chunks might be the best possible use of their share of those funds.
tomp2 - If indeed scholars have discovered more artifacts and more contemporary accounts of events, I have no problem incorporating them them into the interpretation. But, that would have nothing to do with our "changing society". I suspect, the changes aren't motivated by new information from the time
All history reflects the society in which it is written. Historians - real ones - learn that on almost Day One. That doesn't mean that facts don't matter but history books and exhibits are interpretations where actual human beings make conscious and unconscious choices about what to include.
I visited Fort Union last summer. Its exhibits are good but focused an awful lot on common Anglo soldiers. But hey that's what historians were writing about after World War II. Bell Wiley's The Life of Johhny Reb was the pattern for tons of "daily life of x" books. And those are sorts of secondary sources that the exhibit designers used as their framework 40 years ago.
You'd be excused for not realizing what Indian or Hispano people thought of the fort and Santa Fe Trail. Also, what about Army wives? Civilians? Children? Those primary sources were known then but not a lot of secondary sources had used them yet. It's almost like changes in society changed what sources historians.
But hey, proud know-nothingism is a lot easier for old, incurious guys. Get off your lawn!
Good point, and a reasonable reason for making changes. Unfortunately, that is not what the story indicates is the reason for the change instead it cites "our changing society".
Do I have to repeat myself? Changes in society were why those new histories were written!
What do you think that phrase means? Be explicit.
Changing Society?
You mean like the Texas textbook commission trying to remove any mention of slaves in history texts to be used in Texas? Referring to them instead as "immigrant farm workers."
"Political correctness" depends entirely upon one's point of view.
Young, I think it means exactly what you (and Lee in his post) indicate. "new histories" There are no noew facts since the 1960s, At least none identified in the stury, only new interpretations shaped by todays "changing society". It is the typical, in my opinion, improper judging of older cultures and long past people by today's standards.
That's a dodge.
So, you think you get the complete story of the fort and road to Santa Fe with the current exhibits? That they reflect some immutable truth handed down from on high? That some people today wouldn't want to hear about women and slaves and Indian people and the Civil War?
To use my earlier example, Wiley's Johnny Reb is great history even today. But it didn't say a lot about women. Is the life of Confederate women worth less study than Confederate men?
But I am being too fair, you just want to bellyache about "political correctness." Old right-wing snowflakes are just weak and scared of change.
No Young, I want the exhibits to reflect actual history. Actual events as they occured interpreted in the context of the day. I don't want some PC spin of today to change the meaning of what actually happened. If there is new information that changes our historical understanding, then fine, show it. But don't change history just because our society has "changed" in the last 50 years.
Why do you think exhibits from 40 years ago better represent "Actual events as they occured in the context of the day?" People had biases and blind spots in the past, too. The only way your criticism makes sense is if you're saying that exhibits (and history books) shouldn't exist at all.
Hell, Bob Utley is still alive and he was the Chief Historian when those exhibits were being designed. Want to ask him if he and his team missed anything? I'd wager good money he'd say "yes." He might disagree with a new interpretation or re-evaluation of sources but he's not going to dismiss it.
Not that you care or are able to make a distinction between "disagreement" and "dismissal."
I don't know that they do. However, I do no that the history should not be changed do reflect today's changing society.
No, that is what your are saying. What is the purpose of recording history if it is going to be changed every fifty years to suit the mood of a "changing society". Once gain, you have new facts, new contemporary information, use it but don't judge historical events in the context of "a changing society".
Hmmm, sounds like we're witnessing elements of Faux News the way some make words and history what they want them to be. Pretty disturbing, really.
It's not at all uncommon for historians to discover "new" history as they dig through old archives and find information that has never been published before. Just one example is the sudden surge in elderly veterans of WWII who are now telling their stories after years of remaining silent because memories were too painful. Or the recent case of a family from North Carolina who found a box full of letters from the Civil War and donated them to the state archives. Is that "rewriting" history?
Another factor to consider is the change in display technology and public changes in response to changing technology. Any veteran school teacher can tell that American's attention spans are shorter and people don't react to educational materials (or VC displays) in the same ways they did back when Ft. Union's displays were last upgraded.
Let's look at a few real facts and stop playing endless circular word games with people who apparently have nothing better to do with their time.
(Hey, Kurt, is there any chance of increasing font size in the comment box so old eyes with bifocals can see what we're typing?)
Lee, if you paid attention to my comments rather than trying to find ways to attack them, you would see that I have repeatedly said any new information should be incorporated. And, I have no objection to updating the technology. What I object to is changing the history or its interpretation merely to please a "changing society". I'm sorry if that distinction is over your head.
I think Battle of the Little Big Horn National Monument may be good example of changeing society...it used to be called Custer Battlefield, the only battlefield named after the loser. It did not incorporate all views, only one side. Now they have markers for many of the indians who perrished and the last time I was there, the story teller there told the Native American Perspective.