The thing that I enjoy most about this class and American Studies in general, is the use of non-traditional sources. Being able to draw from the pop culture of whatever period we are studying, challenges us to look at history more fully. Doing this allows us (or maybe I can only speak for myself) to construct a very real bridge between a history of “fact” and a history of “feeling” (extrapolating from Rotella’s idea of cities of feeling and fact). I think a lot of people view history through the big wars, high profile names and public policy, but using nontraditional sources adds an important human lens to those bigger events.

For me this bridge is especially strong in our study of the Rodney King riots. Yes, there are the big facts. There were around 2,000 injuries, 52 deaths and over a billion dollars in property damage. However, Anna Deavere Smith’s expansive interviews in Twilight almost push those numbers to the background. Those personal narratives expand the understanding of what the King riots meant culturally and the greater divides and attitudes from which they emerged. Interviews from people that span LA’s social hierarchy openly present the conflicts, misunderstandings and tensions that led to different interpretations of the events. These interpretations are shaped by the individual actor’s role in a society that is rigidly divided by race and class. Deavere Smith’s interviews help to challenge the ideas that we get from the facts and see something much more complex. They work against the idea that all rioters are “bad guys” that disrupt social order and those in positions of power are always “good” because they did not directly contributed to the unrest. The riots were a symptom of an inequitable society and cannot be understood only through numbers. Sources like these evoke emotions that challenge us to go beyond facts and to (hopefully) analyze our own place in society.

It can also go the other way. Sometimes larger facts are obscured by our personal feelings. I think the idea of a felt history that overshadows fact can tie into Maia’s post on Disneyland. I am willing to bet that the Disney brand in all of its many forms has been a piece of most of our childhoods. It represents a certain set of American “values” and for many is a symbol of a middle class ideal. While Disney does bring about these distinct feelings, it has also had a very real, factual influence in shaping the lives (and the physical spacing) of Southern Californians. Avila’s non-traditional approach of linking highway development and land policy with Disney helps us to challenge what we have been thought to think about the brand and its representation as a middle class ideal.