In coming to review the substantial landmarks in the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky area the formative offer was extended from a correspondence pertaining mainly to certain descriptions involving Josiah Warren’s Cincinnati “Time Store” that opened in 1827 and for a short time operated as a legitimate alternative to currency exchange where equitable goods were available for trade from certificates of labor at little more than market share from what they were purchased.1 Other accounts in which various surrounding historical places and markers were respectively interrelated and posted on the Internet were presumably considered for ongoing contribution to StreetVibes toward the form of a serial article of a similar pursuit in relating further information about the regions extensive historical sights that could be uncovered and alternately shared.2 This proffer was rather open ended, although there was a mention toward revealing ‘little known’ facts behind these wider landmarks with the particular manner that had been described in the other posts. In responsive consideration there was a loose counter-proposal that the articles be connectively corresponding, whereas those covered could be prominent with some less conspicuous features reconsidered. There was then a progression at this early configuration toward featuring a larger or well-known landmark with the ensuing article focused around a relatively smaller marker or memorial though of less renowned features still conveying equal significance.
This formative outline evolved into the reflection of the most prominent landmark of the area and tri state region that is undoubtedly the Ohio River. In formulating on how to expressly connect the central river John A. Roebling’s lasting bridge presented an expansive junction from which to deliberately start. As the celebrated span is at many levels an aspired collective feat overcoming an immense divide, the sublime conveyance nevertheless continues to retain some visible faults due mostly from the Ohio assemblies contractual provisions and admitted reservations echoed from the past to the present citizens of the area as to its ongoing stability despite its proven endurance. These continuing contradictory conditions of which Roebling grappled with still have sound relevance and called for the construction to be a leading conduit.
The larger aim began to further coalesce of successively conducting the profound formation of the Ohio Valley that is from the conjunctive mean merging of the offshoot river to the indigenous people intermingled around its banks and extensive tributaries borne of indelible generations whose lasting impressions form a vital basis to understanding the latter profuse immigration that so impacted this “middle ground” with its central fluvial vein of what is now termed the Ohio River.3 Thus the river is given as a seemingly unending source interfluent as a linked undercurrent of which to extensively relate the subsequent landmarks that arose around the region. Yet as that flowing starting point is of many ways indefinite -even as it purportedly seminally imparted divides at the retroactive midpoint of Cincinnati and Newport- and at all times circulate rather than strictly linear, it was decided to begin at a later crossing point and reflect upon Roebling’s industrial measure that attempted to overarch the river’s tangible divide.
The admitted reach of this series is more than likely beyond what was initially editorially expected and indeed has already been haltingly re-coursed by the third composition that was deemed too disordered for the intended publication. These creative blockages are aptly encountered as they reflect upon an individual approach that favors intuitive methods as much as informed measures that persisting of a challenging intermixture intends to challenge set organizations otherwise easily read. Certainly there is a balance struck between such cooperative outlooks and this disparate resistance resonantly sounds upon the ongoing humanistic interactions with landmarks that as far as they have existential meaning require personal attenuation to actively respond to their continued significance into our shared present. This accorded difference also reflects upon the inherent landmarks of the native people in what is now ascribed as the Ohio Valley who of the past contact from Indo-European immigrants were met with mutual interests, however were conversely irrespectively mistreated and irreconcilably excluded if not willfully eliminated. It is when over restrictions or impingements inflexibly impose these common boundaries that there is an inherent danger of separate disconnect or admission of static compliance that renders these shared articles concretely obsolete. The personal experience encountered around the landmarks is another primary inclusion throughout and toward encouraging vital impressions of those reconsidered, especially of the first leg, are those conveyances existing as functioning dispensers of the essential Ohio River. From the median epicenter of the river there is an outward path to be pursued that while roughly mapped also allows for fluid egression as to its progressive range.
On this ambulant passage reviewing these regional landmarks the textual delivery though informed to the best of the combined ability applied- that has been accumulated from personal experience and endeavored of supportive material from multiple sources- is not without much incomplete faults and overlooked material due from certain flawed records with the admitted translations being relied in English on my part having certain ongoing restrictions.
Though these personal limitations of translated records inhibit a full understanding of these shared landmarks there is a wider intent to delve into deeper sources that attempt to relate respective perspectives outside of narrow beliefs or contractual inscriptions in requisite transcriptions. As this presents a formidable scope, it is hoped that these expanded postings will continue to lead to further insights around the existing landmarks and extend the shared allowances that contributed to their lasting communal appreciation. This involves acknowledging that these attributed landmarks have frequently been revised to reflect a more aligned or romantic history of our region than what is harshly factual. In some cases this revisionist impartment around the surrounding landmarks is deliberately overwritten as it may be conversely corrupted by negligent attention over time that wishes to forget any disparaging parts involved in its acquisition or construction. In this series of reviews there is a direct effort not to shy away from the conflicting accounts surrounding these markers, particularly the invasive effect of Indo-European influence onto indigenous landmarks that have decidedly altered their original meaning or use. Though this series will no doubt contain its share of misinformed interpretations and ignorant mistakes there is an aspiration to more thoroughly delve into the combined occurrences that arose around these given landmarks even as what is uncovered may be difficult to relate.
Notes:
1. Perhaps not entirely randomly with the ‘timely’ proposal StreetVibes recently featured an article on Josiah Warren in the 8/05/11 issue of the “make cincinnati weird” column entitled “Anarchy in the Queen City”,
http://streetvibes.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/online-edition-streetvibes-issue-8-5-11.pdf (accessed 09/25/11).
This website has expansive information on Warren’s life and work, http://www.crispinsartwell.com/josiahwarren.htm (accessed 09/24/11).
2. Some of these articles were pulled off the Internet after a dispute over some photographs used a lesson toward utilizing my own pictures. One existent blog listed as “Another architectural age” that features the Dixie Terminal Building was of this presumed reference http://stoneadmire.blogspot.com/.
3. The term “middle ground” in reference to the Ohio Valley has been acknowledged by past records and is referenced in Allan W. Eckert’s historical accounts such as The Frontiersman (New York: Bantam, 1967) and That Dark and Bloody River (New York: Bantam, 1995). Of further wider relevance is Richard White’s excellent study The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1615-1815 (United Kingdom:Cambridge University Press, 1991)
No comments:
Post a Comment