Slavery and Public History rung true to me in its description of a widespread lack of public knowledge about slavery and/or acceptance of discredited historical myths on the topic. Ira Berlin’s observation that few Americans acknowledge the central role that slavery played in the nation’s history from its very beginning, and James Horton’s article on the way in which Northerners and Southerners alike have sanitized the memory of slavery by denial or mischaracterization immediately reminded me of an episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews that aired on June 19th, 2009. Matthews’ guest, Tennessee Representative Steve Cohen discussed the recent Congressional apology for slavery, to which Matthews belligerently responded that the North should not have to apologize for slavery since it fought the Civil War to end slavery. After first denying that Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont even had slaves, Matthews then lamely conceded that “they had some of it,” but still demanded to know “why should anybody apologize for your [Southern] sins?”[1] While less obnoxious than the perennial, loud protesting of Neo-Confederate organizations discussed by Marie Tyler-McGraw and Dwight Pitcaithley among others, the exchange still exemplified many of the myths discussed in the book, such as the instant association of slavery with the Civil War, and the belief that slavery was not important to Northern history.
Given the prevalence of myths relating to slavery, as well as the strong emotions which so many Americans feel towards the issue, slavery seems to be an excellent test case of the constructive role which public historians can play, or fail to play, in society. Joanne Melish and Louis Horton both describe situations in which the incorporation of a discussion of slavery into a historical presentation resulted in conflicting misconceptions and mythologies which did not seem to be resolved in the end. John Vlach, on the other hand, presents a powerful counter-example in which a spirited debate over the exhibition of slavery resolved in an overwhelmingly positive outcome for all involved. What factors caused such different outcomes? What can public historians do, if they can do anything, to guide such emotional conflicts to an educative and perhaps edifying conclusion? While ignoring painful history is never the answer to mitigating its effects on society, merely providing forums for myths and counter-myths to combat each other seems ineffective to me aswell.
I agree wholeheartedly that if we want to make a real difference we need much more than forums dedicated to conversation. Education of both sides of this issue (and by logical extension all such emotionally heavy issues) has to be the focus of attack. Your discussion of Chris Mathews' mis-understanding is a marvelous case in point. Regardless of whether someone agrees with his politics, he's an intelligent, well educated, and well briefed personage with a great deal of power to inform/persuade his audience. The fact that he, despite his educational advantages, subscribes to the myths surrounding slavery is a sign of just how far we as a country have to go.
ReplyDeleteI think what professor Koslow pointed out is important here, but not to excuse it. She pointed out that until the 1990s, the myths about slavery were included in the textbooks and in public education. Keeping this in mind, we can understand why Chris Mathews believes such things despite his education.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it seems as though they skip that part of history and create an “adjusted” version that makes them happy. This book show that this is unacceptable and we must understand the contradiction of America. When I was in elementary school, they did not discuss the severity of the situation and also present the south as the only slave states. It was when I began to discuss the matter with family when I learned the awful facts. We as a nation must tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. When you recognize and accept your wrong it makes you stronger and America must do this.
ReplyDelete