Hi -- My point being that perhaps in jest, a couple of museum professionals
stereotyped "Yankees" as having a cultural bias  -- in this case, at the
use of the world "servant" to identify "slave."

And what about midwesterners, Californians, Canadians, etc., do they ever
seek clarity in interpretation?   What is a Yankee anyway??

The plantations' cadre of slaves usually included those who were assigned
to be servants, the "mammy" for the kids, a cook or two, farm hands, etc.
etc.  Were the farm hands called servants???

I've located the websites that specialize in Confederate "logic" and I'm
sure it's great fun for the hard-core to upload those and update them.
I've met a couple of guys whose mentality is so off the mark that they
refuse to participate in any ceremony that involves showing respect for the
current U.S. flag -- e.g., the pledge, the salute, whatever.  Outside their
homes, they fly the south's Bonnie Blue and the Betsy Ross flags.   It is
hard for anyone to respect those extremists!






       If you think THAT was yankee-bashing, you should see
alt.thought.southern, the land of unreconstructed rednecks and full-on
neo-militia polemics. I certainly was NOT yankee-bashing, and if you
re-read my message, you will see that I indicated only a few Yankees
(apparently you're one of 'em) are unwilling to accept an explanation of
why we'd use the word servant. The historic house museum I worked at has
been restored to the years 1859-67, and we know for a fact that the family
that lived there called their slaves 'servants'.  I still think it's more
valuable to problematize the family's whitewashing of the term 'slave,'
and to show the differences between kinds of slavery, than to use the term
when it's not historically accurate in the context of the house.  As
noted, we made it VERY clear that the people the family referred to as
servants were indeed slaves.  So I ask you, what's your problem with this
approach?  Should we ignore the fact that the family that lived there had
a different understanding of slavery than we do today?

> ----------
> > From: JR Chancey <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: slave interpretation
> > Date: Saturday, February 21, 1998 11:59 PM
>
>
> >
> > >When pressed, she admitted to the fact they were
> > > slaves, but made it a point to say that I was  rude yankee for
bringing
> > > the subject up!
> > >
> > > Greg Koos
> > > Boylan P wrote:
> >
> >I have, however, had Yankees accuse me of trying
> > to whitewash the practice by using the word 'servant,' even after
> > explaining why we used it.  I think those folks were just determined to
> > find evidence that all Southerners are at heart a bunch of
sheet-wearing
> > yahoos, however, and for the most part I think our visitors understood
> why
> > we did it that way.
>
>