On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Greg Koos wrote:

> Patrick,
> It isn't just privater or local sites in the US which have this
> problem.  Two years ago I visited a presidential birthplace operated by
> the National Trust for Historic Preservation where the guide kept on
> refering to servants.  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:

On the other hand, the place I worked had documentation that the family
referred to their slaves as 'servants', and while we made it quite clear
that the servants were slaves, the powers-that-be felt that it was more
accurate to use the terminology that the family used and then explain why.
This gave us the opportunity to explain the differences between field
slaves and house slaves in an urban environment, which I think at the very
least broadened our visitors' understanding of the various forms and
conditions of slavery.  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.