My original intention was to respond narrowly to several points of
language in Ms. Fuller's first post on this subject.  I obviously was too
brief to convey my intended meaning at least judging from the continuing
discussion and how my post has been refered to and responded to.

        Even using the words in a "relative sense," saying of slaves that "some of
them had it real good" seriously misunderstands the slave experience --
degradation and exploitation was a constant in their lives. Slaves were
property, they had no rights as human beings.  Violence -- no slave state
recognized killing or raping a slave as a crime -- and forcible separation
from their families were real, or potential, threats at all times. They
could not leave -- there were severe sanctions for trying to run away.  As
harsh as the lives of factory workers in the north could be, and apologists
for slavery have used this comparison since the nineteenth century in
seking to justify and sanitize slavery, there is a huge qualitative
difference between being free and not being free.  Over time, northern
factory workers and immigrants were able to use one aspect of their freedom
-- their vote -- to improve their lives in the face of economic
exploitation, prejudice, and discrimination.  They could move.  "Really
good" cannot, even in the most relative and meaningless terms describe the
experience of slaves.  That African Americans maintained families and built
lives in the environment of slavery is a tremendous accomplishment of the
human spirit and it is that story that properly balances the brutality of
slavery, not distinguishing between those slaves who had it "good" and
those who had it "bad."

        Because the slave system was so brutal and because of our nation's
continuing struggle with race, museums have been slow to deal with the
issue of slavery.  That is changing, but it is a difficult subject because
it is painful for so many people, both black and white to deal with.  I
think the original post on this thread -- it's been a while -- refered to
changing labels in an exhibit to avoid degrading references.  One of the
challenges is sorting through the vast literature on the history of slavery
and deciding what the "truth" is.  That is not easy and, as with any
historical subject, requires taking into account the views of different
scholars and different groups.  I think the museum in question acted
properly -- not in a politically correct way -- but in an academically
responsible way.

>  Bryan Miller wrote  But if we should taboo every
>word or idea that "represents" such an idea, as you appear to propose,
>then every associate history professor would most certainly be out of a
>job. I suspect that is not what you had in mind.

        I was only intending to offer an explanation as to why museums avoid using
the word slave, not advocating its omission or declaring the subject taboo.
 Associate professors are not in danger of disappearing, by the way.
Several posts refer to the use of "servants," a euphemism during slavery --
except as it separated house slaves from field  slaves -- and a euphemism
now.  We use euphemisms, of course, for subjects we are uncomfortable
discussing.

        Slavery should not be a taboo subject for museums -- I'm willing to argue
there is no taboo subject for museums -- but it is an area where we must be
careful to base our interpetation and exhibits on the best current
scholarship -- there is a world of difference, for example, between slavery
as described by Ulrich B. Phillips and by John Blassingame.  I think
Blassingame has far the better case, but that's my reading of the larger
literature and sources, others may have a different perspective.  We also
need to recognize the diversity of slave experiences -- cotton, tobacco,
rice all had diferent regimens, as did large and small plantations, for
example.

>J.R. Chancey 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.
>
        Since I am a Yankee despite living and teaching in Kentucky -- I am from
New York City and am assured by the good folks here that makes me forever a
Yankee (not that I'd want to change)-- I won't take up the "sheet wearing
Yahoos" part.  The characterization of those who challenged the use of the
euphemism <servants> as "Yankees" i.e. outsiders, (and it ain't a friendly
term in my experience in the South, friends) looking to reinforce a
prejudice speaks volumes to just how raw the emotions slavery and race can
bring to the surface.

        It is because of these emotions that museums have avoided dealing with
slavery for so long and why the way it is addressed must be approached with
a concern both for the "truths" the exhibit or program presents, the means
by which they are presented, and the reactions of visitors to the exhibit.






William H. Mulligan, Jr. [[log in to unmask]]
Associate Professor of History
Director - Forrest C. Pogue Public History Institute
Murray State University - Murray, KY 42071-0009
Phone:(502) 762-6571 Fax:(502) 762-6587
Home Phone:(502)753-9033
Pogue Institute web site:
http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/Bill.Mulligan/Index.htm