I recently had the opportunity to revisit a panel discussion that took place at the University of Richmond way back in 2002. The panel featured Dwight Pitcaithley, Jerry Russell, Edward Ayers, Robert K. Krick and was moderated by John Coski. The topic was the question of whether the National Park Service should expand its interpretation of battlefield sites to include discussions of slavery.
This was shortly after I moved to Michigan from Alabama (2001). From 1994---2002 I was a very active participant in a USENET discussion group devoted to the Civil War, and this kind of thing was a common and very hot---and divisive topic. What I saw was a kind of "preview" of modern political discourse on all subjects, in which folks took the most modest proposals---like including discussions of local African Americans into the interpretation of Gettysburg---and screaming that the entire story of the battle was going to be suppressed in favor of these "politically correct" themes. It was insane. I do understand some degree of trepidation, but what startled me was the total distrust of what the "professionals" might do to "our history."
Thanks for this perspective, Jim. It's such an important point. During my research at Petersburg National Battlefield for what became my Crater book, I read through the letters sent to the park following an interpretive shift that focused more on African Americans. Needless to say, it brought out the most extreme voices.
I am a little surprised u haven’t received some comments on this post. The issues raised by the panel are about as salient as it is possible to get when considering interpretation of Civil War battlefields. I have always thought it very important that Americans understand that the conflict was a clash of competing visions for the United States and that one vision had at its core chattel slavery. Now I will add the vision that won did not do as well as it should have to insure equality for all, but it has been a lot better than the alternative
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I agree with the thrust of your comment. The "emancipationist" narrative is now reflected in NPS interpretation, in part, the result of the success of the broader "From Civil War to Civil Rights" framework that helped to guide the NPS through the sesquicentennial, but I have to wonder whether it is sufficient today.
I am left wondering whether the events of the past few years points to weaknesses in that narrative.
"This event provides an opportunity for the NPS to tell a more inclusive story of the American past and present. The NPS is committed to exploring the full complexity of our history, even if that history is uncomfortable, contested, or erased. The humanities research supported by this Fellowship will expand these efforts, encouraging creative approaches to documentation, interpretation, and outreach."
This was shortly after I moved to Michigan from Alabama (2001). From 1994---2002 I was a very active participant in a USENET discussion group devoted to the Civil War, and this kind of thing was a common and very hot---and divisive topic. What I saw was a kind of "preview" of modern political discourse on all subjects, in which folks took the most modest proposals---like including discussions of local African Americans into the interpretation of Gettysburg---and screaming that the entire story of the battle was going to be suppressed in favor of these "politically correct" themes. It was insane. I do understand some degree of trepidation, but what startled me was the total distrust of what the "professionals" might do to "our history."
Thanks for this perspective, Jim. It's such an important point. During my research at Petersburg National Battlefield for what became my Crater book, I read through the letters sent to the park following an interpretive shift that focused more on African Americans. Needless to say, it brought out the most extreme voices.
I am a little surprised u haven’t received some comments on this post. The issues raised by the panel are about as salient as it is possible to get when considering interpretation of Civil War battlefields. I have always thought it very important that Americans understand that the conflict was a clash of competing visions for the United States and that one vision had at its core chattel slavery. Now I will add the vision that won did not do as well as it should have to insure equality for all, but it has been a lot better than the alternative
Hi Michael,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I agree with the thrust of your comment. The "emancipationist" narrative is now reflected in NPS interpretation, in part, the result of the success of the broader "From Civil War to Civil Rights" framework that helped to guide the NPS through the sesquicentennial, but I have to wonder whether it is sufficient today.
I am left wondering whether the events of the past few years points to weaknesses in that narrative.
Perfect timing: https://www.nationalparks.org/nps-mellon-humanities-postdoctoral-fellowship
"This event provides an opportunity for the NPS to tell a more inclusive story of the American past and present. The NPS is committed to exploring the full complexity of our history, even if that history is uncomfortable, contested, or erased. The humanities research supported by this Fellowship will expand these efforts, encouraging creative approaches to documentation, interpretation, and outreach."