I am not here to tell you the Truth. That's not what historians do. At least, according to the basic zeitgeist of modern (or rather post-modern) historians. There are still professors at my school who teach as if This Is How Things Were Period. They are all retiring in the near future. Historians create historical documents ABOUT the past, within the context of their present circumstances. I cannot separate who I am from my perceptions of what has gone on before.
If you've read this blog long, you know I don't like it when people claim to have "the Truth." It delegitimizes the perspectives of others and in general, tends to be incredibly arrogant. "Authenticity" is a very sticky subject in historical circles. People engage in tourism (cultural voyuerism if one wants to be a bit more snarky) and they want the authentic experience. They'd rather get a sombrero from Mexico, because somehow that's more authentic. Of course, it isn't just the outsiders who do this. Going back to this sombrero example, think how much art, posters or other Mexican created cultural symbols use the sombrero, because it represents "who they are." Or think of our conceptions of Native Americans. Beads, feathers, buckskin...as if they weren't allowed to modernize. People rose up in protest to hear the Makah were using guns to hunt whales, because it wasn't "authentic" hunting. It's still Makah hunting in traditional Makah hunting waters, all they did was change tools. Caucasians don't ride around in horse-drawn carriages. Does that make them unauthentic?
Most of the time, authentic can be defined as "that which agrees with what we already think we know." When my Public History professor teaches Pacific Northwest History, he is frequently criticized for not giving the "authentic" story of Lewis and Clark. That is, the story the students are familiar with.
This is where things get messy. It should not be understood that I think there is no correct, or most correct version of history. My professor knows more about the Oregon Trail than his students do. When he says "Lewis and Clark were [pretty much dicks] and their relationship with the Native Americans was not as pleasant as most text books make it out to be," he has good reason. That doesn't make his word the Absolute Truth, but quite simply, his evidence is stronger than theirs. People are frequently bothered by the lack of concreteness in history, much as they are in philosophy. As humans, we want to KNOW.
~~
That was a very long winded way of reaching what I really wanted to talk about. It's been interesting to note how many things discussed in my classes come up in "the real world." In Public History, I just read about Ken Burn's documentary "The Civil War" and last night I was watching Thursday's Daily Show, and Jon talked about how Virginia has named April "Confederate History Appreciation Month." This, along with some conversations with my partners-in-crime (read: housemates) got me thinking.
The Civil War is an incredibly complex, emotional and all around terribly tragic issue of American History. Every level, at every point, there is a multitude of interpretations. The origins of the war, the reasons it continued, the roles of the government and the soldiers on both sides and race and gender...it really can never be over-emphasized just how dense this subject is. And, like virtually all Civil Wars (in fact, I think in some ways it's part of the definition), there was no real "winning" and no clear cut good guys/bad guys. Hence, the tragedy.
So, Confederate History Appreciation Month. Like every other aspect of the War and it's aftermath, this has very mixed thoughts. On the one hand, I freely admit that, in the North (where I am decidedly from), the Confederates have been largely dehumanized. This is truly unfortunate, because certainly there were brave men defending themselves, their homes, their way of life, things they believed to right. It is good to remember that they, too, were Americans and that their loss of life was needless and sad. If this was being used to say, encourage people to read diaries or journals, to do research or to be involved in historical study, I would be all for it.
That's not, however, what it's being used for. At least, as far as I can tell. The main issue comes from the Causes of the Civil War, something that is hotly contested to this day. It's like the Grey Ladies said:
"Can't say I've ever been too fond of beginnings, myself. Messy little things. Give me a good ending any time. You know where you are with an ending."
There is never one reasons wars start. And not everyone fights for the same reasons.
When the Governor of Virginia announced why he was proclaiming this month, he never once mentioned slavery. When asked about it, he said that he wanted to focus on the "war aspect of it." Yet he seems to be ignoring a major reason for the war itself.
Again, messy territory. There is a clear political bent when discussing the causes of the Civil War. Depending on where you are from, it usually boils down to one of two things: Slavery (North) or Federal versus States Rights (South). I maintain that both of these were true, along with the very important role of economics (after all, much of the South was a slave-based economy). And it's easy to overstate any of these causes, but I think some things are worth pointing out.
The Southern slave-owning states WERE the Federal Government when the war was brimming. They controlled all three branches of government. They specifically said that the federal government was more important than state government. When the Northern states said they would not comply with some federally passed mandates (such as: If you find an escaped slave in the North, you must return him/her to the South), the Southern-controlled Federal government through a fit. It wasn't until they lost power with the election of Lincoln that they (the legislators) started spouting off about State rights. So at the governmental level, there was quite a bit of hypocrisy, and I don't think they really cared about State-rights. I'm sure many of the soldiers did, I'm sure that's why they joined the Confederate army. But considering that the war started BEFORE they started utilizing that sort of rhetoric, it can't be said that that was the only or even main reason for the war.
I remember, when I was younger, one of my neighbors said Lincoln was the worst president ever, because he allowed us to go to war. I remember being really upset by this, but unable to defend the 16th president. Now, we can tell from looking documents from the time that the war would have started even had Lincoln not been elected. Really, it was his predecessor who allowed us to go to war by not acting when the trouble started brewing. It wasn't like Lincoln was a huge proponent of social justice. He was as racist as many of the Southern Democrats (who were, at the time, the most conservative party), but he wanted to keep the country together. And he did, and for that, he should be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.
From what I can tell, and again, I'm not down in Virginia, I can't say with certainty, but it does seem like these "Big Bad Federal Government shoving its will down the throats of the Poor Little States" is the narrative being pushed by those in power. This was the story written in Southern history text-books at the turn of the century, and to this day. If the Texas Education Board has its way, I'm sure that's what most of our textbooks will say. Again, this is an incomplete picture, and one which gives a false impression. This has much more to do with current political climate, considering which states are the ones pushing it (read: conservative/"right wing" states). Some of it is playing on Southern pride, which isn't a bad thing to have as long as you recognize that much of Southern identity was based on the subjugation and inhumane treatment of other people.
And that's not to say that the North is blameless. Hypocrisy is/was rampant there as well. The North didn't take action, was extremely flakey when dealing with the fundamental issues which led up to the war, did not mind benefiting from the South's economy and in fact helped to perpetuate the slavery system. Like I said before, there was good and bad on both sides.
Which leads me to my (hopefully) final point, not totally connected, but worth bringing up. When I lived in the dorms, my friend and I went to a meeting concerning a certain controversy. A young man had moved in and all of his housemates had a flag that represented their heritage. I believe one had a Union Jack, one had an Irish flag, and so on. He hung the Confederate flag, as he was from the deep south (Alabama, I think). This flag was visible through the window and caused a great upset among the other students, particularly of the African American community. The meeting was to discuss symbolism and meaning and responsibility.
In the young man's defense, as soon as he found out he was offending people, he moved the flag so that it was only visible in his room. He never intended to hurt anyone and he was very apologetic without giving up his pride or identity, which I don't believe anyone was asking him to do. Some of the African American students related why it bothered them: they remember, not as long ago as we'd like to think, when seeing that flag meant danger for them, meant that there were people who did not perceive them as human and would likely try to hurt them. It represented pain and humiliation and fear. to the young man who put it up, it was just remembering where he came from and the values he associated with it: strength, bravery, morality, individualism, hard work, etc. It can't be said that either side was "right" because symbols are, by definition, interpretive. I thought the young man displayed great sensitivity.
For my part, I'm wary when I see people displaying the Confederate flag. I was in class with someone who had a patch of it sewn onto his backpack, which meant wherever he went, people could see it. Now, I'm totally open to the idea that it meant something very specific to him, and he is completely entitled to that belief. However, it also seems that he has decided that his interpretation is more important than anyone else's, that he is somehow "more right" than they are. I actually think he was just being a troll and wanted people to fight with him, which is why I never asked him about it (I'd seen him pick fights with people over less). I think it is important to be conscientious of the effect our words, deeds and mannerisms has on others, of how we can give off the wrong impression (intentionally or no) and that they too have the right to their interpretations.
I don't know if you've learned anything here. To be honest, I think I lost my thesis statement somewhere in this mess. But I hope it at least got you thinking.
People are complicated. War is complicated. There are a variety of reasons we do what we do. Rarely, should we say one reason is more important or valid than another. That doesn't mean we get to ignore the ones that don't fit the narrative we want.
