Rice University logo
 
Top blue bar image The Movie Group
A student-led group project from HIST 246
 

The Albatross of Slavery

Right now the movie group looks to be on really stable ground.  As we decided to split off this week, Stephanie and Adam were hard at work on the script while Gaby and I began to work at gathering the visuals that we will need for the video.  Importantly, we were able to rent out a digital recorder from the DMC to start taking some high quality video of the Dowling statue and its surroundings. While our first attempt at this did not go over well because I forgot to rent a tripod, our second attempt looks much better and more steady.  I have backed up those video files on my own computer and on the dropbox in the folder titled, “Video.”  While Gaby and I were at the statue, I also took the liberty to take many still images of the statue that I will be uploading to owl-space tomorrow morning for the entire class to use.  I am also continuing to search for visuals in the Dowling archived material we have, so that we might be able to highlight the resources of the greater archive.

Based on the reading for this week, I believe that it is possible to commemorate the Civil War in the south without insulting black Southerners; however, I do acknowledge that it is a delicate matter.  None of the groups covered in our readings of Horowitz or Brown managed to commemorate without insult, with the individuals covered by Horwitz committing much greater flubs than the individuals covered by Brown.  In the Horwitz case, the individuals appear to worship the Civil War and revere it as a religious experience. These individuals described carry on worshiping their ancestors and Confederate heroes with little regard to the nature or implications of their fight.  By completely forgetting these issues, the members of the Confederate heritage associates listed by Horwitz not only deny a crucial piece of their own history, but also provide an inaccurate portrayal history to the next generation. This is best illustrated by the creed of the C. of C. (Children of the Confederacy), in which the children are led in unison to recite, “(..) The War Between the states was not a REBELLION nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery,” (Horwitz, 37). While this does carry on the ideology to the next generation,  it also absolves them and their ancestors from sin against the slaves they enslaved.

The Brown piece on the remembrance of Robert E. Lee presents a better example of how individuals might begin to remember their heritage without insulting others, however, it too is not without reproach.  Brown describes how Lee came to be a symbol of the Civil War for his heroism and example of reconciliation.  Lee represented a character within the war that symbolized the “whole South’s better self; that finer part which the world not always sees,” (Brown, 80).  His heroism and strategic skills were not disputed by Northerners following the War, his participation in the Cause of the Civil War and the devotion to slavery appears weak and many emphasized Lee’s choice of not being one of rational decision, but instead the heart and family.  This apolitical interpretation of Lee only contributed to his appeal in the North as well.   As the South rose to remember the man upon his death few concerns were raised as to the rightness of proper treatment.  However even in this remembrance of a soldier and hero, few measures were taken to avoid offending the Southern blacks and Lee’s involvement in the issue of slavery was overlooked.  Even in the creation of the statues, race relations were not carefully tread around as one statue can be analyzed to compare the master-servant relationship of Lee and his horse Traveller to the relationship of whites and blacks in a metaphorical sense (Brown 91).  Southern blacks were not happy with the very public commendation and recognition of Lee, and said as much in their own newspapers, yet they do not provide an explanation of how this issue might have been alleviated to allow for both commemoration and racial sensitivity.

In his conclusion, Horowitz presents the option granted by Michael King the black minister,  that Southern whites should, “remember your ancestors, but remember what they fought for too and recognize it was wrong,” (Horowitz, 44). While, this option may be a tad harsh it does present perhaps the best possibility for how one might be able to celebrate their ancestors without offending others. Perhaps not the extent that King may have liked, but acknowledgement of the sins of slavery not covering up the South’s involvement may be the best way to revere the past with respect to the present.  This does not mean that white Southerners must wear the albatross of slavery at all times, or even in every moment that they remember, but instead that they simply acknowledge the negative and admit to the silencing of the slave narrative that they do when they speak of a Confederate soldier devoid of the context.

One Response to “The Albatross of Slavery”

  1. Caleb McDaniel says:

    Would Levine agree that Lee’s “participation in the Cause of the Civil War and the devotion to slavery appears weak”? And if Lee was in fact, as Levine argues, a “tested upholder” of slavery, is it still possible to commemorate him in an apolitical way?

    You make the interesting point that black Southerners who criticized the Lee monument did not explain how Lee could be commemorated publicly with a statue in a way that was inclusive of all Southerners, black and white. This begs the question though: is such an “inclusive” commemoration of Lee possible? If so, what would it look like? Would it look like the huge statue that white Virginians actually built, or would it be different?