O.K., this may seem wayyyy off topic, but it really isn’t. In one of the comments made in response to yesterday’s post, I made a remark that was based on something I saw in 2006 as an official release (General Order #5, to be exact) from the (then) top official of the S.C.V. The remark referred (I’m paraphrasing, but I have the e-mail somewhere in my archive) to Plymouth colonists as “sour-faced pilgrims”.
Clearly, in making such a remark about the colonists of Plymouth, I (and many others, I’m sure) can see where such a remark originated… certainly it reflects resentment for the place that Plymouth (as an invention of “Northern historical memory”) holds in the American consciousness as THE source for historical meaning behind Thanksgiving. Ultimately, yes, Virginia may well have been the site of the first Thanksgiving for English settlers in North America, but Plymouth has been given the credit. That’s fine, it’s just a matter of clearing away the mythology by re-educating the public about the facts behind history… that’s not revisionist, it’s just setting the record straight, right?
Speaking of which, in another comment, someone else responded to a remark I made about the mythology that surrounds Paul Revere’s famous ride. The comment shows that New Englanders (at least in the experience of the person making the comment) don’t appear to be insulted by the debunking of mythology behind Revere’s ride. In fact, some appear to be participating in setting the historical record straight. Even though they do this, I would bet they still have just as much interest in their New England roots and a love for “place.” The old myth holds a special place in New England “memory,” but it is recognized as MYTH.
So then, in the cases of mythology behind the Plymouth-Jamestown controversy and the mythology behind Paul Revere’s ride, previous “popular memory,” which in retrospect proves to be real revisionist history, is being set straight. Really, that’s great! We’re actually making headway in getting to real factual history.
Alright then, all of this clearing away the cobwebs and setting the record straight stuff, it’s not entirely different from clearing away the mythology generated as a residue of the Lost Cause remembrance movements, right? If not, what’s the difference? Considering the Rev War is over 225 years outside our memory, is the problem with Civil War memory that we are separated from the Civil War by only (almost) 150 years?
Cenantua's Blog 
David Schneider
November 26, 2008
Thanks for your comments on my blog. Since I’m not a historian, I’m honored that you stopped by. It is especially encouraging since I am considering a graduate degree in history.
My goal was to communicate 1) that the South was not monolithic and there were a variety of reasons for supporting the Civil War, and 2) that one can understand and sympathize with the Southern effort without having to over-romanticize or “re-invent” memory, as you put it.
I am leaving my comment here as it relates to your post on the (then) top official of a Confederate descendants group.
I was raised in a family staunchly Southern but at no time did the older generations ever disparage American historical events just because they occurred in the North. The Puritans never competed for attention with Jamestown that i can remember. It was simply our shared American history.
However, i think we hear more pro-Southern rhetoric from Confederate descendants groups because that kind of traditional Southern identity is disappearing. The identity, its symbols, and myths were an organic expression of previous generations. But in the attempt to retain that connection and a sense of uniqueness, what used to be organic is now just rhetoric. What used to be subtle attitudes are now hyperbole.
Scottish Highland festivals are a perfect analogy: What used to be an organic expression of a living culture is now an afternoon of stereotypical events and clothing.
The people are so disconnected that all they have left are stereotypes and vague romantic images. Just a few thoughts.
Thanks again for making contact. I look forward to reading more of your blog.
cenantua
November 26, 2008
David,
Thanks for the very focused and thoughtful comments. I believe your comments about current rhetoric and hyperbole are especially on the mark.
I completely understand this interesting need to identify with ancestors, but instead of trying to “identify,” I think better results come from efforts to “understand.” I seriously believe that more mythology is being created now (especially considering how mis-interpretation of ancestry tends to define people) than with the Lost Cause movement from the 19th century.
It’s not that I call for the abandonment and obliteration of the mythology, but rather the ability to identify it for what it is, and understand the role that it made in culture. We should rule it as opposed to it ruling us. I can’t imagine that our ancestors would want to be defined by mythology. Like I have said, time and time again, the people, the issues, and the war were much more complex.
Thanks again!
David Schneider
November 29, 2008
“… more mythology is being created now… than with the Lost Cause movement…”
Yes I agree. The myths and symbols of yesterday communicated something back then, but they don’t communicate much to our present culture. And there is the failure.
But they do serve one important purpose: they establish one’s status within the group. Unfortunately, that seems to be a priority for some. Identity being more important than understanding.
The sound of sabre-rattling is recognizable only to the few people still carrying sabres.
cenantua
November 29, 2008
David,
Again, well said. However, I do believe that there are others who are able to hear the sabre-rattling, and it is drawing what should be seen as unwanted attention. Ultimately, I believe that these sabre-rattlers will do the worst damage to what remains of Confederate symbology.