After reading a comment made in one of my posts from few days ago, I realized something; something that I had really not thought of before. I think it is revealing in terms of how the Web can erase racial barriers. Nonetheless, of all of those who blog in the Civil War blogosphere, who among us is other than caucasian? I don’t ask this to discriminate, but it leaves me wondering if, while we speculate on any number of subjects tied to slavery and Civil War-related topics concerning African-Americans, we are sorely lacking something critical to a better, more well-rounded understanding of that which we discuss. To me, it seems, at present, that our perspectives are rather limited.
We offer thoughts/opinions on the pains of slavery in historical memory; we offer thoughts/opinions on the role of African-Americans who served the Confederacy; we offer thoughts/opinions on the complications experienced by African-Americans (former slaves especially) in their experiences in transitioning as soldiers to the Union army; we offer thoughts/opinions of the exodus of former slaves to the North, before and during the Civil War… we offer thoughts/opinions and ideas on a number of things in relation to Civil War memory and the impact it continues to have on the historical memory of African-Americans, but are any of us who offer these thoughts/opinions actually at the very center of the very discussions in which we engage? While many of us offer thoughts/opinions that are reflective of our our work and studies in history, can any of us offer opinions of historical memory from the perspective of the African-American and are any of us actually African-American? In many cases, aren’t we simply offering perspectives of perspectives? Don’t we lose something in the value of our discussions because of this? Perhaps we don’t want to know in order to keep racial identity blurred in this setting. Still, isn’t it important to know the perspective of “historical memory” from those who are at the center of the discussion, especially considering some of the discussions in which we engage?
Just some thoughts…
Cenantua's Blog 
Richard Williams
January 26, 2009
I believe Michael Aubrecht is way ahead of you Robert:
http://www.pinstripepress.net/TJblog/
RGW
cenantua
January 26, 2009
Not really. There is some interesting content, to be sure, but by the nature of the site (detached from the central blog that is within the Civil War blogosphere), it is outside the environment of the Civil War blogosphere. My point is that, to my knowledge, we have no African-Americans blogging within the CW blogosphere, and I think we may be experiencing minimal interaction with African-Americans in the comments that relate to posts addressing African-Americans in the war. Therfore, I believe we have reduced perspective, and that is dissapointing. Nonetheless, I’m not surprised considering the pain that such reflections bring to some. Fortunately, I gained a good deal of understanding into this when I was with a particular museum in the area and when we tried to figure out how to incorporate African-Americans into the living history features of the museum. I didn’t gain an understanding through a committee reflecting on the value of the history that was to be presented or what should be presented, but from the perspectives of African-Americans within the community who were a critical part of the discussions.
Michael Aubrecht
January 26, 2009
Thanks for the link Richard. Robert, you pose an excellent point. I will say this, my two associates who I started The Jefferson Project with have now become close friends and we have intentionally crossed over into my print work in the newspaper. Both Chris, Liane, and I have a very introspective feature coming up in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star Town & County on what Black History Month means to us. I will say that their enthusiasm and insights have reinvigorated my own study into local history as its a blessing to share honest, unapologetic perspectives with un-like-minded in a respectful and magnanimous manner. We are all learning much from one another and trying to pass that on to our readers. I am sure this upcoming story will get some interesting feedback for sure and I promise to share it online.
caswain01
January 26, 2009
Robert, you raise some interesting questions.
Consider this article that hit the wires last week:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42355
At first when I read the details, I was thinking $8.4 million is a lot for historical interpretation. In these times, that is something to brag about!
Then I read the last paragraph: “In this intense historical and cultural area, there was nothing for African-Americans,” said Venus Foster, 51, of Philadelphia, who belongs to an activist group called Avenging the Ancestors. Now they are eager to tour the President’s House and the slave remains, she said.
I don’t know about you, but this seems to imply there is indeed two “sets” of public facing history. That somehow we must “segregate” the two in order to appeal to different audiences. (and the article does not say what Hispanic-Americans, Native-Americans, or other -Americans could possibly find of interest in Philly….)
cenantua
January 27, 2009
Craig,
That is an interesting article. In refering to “two ‘sets’ of public facing history” and the possibility to distinguish the two in order to appeal to different audiences, do you think that this is problematic in terms of accurate ppublic portrayal of history? Because of the distinction, will two brands of history be portrayed and, because each appeals to a particular audience, will this further complicate the ability of society to understand the complexities of history?