Here’s hoping for better in the Sesquicentennial
Posted on August 31, 2009 by Robert Moore
- About me
- Cenantua – What and why?
- Cenantua’s pages (bio sketches & so on)
- Citing… this site
As a Southerner and native of the Shenandoah Valley, I offer reflections on the Civil War-era South… and sometimes a little more. But… expect the unexpected
24 Responses “Here’s hoping for better in the Sesquicentennial” →
Leave a Reply
Cenantua's Blog ©
by Robert H. Moore, II
is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at www.cenantua.wordpress.com. For more information about citing this blog, please see "How to cite this site".
Recent Comments
 | Pizzo Cynthia on Immersing oneself in the early… |
 | Robert Moore on … but, it was just four… |
| Robert Moore on … but, it was just four… |
 | Susan Hines on … but, it was just four… |
 | Clint Schemmer on Let the spiritS MOVE you… |
Southern Unionists Chronicles
- 34th Massachusetts POWs and Harrisonburg Unionists
- Letter from Botts, laying “bare the tyranny of Jeff. Davis”, November 21, 1863
- Hensley-Lamb (Rockingham & Page County) refugees, documented in Gettysburg newspaper
- In the case of Mr. Nicholas Breeden, Rockingham County, Virginia
- When a Confederate soldier came-a-courtin’ a Southern Unionist’s daughter
- Rebecca Wright: Winchester Unionist and Sheridan’s “Little Quaker Girl”
- “The reign of terror in Loudoun, Va.”
- Looking for photos of Galvanized Yankees
- Reuben Kite’s story
- New markers in Waterford, Va. highlight Southern Unionism there
Cenantua's Blog 
Sherree Tannen
September 1, 2009
Oh, lol, Robert……..Um……….Such a concise post. I have nothing to add. Your brilliance has again carried the day, and it is not even daylight yet in this time zone! (LVH–ie, Laughing very hard)
cenantua
September 1, 2009
Glad it brought on a good laugh!
I saw this hanging in a place a few months back and thought if I ever went back again, I’d have to take a photo and post it! The cartoon Confederate and the accompanying “Forget – Hell No!” are bad enough, but whoever created this was an absolute historical genius… Hmmm, I didn’t know the Civil War and the Centennial ended in 1864 and 1964 respectively! LOL!
Sherree Tannen
September 1, 2009
Well, Robert, you raise an interesting point. I wonder who did create this work of art, and why? Also, where was the “art” mass produced as a plaque for consumption by its target audience? Or, was the plaque produced by the target audience itself? What was the target audience: white southerners, or those satirizing white southerners? The plaque contains many classic stereotypes.
cenantua
September 1, 2009
You know… you raise some good points… and I think I should have turned the plaque around to see where it was manufactured. It may have given us even more to discuss. 🙂 I have a hunch this was a mass market item.
kevlvn
September 1, 2009
Perhaps he/she didn’t want to remember what happened in April 1865.
cenantua
September 1, 2009
Kevin, Part of me finds that comment “ha ha funny,” while the other part knows you are spot on about some people not wanting to remember… during the Centennial… and today.
Craig Swain
September 1, 2009
Honestly this looks more like artwork designed to support some reenacting group. I am told, by some of the old guys in the hobby, that many Confederate groups only attended the 61-64 events. There were no major “events” covering the ’65 battles. After all, who would want to show up and surrender at Appomattox? Wasn’t that just for Yankees?
cenantua
September 1, 2009
Craig,
Well, while I didn’t partake in the 60s, the funny thing that I noted as a Confederate reenactor in the 80s and later (intermittently, mind you) was that the majority of the reenactments we participated in… we lost. In fact, my understanding was that the most recent (140th anniversary of Appomattox) wasn’t exactly well-attended by Confederate reenactors. Hmmm… sounds like a recreation of history, not much unlike that sign at Appomattox that you mentioned while back…
Sherree Tannen
September 1, 2009
Craig,
It looks like we both read at least two of the same very fine blogs.
If this plaque was made for a reenactment group (which it very well may have been, and, at this point, at least, we don’t know, because Robert is not talking–lol–is there a new post coming?)then the men who displayed it–if they were white southerners–totally internalized stereotypes of themselves created by others. Sort of like my Cherokee and Ojibway friends watching cowboy and Indian movies when they were young and cheering for the cowboys, or me in the mountains watching the same cowboy and Indian movies and not understanding that when my grandmother said we were “part Cherokee”, we were; and then laughing at the Beverly Hillbillies because they were so ignorant. On the other hand, maybe some of those reenactment guys from those days led to the stereotype.
cenantua
September 1, 2009
Hi Sherree… Pardon the silence. Out and about a bit today.
I believe that white Southerners were the target audience of this fine piece of art… gasp! I know some who would eagerly embrace the piece today and give a supportive rebel yell once they saw it… others would get into it just because the Confederate flag… while a few others might actually find it offensive for the stereotype. I’m just hoping more of this stuff doesn’t fill the shelves of knick-knack Civil War stores during the Sesquicentennial, but I know they will. Then again, it gives us much to talk about 🙂
Sherree Tannen
September 2, 2009
Robert,
I understand that life exists outside of the blogosphere, so, please no apologies! I thought that you may be conducting an experiment of sorts, and I was willing to participate. If any apologies are needed, I owe you one, for, perhaps, unintentionally taking this thread where you may not have wanted to go.
I was around in the 1960s and old enough to know it. In my house in the mountains of Virginia, there were no men putting on gray uniforms and waving Confederate flags, nor were there nostalgic celebrations of the centennial of the Civil War, and I have three direct ancestors who were in the war, that I know of. I would have remembered that! Instead, in 1963 we were mourning the assassination of John Kennedy, and in 1964, still mourning and trying to pick up the pieces, and in 1965, getting ready to move to Roanoke (where we lived for a short time before we moved back to the mountains, and which was like moving to Mars for a mountain family) In Roanoke, in 1966-1967, the schools began to be desegregated and I was standing up to racists because that is what my mother told me to do, while in Boston, several years later, many white men and women were not, and we know, of course, what went on in the south when it came to desegregation, so just who does that tobacco chewing, drooling white southern rebel on the plaque represent? And who would want to be represented that way? Also, where did this stereotype originate? Could it be with the Lost Cause proponents, building on already existing stereotypes? (This is where class enters the picture in a significant way. I am thinking of representations in Faulkner, to representations in “Gone with the Wind, to mention in a scholarly work that the “daughters of Dixie” did not want members of “lower class” whites in any of their veteran remembrance organizations. Notice the language still used: “poor white”; “lower class” etc.)
From 1961 to 1965 in one household in the mountains of Virginia, there was no celebration of the Lost Cause, nor defenders of the “rebel” cause. We didn’t have a copy of that plaque, either. And, of course, neither did any household in the black community. There was a picture of Dr. King in the church of the black community, however, toward the end of the decade, and in our house, too. I never understood any of this, and was beginning to believe that I had dreamed my history, until I started reading your blog and Kevin’s blog, and then read Vikki Bynum’s Free State of Jones. The truth shall set you free. Ok, I’m free. Blog on. It’s good to have you back, Robert. Sherree
Craig Swain
September 2, 2009
Sherree,
Here’s the approach I take to that plaque under my “artifact” rule:
1. If discussing the feelings and sentiment of post-war (20th century included) Americans, then we first detach it from discussions of content accuracy. In short, we don’t need a stitch count of his uniform.
2. We must determine the time/place context the artifact was produced.
3. We must determine if the producer of the artifact sought to use the image in conjunction with an agenda, and what that agenda was.
4. We must determine if the audience this agenda was pitched to was receptive and what receptors in that audience were excited (or incited) by the artifact.
For the first point, yep, this is not a Troiani print. Let’s just leave it there.
But the next three should fire in sequence. As mentioned, the circumstantial evidence points to something from 1960-61, as part of the centennial. So we know all too well the context of the Civil Rights movement, JFK, Cold War, etc. But we also must consider the media used in the time frame. Recall the billboard, magazine add, and serial road signs were still the main arms of Madison Avenue. To be brief, and not bore you with marketing history and strategy, the imagery was often blunt. While suggestive on the surface, rarely carried connotations beyond simple recognition. (i.e. Well dressed man smoking Lucky Strike, means if I do the same…. you get the picture.)
Now did the creator have an agenda here? Probably. Was it to “rally” folks to a cause? Or was it to welcome/encourage participation of a particular target audience in an event or cause? Again, speculating based on circumstance, might it be something posted at a tourist trap to remind folks to attend one of the various “reencactments” (very loose interpretation here)? Or, was it perhaps something setup to recruit locals to participate in the events?
Next, what within the depiction excites the receptors? Well it is clearly a caricature. And certainly a light hearted one at that. I’ve seen others on the same lines using Buggs Bunny, Micky Mouse, and even Popeye in Confederate garb. (Yes, I cannot figure Buggs’ NY accent in butternut.) So I wonder if this was targeted at a “young” audience?
Well digging through “reenactor lore” I’ve often stumbled across recollections such as this one: http://wesclark.com/jw/roach.html
Long story short, the author of that piece got involved with the hobby in 1961, largely because he was 16 years old and wanted to have fun dressing up as a soldier. “I was running, shooting, yelling, and I was having the time of my life.” There’s a lot more of the back story in the individual case. As I recall from conversing with the gentleman years ago, he dove into the hobby head first. But at no point did any racist or “lost cause” motivations stand out. It was “because it was fun.” However what stood out in the recollection is how group politics came into play. The reenactment group with the largest number tended to get the “command” of the field. Those kind of things. Such a system, of course, requires “wanna be” Generals to recruit heavily.
So bottom line, I’d submit that this artifact may well be a prop used 1961-64 to attract young people to reenactments. Perhaps something to grab their attention, and prompt the “Can we go? Please?” conversations a pre-teen is apt to have. Or perhaps it was something displayed to attract the attention of 16 year olds, as someone was out “recruiting” their reenacting groups.
If so, the stereotypical imagery we find to a degree laughable, and at some levels offensive, was not thing more than just a marketing prop. And any deeper symbolism was no more intentional than that of a sporting team’s mascot.
cenantua
September 3, 2009
Sherree,
What you said here makes me recall my own youth in the Valley (in the 70s). There were no Confederate flags, no yearning for “old times there were not forgotten,” etc. My Shenandoah Valley grandparents didn’t do that, and honestly, I don’t think a lot of folks gave it much thought. My grandfather flew an American flag, had a wooden (almost life-sized) plaque Uncle Sam, and painted wagon wheels (that were near the entrance to the gravel driveway) red, white, and blue. When I asked about the Civil War, I rarely got what I was hoping for. Sure, I got a few stories, but there was a limit… and never once was there any hint of any sort of bitterness, etc. for the “North.” When I asked my grandmother if she had any stories, she’d always tell me, “that was a long time ago.” People had moved on, whereas, in my opinion, some people today have regressed and are recreating animosity, sometimes I think where it didn’t exist to begin with.
Sherree Tannen
September 2, 2009
Thanks, Craig, for responding and for the link. I think you have given a reasonable explanation for this plaque, and probably the correct one. I don’t know.
As far as sporting teams’ mascots go, though, even if deeper symbolism is not intended, the use of certain mascots is highly offensive to some men and women, and with good reason. (I am thinking of the use of “Indian chiefs” doing “war dances” as mascots, in particular) That is an involved subject, and one outside of the scope of this post, however, I would think. But that is up to our host. Thanks, again. The information was helpful. Sherree
cenantua
September 3, 2009
Sherree, My turn to go a little off track. That’s true about mascots and how they can be seen as offensive to some, but recalling what I heard about William & Mary dropping the war feathers from their logo, I think none of the local tribes actually had a problem with it anyway. W&M gave-in to the NCAA.
Craig Swain
September 3, 2009
Sherree, I’ll caveat this by pointing out we both have Cherokee heritage in our linage, and likely many other ethnic groupings. So I simply consider myself an un-hyphenated American, to avoid any misconceptions. When such discussions arise about school mascots, I point out to people the good old Webster dictionary definition of “offensive.” For some thing to be offensive, it must give a painful or unpleasant sensation. Thus 100% of the determination of the offensive nature is with the beholder. And the “giver” of the offensive sensation, in the case of the mascots, is indeed an inanimate object – the mascot. So if we can’t have a dialog over something simple, like that, then we’ve really got some underlying issues in our society.
I think the larger issue here is that communication.
cenantua
September 3, 2009
I’m a firm believer in the absence of hyphenation when describing my ethic/cultural/historical make-up. Often, one hyphen that I could use would come in conflict with the other hyphen. I’m a virtual cultural conflict when you consider the different historical conflicts in which my heritage played part (English/Scots, Union/Confederate, etc., etc…. I’m sure I could come up with more…). Personally, I was using the word “mutt” as a description of my diverse heritage, etc. well before 2007.
Sherree Tannen
September 3, 2009
Robert,
I am sending a link to an article by Susan Shown Harjo, entitled, “Chief Offenders”. The article lays out the argument for those who find the mascots offensive:
http://www.nativepeoples.com/article/authors/36/Susan-Shown-Harjo
I agree with your comments on memory. My grandmother did talk about the Civil War, because she grew up with her grandparents, who were of the Civil War era, and the war defined that generation for certain. (My grandmother was born in 1905) It is what she didn’t talk about, that I find interesting: no Confederate yearning, as you call it, for the “Old South”; no stories of Robert E. Lee; no passing down to me the Confederate flag, etc. Also, World War II did play a much bigger role in her memory, too, as you have indicated concerning your grandfather, since she experienced that war firsthand, and one of her sons was in it, plus several close nephews. Thanks for sharing some of your own memories, Robert! Sherree
Sherree Tannen
September 3, 2009
Craig,
We’ll have to disagree on this one. The use of the word “redskin” is considered a racial slur by many of my Indigenous friends, and by me. I’ll pass along a piece of advice that an Ojibway Elder gave to me several years ago after I first started to really understand the “part” of me that is Cherokee. “You better get in touch with those Cherokee ancestors,” he said. And that is exactly what I did in rather significant ways.
Indigenous men and women are like everyone else. Not every Native man or woman thinks the same, so I am not surprised at differing opinions on this issue. I have linked to an opposing view, and stated my own view: I find the mascots highly offensive. I simply didn’t say that before, because I didn’t want to start an acrimonious debate on Robert’s blog, and the debate can get very heated when it comes to this topic. Thanks, Craig, for your input, and thank you, Robert, for your truly generous hospitality. Sherree
Sherree Tannen
September 4, 2009
Craig,
As a footnote to my comment, and in the spirit of approaching this subject in a rational way and with friendship, I need to add what the Ojibwa Elder I referred to above added, after he suggested that “I get in touch with my Cherokee ancestors”: “I am having a little NDN fun with you, Sherree.”
There was truth in what the Elder said, though. And, after twelve years of learning what that truth encompasses, I hope that I can help others begin to understand what I finally understand.
I think that a starting off point for European descended mutts with many mixed heritages, like you, Robert, and me, would be that to understand Native men and women, we must quit insisting that they communicate with white men and women on terms set by white men and women. When this is the case, already there is no communication possible.
Today, since it is a full moon, I will be out of pocket all day because I will be sitting in a sweat lodge that requires many ceremonies. Also, when we hold a sweat lodge, the Elder who runs the lodge does not allow the use of electricity, much less of a computer. So, I cannot comment on anything you might want to discuss today, and that Robert might want to explore as our moderator, and for that, I apologize. I would like to leave you with a thought, though, if I may.
In order to understand not just the worldview of Indigenous men and women, but the actual reality that they know, and know well, and that many other cultures do not; the idea that the mind is the highest and best quality, resource, and source of achievement of humankind and human history has to be left behind. There is something even higher and better than the mind, and for now, since I have no better word for it, I will have to call it the soul, but not the soul as perceived by western religion, or art. The soul that is at the center of being. You can see how western men and women are immediately thrown off balance, because we have been taught that the mind is all powerful. Thus, as a starting point for sitting in a legitimate sweat lodge run by a Native holy man or woman, you must forget everything that you thought you knew and enter the lodge with no expectations. For me, a poem in Wallace Stevens’ The Palm at the End of the Mind, captures part of this, but even then, does not capture it all. The poem is a starting point, though. It is entitled, “Of Mere Being”:
“The palm at the end of the mind,
Beyond the last thought, rises
In the bronze door.
A gold feathered bird
Sings in the palm, without human meaning.
Without human feeling, a foreign song.
You know then that it is not the reason
That makes us happy or unhappy.
The bird sings. Its feathers shine.
The palm stands on the edge of space.
The wind moves slowly in the branches.
The bird’s fire-fangled feathers dangle down.”
Ok, now that you are at the edge of space, beyond all thought, humbled by your awareness of your simultaneous significance and insignificance in the grand scheme of things, enter the lodge.
All dances that are done at Indigenous pow wows have intricate meaning. Thus, a “war dance” “danced” by a “chief” at a football game is an affront in so many ways, and to so many men and women–solidly among them, white men and women who are taken no further into the complex history of the men and women who know this land best, and whose blood runs in the very veins of many of them. This is not an us vs them issue. It is a we are them issue. They are us issue. We are Americans issue. Who are we, America issue? I have done an inadequate job of explaining this, Craig. But, perhaps it is a start. Thanks again to both you and Robert, With respect, Sherree.
cenantua
September 4, 2009
“I think that a starting off point for European descended mutts with many mixed heritages, like you, Robert, and me, would be that to understand Native men and women, we must quit insisting that they communicate with white men and women on terms set by white men and women. When this is the case, already there is no communication possible.”
Well, Sherree, for one, I’m an unconventional person and I don’t always like to “color within the lines.” As you know, my thoughts on the use of hypertext shows that I prefer to think more out of the box than within it. You can also consider my works with Southern Unionists as coloring outside the lines.
As for mascots and the like, well, that which might not seem abrasive to us might be abrasive to others. I recall a cartoonish Scot often used for advertising a furniture store. It didn’t bother me. Yet, I’m not a Scot. I am descended from Scots (among those of many other places, as I already mentioned). I think the further we get away from something, the less we have the potential to become bothered by cartoonish looking Scots (as an example). A Scot, on the other hand, might take offense; he/she being much more intimately associated with the reality of Scots and taking offense to the silly stupidity exhibited in the cartoon character. Perhaps, when we reach deep down inside ourselves, we might also take offense, identifying with that element of our heritage and past. Yet, even then, I think it is a shallow connection with that heritage and past. I’m not sure we have a right to be offended and don the facade that we are part of something that we really aren’t part of.
Now, I feel that I have a closer connection, for a number of different reasons, to the cartoonish Confederate on the plate. It doesn’t offend me, but annoys me. It silly and stupid and it provides some classic stereotypes that just make me sick. I’m not a Confederate, but I feel that I have a better understanding of what Confederates were (the diversity of which cannot, by any means, be put into a single cartoon character). What really annoys me are those who look at this plate and say “yeah. buddy, I’m with ya!” Some might say that what I “said” in this made-up quote is offensive, but the sad part of it is, I know a good number of people who WOULD say just that! It’s no stereotype; it’s reality recognized. Now, I’ll take that a little further… it annoys me to think that some people identify too much with that cartoon Confederate, even to the point of celebrating “cause” without really truly knowing or understanding heritage. I guess, in the end, I appreciate those who can embrace their past, but not become part of it, when nobody can put themselves in the mindset so far removed. In many ways, we have all been washed clean (or dirty, depending on how you look at it) by time and whatever occured over time and through generations. We are no longer “there,” no matter how much we try to “re-paint” ourselves with heritages of long ago. It doesn’t mean we can no longer respect those people of the past, or can become annoyed when others want to play the stereotype silliness for commercialism or whatever.
Ok, I diverted a bit from the Indigenous focus, but I think there is something in there that is applicable to what you say. I know that when I see an inidigenous mascot, I have various opinions. The Cleveland Indians mascot is… annoying, because it is a silly looking character, a mockery… of a more serious and deserving history. When I see the war feathers used by William & Mary, I think it is respectable. They call themselves “Tribe,” but there is no silliness surrounding it. I think it is a gesture of respect… though the irony of it is that the university’s origins are symbolically in-tune with all that which ended up clearing the area of Indigenous people (that’s probably another topic of discussion altogether). The Washington Redskins… well, the logo might look harmless to some… and the name as well, but I’m not so conviced it’s respectful. The name isn’t. The logo on the helmet is stereotypical and reminds me of either a carved cigar Indian or the old nickels. It’s not respectful as, say, Sacajewia (I think I just butchered the spelling) on contemporary coins. I think that is what sort of care should be taken in regard to mascots. Is it respectable and is it acceptable to the people it represents (of course, we have no 17th and 18th century pirates to ask in regard to the use of “pirate images” in mascots).
Best,
Robert
Craig Swain
September 4, 2009
Sherree, your response is to some degree exactly what I was speaking about. The communication is often misdirected and out of band.
The issue specifically brought up is “that mascot offends me.” Part of the response is, as you aptly describe, how that offends the receiver. But the other side of this MUST also be a realization that in most cases the offense was unintentional, but based on some valid need or requirement. As such the most important component of the dialog should be “what can be proposed to replace the offensive material.”
All too often I see people “charging the mound” on these issues. In reality what is needed is an understanding of why the mascot was chosen and what the proponents (of the mascot) were attempting to “excite” in the receiver. (i.e. we want you to shout and yell when we score a touchdown.)
The next logical step would be, “how about an alternative?” I can waste tons of space here talking about what I’ve known, read, and experience concerning what Cherokees and other native Americans did to celebrate events in their lives. But my point is that’s a far more productive, and positive response to say – “Why not use a more culturally correct figure in a more culturally correct celebration such as celebration x, y, or z?”
That tact, seems to me, in one motion serves to internalize the public display to all involved (it is OUR celebration, not that of some “tribe” over there), it makes the action more accurate, and likely will inspire some to inquire as to the meaning beyond just a sporting event. You have internalization, recognition, and inspiration all in one step.
Just a thought. But I still have issues with the Cracker Barrel guy.
Sherree Tannen
September 4, 2009
Robert and Craig,
I checked my email before leaving today. Thank you both for responding. Robert, when you say, concerning your distant connection to the Scots,”…..even then, I think it is a shallow connection with that heritage and past. I’m not sure we have a right to be offended and don the facade that we are part of something that we really aren’t part of.” You are absolutely correct. This is actually a big part of the problem for modern Indigenous men and women, who are very much alive: the appropriation of their history and culture by others, which includes the use of mascots. My offense, or lack of it, your offense or lack of it, or Craig’s offense or lack of it is irrelevant, as we all agree. What is relevant is what the Native community as a whole, by consensus, thinks, and the jury is still out on that.
This was a great discussion! Thank you both. Sherree
Sherree Tannen
September 5, 2009
Hi Robert,
As a quick follow up to our conversation, a bit of humor. I took a survey of the men and women who sit in our lodge about the issues you, Craig, and I discussed here, and found that the group was equally divided about whether they found mascots and emblems of warriors used in sports events offensive. The Elder who runs our lodge is much more concerned about the lack of knowledge of Native history by non Native men and women. He is not accusatory in any way. He is just concerned. He said that when we all understand that the history of one is the history of all, that we will achieve what he calls the Fifth World of Peace. (long story on that, Robert, if you are interested some other time) Another man was adamant that yes, he finds the mascots offensive and he was not interested in talking about it. End of story. Then, another man did not answer me, but took me out to his car and pulled out a Washington Redskins mug! I really had to laugh. This man likes the Redskins, and I doubt very seriously that anyone would challenge his sense of self, since he knows who he is, and can back that up every way–intellectually, and physically, if need be. (He is Seminole, and he is 6′ 9″ tall, and a big man)
The issue is still there, however, and it is an important issue, because stereotypes find their way into every area of life, including the profession of writing history. Then the line must be drawn, and generally is. Or is it?
All of this hyper text thinking and discussion from an image posted of one little Cracker barrel cartoon guy. Blogging at its finest. Thank you both so much.
Sherree