A recent article quoted one visitor at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s estate, as saying: “Why are you talking about that? You should be talking about the plants.” in response to a guide describing how slaves built, planted and tended a terrace of vegetables on the estate. Another visitor at a plantation in South Carolina complained that she “didn’t come to hear a lecture on how the white people treated slaves.”
In recent months, plantations in the South that are open to the public have begun to talk more honestly about slaves, slavery and how they were the core of the economy and created the wealthy plantation owner class and its way of life. In parallel with polarized politics, history has now become polarized too. Just as some people want comfortable political echo chambers with the realities they portray, some want comfortable historical political echo chambers with their realities, true, false, incomplete or whatever else.
One online review explained that mention of slaves and slavery ruined the anticipated Monticello experience for one visitor: “For someone like myself, going to Monticello is like an Elvis fan going to Graceland. Then to have the tour guide essentially make constant reference to what a bad person he really was just ruined it for me.”
And, some historical sites have a different take on history. Another source included these comments from a guide at the Jefferson Davis estate in Mississippi talking about her role as a guide: “I want to tell them the honest truth about it, that slavery was good and bad. It was good for the people that didn't know how to take care of themself, and they needed a job. You had good slave owners like Jefferson Davis who took care of his slaves, and treated them like family. He loved them.”
That is the problem with reality. It does not care what people believe or want. It simply is what it is. This is an example of people wanting to see one reality by avoiding part of it. Even today, some Americans simply do not want to hear about (presumably deal with) American slavery.
What are we?
In the recent past, slaves at Monticello were referred to as “Mr. Jefferson’s people,” which is literally true, or occasionally “the souls of his family,” which isn't literally true. Over his life, Jefferson owned over 600 slaves. The shift to be more honest and open about slaves and slavery at some plantations is being prompted in part by “a hunger for real history” among some Americans. Other visitors are pushing back, calling reference to historical facts things like propaganda, playing politics or political correctness.The issue of political correctness has been discussed here before and characterized as usually being cover for dark free speech and authoritarianism in political rhetoric. And, maybe reality aversion could be characterized as escapism at best and self-delusion and/or propaganda at worst.
So, one question that pops right up is this: What are we Americans? Clearly the answer is that we are not a monolith. Some want history with all the gory, inconvenient details. Others want exposure to only a pleasant slice of historical reality. A few probably want to deny it. Probably more than a few want to distort it into something it isn’t.
Is it best to let people live with their beliefs without raising obviously unhappy facts? Since racism in America remains a serious problem, is it is better for talk of slavery to be tamped down in public so as not to aggravate people who find this kind of information both unpleasant and socially polarizing? What is the cost-benefit? Is it better to try to leave history as unpolarized and unpoliticized as possible, even if it means actively suppressing it under some circumstances?
