I wonder if the reason people don't want to hear about slavery is because it's not part of a balanced and comprehensive presentation, as I've noted before. It's becoming the most-emphasized aspect of history in any number of places. To be blunt, instead of being educated, people are being beaten over the head with the subject of slavery.
https://www.suzannecsherman.com/pos...6l43J05eLJ4l6aJ7usEZoh1T0EZAFGL75T6dzeHfJHV1I
Two weeks into our journey, we finally arrived at the home of Thomas Jefferson. In front of the ticket office was a sandwich board display advertising a smart phone app called Slave Life at Monticello. At this point, I was noticing a pattern, and that is the politically – and now historically - correct desire to shift attention, whenever possible, to the issue of slavery.
Our docent appeared knowledgeable enough, but he also seemed to have an agenda: to divert attention from the man who owned this property, one of America's Founding Fathers, to slavery. He never missed an opportunity: when we ascended the narrow staircases, we were instructed to imagine how difficult it was for the “enslaved servants to carry meal trays up and down this narrow stairway.” At every fireplace - “imagine enslaved servants having to carry wood up to these fireplaces...” It just went on and on.
Jefferson's philosophical and political viewpoints were omitted to leave time for an explanation of how difficult life was for his “enslaved” servants. Not once did he omit the term “enslaved” - his demeanor was patronizing and condescending to those who made the journey to see Monticello, for anyone vaguely familiar with Thomas Jefferson would know that he owned slaves.
Later that day we arrived at Montpelier, the home of James Madison. The introductory movie here was a laughable exercise in self-contradiction. On the one hand, masters and slaves were said to experience a mutually beneficial relationship. The movie concluded with the accusation that “hundreds of African-Americans were enslaved to benefit a single white family.” I am still wondering if they bothered to edit their own efforts upon completion of this feckless presentation.
After viewing the film, we took the tour of the home. The dining room featured cardboard cutouts of individuals who had been known to visit James and Dolly Madison. One such figure was the Marquis de Layfayette, who our guide indicated chided James Madison for not freeing his slaves.
---------------
The home of John C. Calhoun lies in the heart of Clemson University. The home is beautifully maintained, and gives visitors the impression that it is still lived in - with one exception: poster boards with pictures of slaves and their stories are EVERYWHERE, even in the entries of bedrooms, so you are forced to look around them from the doorway. I mentioned to the docent that their placement was a distraction and misplaced, and she agreed, but admitted there was nothing she could do about it. Reading between the lines, one cannot but conclude the same trend was occurring here as well.
----------------
Our journey would not be complete without a visit to Colonial Williamsburg. Our first tour would be of the Randolph House. While waiting outside of the house, we were informed that the tour would cover the home itself, its rooms, architecture and brief description of the family who lived there. After that, the tour would concentrate on the many slaves who served the Randolph family, what life was like for them, and the hardships they were forced to endure.
When I inquired if the tour guide would inform us of the philosophical ideologies and numerous political contributions the Randolph family made in Colonial Virginia and in the founding of America, the guide shrugged his shoulders and shook his head, indicating he would not. It was simply not important.
At that point, one of the other guides, a man portraying a slave, admonished me, “We're not gonna sugar-coat ANYTHING.” I could only take this to mean that illuminating the values and contributions of the Randolph family was not worthy information to be shared on this tour.
----------------------------
Interestingly, none of these agenda-driven, revisionist-style performances were presented at Poplar Forest, Thomas Jefferson's other home west of Charlottsville. I complimented the docent for enlightening us on the details of the home and the family, and told him how much we appreciated him not making the tour about slavery, as they did at Monticello and Montpelier. In response, he asked if I would forward my comments to the staff at the main visitor center, as there was a faction trying to shift the emphasis the presentation to slavery. When I did so, my comments were met with obvious displeasure by a woman working in the gift shop, who likely disagreed with my feed back.
I cannot help but wonder why attention is being diverted from one theme (the lives of the inhabitants of the homes we visited, for example) to another (slavery) . The former have been dominated by the latter, to the detriment of both. I couldn't help but notice at Montpelier the tour about slavery was two and a half times longer in duration than the tour of James Madison's home. While both Montpelier and Monticello had tours dedicated to the issue of slavery, you could not take the tour of the main house without constant interjections of the subject of slavery. The only discussion pertaining primarily to Jefferson's personal life was a tedious lecture on his extended lineage; the time would have been much better spent on the topic of his idea of federalism, for instance. (A subject never raised on either tour.)
The bottom line:
The point is not that the issue of slavery is unworthy of recognition; it is that slavery is dominating the theme of these places to the detriment of the discussion and sharing of the ideals, philosophies and political goals upon which America was founded.
