Friday, January 30, 2009

From Eye of the Beholder to Presenting History Accurately

As a born and bred Southern woman with a long line of dirt poor farmers in my past, and as a teacher and writer of history charged with presenting the truth, I often find myself in the sticky conundrum of a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation regarding historical events as well as the social/cultural ideals that still haunt and permeate my southern homeland.

I’ve written here before regarding the yearly pattern of Open House at the beginning of the year when I inevitably have white parents wanting to know if I teach the truth about the Civil War, and I have just as many black parents wanting to know the same thing.

Basically they want to know if I’m going to teach their children whatever it is that they believe regardless of the truth.

Some want to make sure I teach that the issue of slavery and only the issue of slavery caused the terrible split in our country that resulted in so many lives lost and the destruction of so much property….not to mention rifts that continue even to this day.

Others want to make sure I’m someone who really knows the truth…the war was all about economic differences and that damn tariff.

Both sides have a point…both sides are right.

The Civil War was not caused by one single thing, but a list of many different things.

Some get too caught up in the romanticism of the Lost Cause moping about as if they are Ashley Wilkes while others are Big Sam or Pork (refer to Gone With the Wind if these names aren’t familiar to you) still looking for the forty acres and a mule. Those romantic types find it hard to accept and qualify the facts that slave holding was not a charitable occupation taken on by well meaning whites. It was a horrendous and nasty business that resulted in splitting families, forcible rape at times, unwanted and sometimes unaccepted bi-racial children, and a long list of other social by- products that sadly in some cases still exist today.

Not only do we wrangle over how Civil War issues are taught….we wrangle over how they are remembered as well. Some feel those in the South are wrong to erect monuments to Confederate dead….name schools and other buildings after slave owners…while many strongly advocate for their rights to remember Southern officers, officials, and leaders.

While every aspect of an event should be analyzed by students in a history class, at what point do educators move from presenting material to be analyzed in a fair and equal manner to presenting material that is compromised with personal viewpoints or too much information leaning towards one side?

At what point do we sacrifice true and honest historical remembrance for what we think we believe…for what we want to believe….for what might fit a certain modern agenda without thinking about the context of the times?

Finally, I have to ask….when we depend upon those maintaining historical sites to provide locations for students to learn about history where the history actually happened are we making sure those sites present a whole story or are we satisfied with just a story that sounds nice to make some people feel better?

During some recent research I stumbled upon a situation in Georgia during the 1840s that split the United Methodist Episcopal Church into northern and southern factions. The cause of the split was opinions regarding slavery.

The location in question is Oxford, Georgia….a place Dr. Mark Auslander discussed in his paper, Paradoxes of Blood, Law, and Slavery in a Georgia Community (2001). Oxford , as Dr. Auslander refers to it, is the birthplace of Emory University. The grounds are now the home to Oxford College and is a designated “shrine” of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

In his paper, Dr. Auslander, goes on to relate the tale of James Osgood Andrew, first president of the board of trustees of Emory College, who was at the center of the split in the Methodist Church in the 1840s. I have written more about the church split over at Georgia on My Mind in my post The Methodist Split According to Andrew.

From that particular post I relate:

We end up with a clergyman who finds he owns slaves but didn’t purchase them…yet he can’t free them because he will then be in violation of state law and subject to fines and arrest. He could sell the slaves under his ownership, but they might wind up in a worse condition with a with a master who would treat them poorly…as if being a slave wasn’t poor treatment enough. To make matters worse Bishop Andrew then becomes the focus of the split of the Methodist Church.

Bishop Andrew did lead the Southern churches in their split. Later he became the first bishop of the newly formed Methodist Episcopal Church, South. During the Civil War he resided in Alabama and retired from his post in 1866. Bishop Andrew is buried in Oxford, Georgia and is remembered as the namesake for Andrew College in Cuthbert, Georgia.

Dr. Auslander’s paper zeroes in specifically on one particular mulatto slave Andrew inherited when she was twelve years old named Kitty. Today, visitors to Oxford can visit Kitty’s gravesite located in the long segregated white cemetery where many white citizens insist Kitty is the only person of color buried in the cemetery. In fact, the memorial headstone placed there was done by an all white private foundation and is known as “Kitty’s Stone.” Per Dr. Auslander’s paper the stone was updated in the 1990s.

Dr. Auslander relates… the standard white version of the story, Kitty was inherited by an unwilling slaveholder….after she voluntarily refused manumission (conditional on transport to Liberia) at age nineteen in 1841 she was allowed by her benevolent owner to reside in a house that he built for her, adjacent to his own house. There, he alledgedly told her, “you may live as free as I am.” In time, the story goes, she married a free African-American man [by the name of Nathan Shell] and bore him three children before her death in the 185os.

Dr. Auslander explains that there are other tourist hotspots regarding Kitty including …the carefully restored house, in which Kitty alledgedly once lived…renovated by a predominately white local historical society. Both the home and the cemetery are often spoke of , by whites, as the most important historical sites in the county.

In white versions of the story, Kitty refused manumission when it was offered to her in 1841 and was allowed by her master, Bishop Andrew to reside in her own small cottage behind his mansion in de facto freedom. There, it is said, Kitty “looked after” local children, white and black, and treated them with warmth and respect.

Dr. Auslander further relates:

Not surprisingly, African American families in Oxford have a rather different relationship to the Kitty legend. My oldest African American informants recall hearing from the “old people” of the community that Kitty was Bishop Andrew’s coerced mistress, and that Andrew was the covert father of her children, whom he never acknowledged.

Some profess to be bored by the whole business, which they regard as a puzzling (or, at times, offensive) white obsession. Still others critique local white fascination with Kitty and with the restoration of her small house (referred to as “Kitty’s Cottage” by most local whites) as an attempt to paper over the horrors of slavery and evade the full accountability for the city’s antebellum slave-owning history.

Yet for all the manifest contrasts in white and African-American renditions of the narrative, and their strikingly different responses to spaces in which the story is memorialized, are these mythic accounts entirely distinct from one another?

In addition, many African American women and men with whom I have discussed the matter express a desire to see the matter closed, once and for all. A middle aged African American woman sighed, when the Kitty question came up, “Isn’t it time we all talked about something else? We have to get beyond all that”…An older African American man grew very quiet when the conversation briefly turned to Kitty. ….He noted softy, “Sometimes, you know, the dead just need to stay good and buried.”

Finally, Dr. Auslander discusses those in the African American community who are intensely interested in researching, uncovering and broadcasting the “true facts” of the Kitty case [stating that they] find themselves facing fundamental challenges of space and geography. Many note that whites have in effect, colonized the only places where Kitty’s story could be retold, especially her cottage and the supposed gravesite. As one African American woman remarked,”Ok, let’s say we really could prove everything about Kitty and Bishop Andrew, with DNA or whatever. Where in Oxford would we ever get to tell the truth? Put on a display? Where is there? You tell me.”

Since the 1930s, her “cottage” and grave have come to function as veritable pilgrimage sites for thousands of Georgia’s white residents, including weekly busloads of schoolchildren brought in for “educational visits” from throughout the state.

One female tour guide observed to a group of schoolchildren, “You know, Miss Kitty was loved by Mrs. Andrew as if she were her own flesh and blood. And Kitty felt the same way about the Andrew children. That’s the way it was in those days, people just took care of children your age, they could just go in and out of people’s houses like they were in their own, and be fed, and loved and looked after. That’s the way things are supposed to be. But is that how we live now?”

As one white woman noted, “Kitty’s story reminds us how families used to be, and how things still should be.” Since the late 1990s, many local white families have volunteered time, money, and effort to help restore Kitty’s former residence (a process that has so far, has not included any African American residents of the town.)

Somehow I don’t think Kitty’s Cottage is a place I would put on my list of approved field trips for my students unless I prepared them in advance to challenge the docents in their interpretation of slavery regardless of the bonds that might have and did sometimes develop between whites and blacks. I would also prepare my students to challenge statements made based on historical facts to back up so called stories no matter which side was painting the picture.

Where are the letters? Where are the diaries and journals? Where are bona fide interviews?

Most importantly……where are both sides of the issue?

Monday, January 19, 2009

King Day: 2009

Today is the official recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birth.

The following three posts appeared here previously and center upon Dr. King:

Get Off the Beaten Path: MLK's India Connection

MLK: It Should Be About How He Lived

Let Them Read a Book

These three post focus on Civil Rights:

Now Is the Time for Your Tears

13 Things About the Zoot Suit Riots

Marcus Garvey and the UNIA

Monday, January 12, 2009

Now Is the Time for Your Tears

In a few days a man with African American roots will become the next president of the United States….a very historic event.

However, a few short (at least to me) forty-six years ago the life of a black woman in Charles County, Maryland was worth a fine of $500 and six months in jail.

That's it.

The woman was Hattie Carroll and her fate was sealed the night of February 9, 1963, when she reported for work at the Emerson Hotel in Baltimore, Maryland.

During her work shift a young white tobacco farmer was attending the white-tie Spinsters’ Ball at the hotel. Apparently Ms. Carroll didn’t deliver Mr. Zantzinger’s drink fast enough , and he ended up hitting her with his cane. The cane ended up being nothing but a 25-cent wooden toy, but others who were hit with the cane that evening testified the blows were severe. Ms. Carroll was hit on the head and shoulders as Mr. Zantzinger hurled racial epithets I won’t repeat here.

From a Time magazine article:

“I’d been smacking- tapping- waitresses on the tail, and they didn’t say anything. I was just playing,” Zantzinger told the jury in Hagerstown, where the case was tried.

“I had no other purpose than to have a good time,” Zantzinger testified. “The last thing I intended was to harm or injure anyone. I never even thought about it.”

An article in the same Time magazine from February 22, 1963 states that not long after Ms. Carroll was hit she told co-workers, “I feel deathly ill, that man has upset me so.” She collapsed and was hospitalized. Eight hours after the assault the mother of eleven was dead. Though the autopsy did indicate she had hardened arteries, an enlarged heart, and high blood pressure, the report gave brain hemorrhage as the cause of death.

Mr. Zantzinger testified he remembered nothing, but admitted he had been extremely drunk. Initially he was charged with murder, but the charges were reduced to manslaughter and assault. The Time article goes on to state that the reason for the reduction in the charges were based on the idea that it was Ms. Carroll’s stress reaction to Mr. Zantzinger’s verbal and physical abuse that led to the intracranial bleeding, rather than the blunt-force trauma from the blow ….a blow that did not leave a mark.

In a second Time magazine article, titled Deferred Sentence, it was reported Mr. Zantzinger received a sentence of six months, a fine of $125 for the assault on the other hotel employees and and a $500 fine for the death of Ms. Carroll. The article goes on to state that the start of Mr. Zantzinger’s prison sentence was deferred giving him time to harvest his tobacco crop.

During the 1960s it was articles like the Time articles I’ve referred to here as well as the film clips shown on the nightly news that got the word out regarding the continued inequality that existed in the South.

Popular music also had bearing on getting the word out.

A young 20-something Bob Dylan was greatly moved by the death of Hattie Carroll. So much so that sitting in a New York City coffee shop he penned the following words:

William Zantzinger killed poor Hattie Carroll
With a cane that he twirled around his diamond ring finger
At a Baltimore hotel society gath'rin'.
And the cops were called in and his weapon took from him
As they rode him in custody down to the station
And booked William Zanzinger for first-degree murder.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,T
ake the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.

William Zanzinger, who at twenty-four years
Owns a tobacco farm of six hundred acres
With rich wealthy parents who provide and protect him
And high office relations in the politics of Maryland,
Reacted to his deed with a shrug of his shoulders
And swear words and sneering, and his tongue it was snarling,
In a matter of minutes on bail was out walking.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.

Hattie Carroll was a maid of the kitchen.
She was fifty-one years old and gave birth to ten children
Who carried the dishes and took out the garbage
And never sat once at the head of the table
And didn't even talk to the people at the table
Who just cleaned up all the food from the table
And emptied the ashtrays on a whole other level,
Got killed by a blow, lay slain by a cane
That sailed through the air and came down through the room,
Doomed and determined to destroy all the gentle.
And she never done nothing to William Zanzinger.
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.

In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
Stared at the person who killed for no reason
Who just happened to be feelin' that way without warnin'.
And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished,
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears.

Copyright © 1964; renewed 1992 Special Rider Music

The song was released on Dylan’s These Times They Are A-Changin’, and soon after he wrote the song he sang it live on the Steve Allen Show. Here is a clip of the Steve Allen appearance:

I became aware of this story from the era of Civil Rights due to this article I caught over the weekend.

Seems Mr. Zantzinger passed away on January 3rd.

I think it would interesting to provide the lyrics for students and allow them to go on their own fact-finding mission regarding unraveling the story Bob Dylan presents and then arguing the merits of Mr. Zantzinger’s case.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Wordless: Lunch on a Skyscraper

With the new year I thought it was time to begin a new Wordless theme….great online videos depicting historical themes.

I must give credit to this first video to my husband. He sent me a link to it in an email, and gee….it only took me several weeks to finally getting around to looking at it.

The photographs are the work of Otto Bettmann and Charles Ebbets….more about them later.


BTW…Once Upon a Time in America is one of my favorite movies.

Take a look at all the folks participating in Wordless Wednesday here.