Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Representations of Slavery: Race and Ideology in Southern Plantation Museums

    Uploaded by

    Ana Torrejais
    14 views44 pages
    Jennifer L. Eichstedt e Stephen Smael Smithsonian Institution Press 2002

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jennifer L. Eichstedt e Stephen Smael Smithsonian Institution Press 2002

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    14 views44 pages

    Representations of Slavery: Race and Ideology in Southern Plantation Museums

    Uploaded by

    Ana Torrejais
    Jennifer L. Eichstedt e Stephen Smael Smithsonian Institution Press 2002

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 44
    Representations of Slavery Race and Ideology in Southern Plantation Museums Symbolic Annihilation and the Erasure of Slavery ur primary concer in this chapter is the way sites are structured so that the institution of slavery and the presence and personhood of those enslaved and of legally free African Americans are either completely crased or extremely minimized. This erasure and minimization are achieved via a number of rhetorical devices and practices that are found in tour guides’ comments, in the many artifacts in the homes (portrai plaques, personal items, and so on), promotional literature, leaf slavery and those enslaved, presented and identified by tour guides ion, which suggests that slavery and people of African descent either literally were not present or were not important enough to that this discursive practice constitutes symbolic raci ‘explicit degradation of African Americans through “old: has decreased, new forms of racism, including more subtle forms of framing racialized talk, have developed. In this case neither slavery nor the people enslaved or their contributions are allowed into the organizing framework, Coupled with this symbolic annihilation of enslavement and f the presence of both enslaved persons and most workino-cl 406 Managing Slavery: Representational Strategies simultaneous aggrandizement of the white elite master-enslavers who resided at these sites. Additionally, the detailed accounts of the lives, hopes, ambitions and experiences of the white elite plantocracy are very gendered; ' spheres are high- inctions between white men’s and white wom ighout the tours. Thro bby docents, white residents are represented as hospital and democratic. y of repression and elevation is not restricted to the stories tion by making det ia, and Louisiana, We also highlight how in each state the symbolic anni- ‘War in Georgia, and the tragic losses of the Civil ethnic difference in Louisiana. We provide detailed information from si ‘wo ways. First, we describe tour, leaflets, and videos from some ofthe larger sites that demonstrate this concept and capture variations in narrative styles Second, we provide representative from other sites that best exemplify symbolic annihilation. C: this provides insights into the substance and texture of sites that operate through the concept of symbolic annihilation. We conclude the chapter with a dis- cussion of the constructions of whiteness fou across the stat fidence t these sites ‘The Concept of Symbolic Annihilation ‘Symbolic annihilation constitutes a powerful rhetorical and representational mn of slavery. The concept of symbolic jon was developed in the 1970s in the works of George Gerbner (1972) and Gaye Tuchman, Arlene Kaplan Daniels, and James Benét (1978 in the media ‘who argue that women are subject to symbolic annibi ized, or condemned for taking non~ and Benét write, “The don't matter when they are either absent, tri ‘Tuchman, Daniel ican tclevision tells us that wom stereotypical gender paucity of women on 1e concept past what was laid out by Gerbner and Benét. In other words, most authors accep\ nitions and apply them to situations where subordinated groups are absent om, or marginalized within, media re ‘We use the concept of symbol Americans within the plantation museum i formation is included and ex le, Formalistic, fleeting, or perfunctory. Genera at sites that mentioned we'll demonstrate, this strategy occurred wery or the enslaved three or fewer times. How- ever, times also employ the strategy of trivialization and deflection, which we dis- ‘cass in chapter 5. rategies in the category of sym such as: + Exclusive focus on the mat though these people usually represented tation’ population nention, acknowledgment, or discussion of slavery, the enslaved, or African Americans ial and so life of the plantocracy, ev. fraction of a given plan- f the enslaved or Blacks in a perfunct and fleeting way, throwaway statement of fact, with no det monly seraunts and servitude * Use of the passive voice a 108 Managing Slavery: Representational Strategies * Universalizing and ahistorical statements that clearly refer only to (live) white experience These multiple devi any consideration of not that any spe~ or sites are acting. ice or the intent to symbolically ‘experience, but rather that there is such a powerful pattern of erasure that the pattern must be addressed, [An Overview of Exclusion and Symbolic Annihilation at Plantation Museum Sites Approximately 25 percent of al the sites across the three states failed to very or the enslaved in any way whatsoever. Sites that mention slavery one to three timer constizute approximately 30 percent of all plantar tion sites we visited. Al together, sites that engage in symbolic annihilation as their primary strategy make up 55.7 percent ofall sites. Ar thes sites slav= cry is mentioned in relation to the number of enslaved people owned on a specifi site, at used in reference to a specific building ("There isa slave cabin outside”) oto a specific task. Thete references serve to marginalize those enslaved since they are provided without any contextualizing discus- sion of slavery, either atthe speci site or in the region asa whole. Our ar- .gument is that this type of framing does not contribute to an understand- ing of the institution of slavery or the lives of those enslaved. ‘At this point we'd like to be clea that nearly 83 percent of all planation ser in this study bave symbolic annibilation as one of ther primary strategies in rela tom t slavery, In our discussion we have separated out 27.0 percent of these sites and included them under the category of tivalizaion and deflection (Giscussed in chapter 5) because they employ this strategy in addition to sym- bolic annihilation, In this chapter, however, we wll only be providing examples from the 55.7 percent of ites that engage in symbolic annihilation without also employing trivializing practices. The face that such a high proportion of the sites principally engage in symbolic annihilation is somewhat astounding, particularly given the development of scholarly work that explores planta- tion architecture, life behind the big house, and the enslaved persons. Our ‘even at sites that have ‘Symbolic Annihilation and the Erasure of Slavery 100 sginia yielded no mention of slavery or enslaved people. At the end of the tour Professor Fichstedt asked if anything was known about slavery atthe site, She was directed toa slave cabin that satat the edge of the property; no farther information was provided. Yet Poplar Forest published Hider Lives ‘The Archacology of Slave Life at Thomas Jefferson’ Poplar Farest in 1999. So while there is some knowledge available about the lives of enslaved persons st Poplar Forest, it was not provided on the two different tours attended at the ste, Thisis also the case with Nottoway Plantation in Louisiana and the Antebellum Plantation in Georgia. Books are ava details of slavery and mension the individual planta tations, in the case of the Antebellum Plantation) around which the tours are currently organized. However, virtually none of this information is shared on the tours. This isan example of symbolic anil AAs we explained in chapter 1, white-centr ‘Symbolic annihilation clearly isa white-centrc practice in that whiteness is atthe center of the discourse and is generally unquestioned and unnamed, ‘This is characteristic ofthe typical site inthe contemporary South. The foci at these sites, as laid out in the previous chapter, are the build that these comprise the primary foci of tours and are presented in such a way that excludes acknowledgment or discussion of how the system of en- 3 provided the foundation for this wealth and lifestyle. Consider ng comparison. The number of references to furniture averaged 50 per site (ranging from 20 to 100). Among the sixty-five sites that use sym= bolic annihilation as their primary strategy, then, there are approximately. ‘ery ar those enslaved, Similar gures hold forthe other categories, such as ar-

    You might also like