The Tough Stuff

It seems as though there are two types of people: those who are shocked by nothing and those who are shocked by everything. Americans, as a society, are enjoying a time when controversies of all kinds are deconstructed, repackaged, and presented in the most appealing and appalling way possible. The public is left to either embrace or reject the information, per their preconceived notions of correctness.

The subject of slavery is no exception. From recent debates on reparations to Tracy Morgan's portrayal of Thomas Jefferson, slavery has been packaged as a harrowing but defining part of American history and present day race relations. However, as slavery becomes increasingly easier to address through a modern lens, historians face a dilemma regarding their responsibilities and abilities to present slavery, simply, as it was.

James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton collected a set of essays on this significant problem in public history. Their book, Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory provides a comprehensive overview of how historians and educators regularly grapple with the issue of slavery. They begin with essays that examine the broad question of how slavery has fundamentally affected modern American society. A series of essayists then examine specific instances in which slavery has been handled at sites of public history.

The authors of the essays present a number of problems, including the comfort of public history consumers (similar to the previously blogged-about Amy Tyson article), the appropriateness of museum policies, and the constant pursuit of truth. Each essay advocates the use of education to dispel the stigma surrounding discussions of slavery and encourage open and honest discourse. However, none of the contributors offer practical solutions to the specific cases that they study.

Roger Launius isolates the main dilemma of uncomfortable public history exhibits in his essay, "American Memory, Culture Wars, and the Challenge of Presenting Science and Technology in a National Museum," (published in The Public History of Science in Winter, 2007). He asks, "How might we, seeking to be useful to the society we serve, respond to this situation? How might we best survive whatever scorn arises in this process without compromising our commitment to serving society?" (30).

This question is where I hop on the mental treadmill and run over the same span of thought repeatedly. How do historians present the uncensored and uncomfortable truth without challenging the public to the point where they resent public history? Is it the responsibility of historians to be comfort counselors as well as educators?