"And behind the house is the kitchen and 'slave' quarters," our guide told us, whispering the word 'slave' as if its mere utterance might offend, or worse, in some way impugn the good name of the white descendants of Charleston slave-owners. When I further questioned about the slave quarters and numbers living at the Edmondston-Alston House, it was as if the very white (from the roots of her hair to her pale legs peeking out from below her skirt) docent hadn't heard me.
Then when I asked how a merchant in the 1800s could have 6 children and not even one married, I was met with a cool stare that seemed to say, "we don't talk about that dear," as her lips intoned, "no, none were married. Now notice how the interior shutters could cover the windows to keep out the sunlight."
Her reticence to utter the word slave, let alone discuss the horrendous history of slavery in Charleston stood in sharp contrast to our carriage tour guide, Matt. Matt spoke factually and at length about Charleston's influence on slavery in the United States as one of the first major slave trading ports. He told us how the rich rice merchants made a fortune selling rice to England, then returned to South Carolina via Africa where they loaded their ships with Africans to sell as slaves upon returning to Charleston harbor. He pointed out the barbed ironwork adorning several fences surrounding the majestic entryways to antebellum mansions. Matt claimed that the barbs were there for protection in case of a slave uprising and informed us that the ratio of blacks to whites in Charleston was 2:1 preceding the Civil War. The rice plantation owners, with townhouses in Charleston, lived in constant fear of a slave revolt.
Which historical perspective did each tour guide believe to be an accurate history lesson? Did our historical home tour guide really believe that slavery was an inconsequential element of the town home owned by Charles Alston? It surprises me that nearly 150 years following the Civil War, docents in the south could still have difficulty discussing slavery. For my historical edification, I am thankful that at least some, and possibly most, tour guides are able to honestly present the facts of slavery without resorting to a whisper.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Religion From Whose Perspective?
2000 years of Christian history in an hour—I was intrigued, my husband was skeptical. While 2000 years in one hour sounded like a tall order for one morning’s worship, I thought it would be a good review for me of the major events in Christianity.
I was not disappointed— we heard short synopses of the Romans in 200 AD, Celtics in the 700s, Italy Germany Alabama New England in 2010. A brief survey to be certain, but a peek at a few moments in time across two millenniums offered a sacred centering.
When I returned home I shared my fulfillment with my husband.
“So, I doubt the Spanish Inquisition was included”, he mused.
“No, but the Celtics were.”
“And the crusades?”
“Well, no but the history of indulgences was”
“Clearly a Protestant church would need to include that,” he responded.
Oh right, good point. How does my husband know more about ‘my’ religion’s history than I? And was I insufficiently skeptical of everything I had heard that morning? I thought I knew a reasonable amount about my religious community of which I had been a member since birth
As with most historical teaching, mine has been colored by learning it from within. Just as Southerners may get one perspective of the Civil War and Northerners another, or European Americans one view of settling the United States and American Indians quite a different perspective, so do we each take our own slant on our history by learning it from within. I notice this even when I listen to the BBC and hear their perspective on American news stories. Intentional or not we are all biased in our historical view of our own culture.
Yet perhaps this biased perspective is nowhere more apparent than in our religions. How often the passion and fervor of faith makes it more difficult to have a civil conversation over the history of a religion. Wouldn’t we all benefit by hearing how our faith is viewed by others of differing faiths?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)