Reporting from the SHA: “Championing Justice and Rejecting White Supremacy: The Public Role of Southern Historians?”

This roundtable discussed the role of historians in countering bad historical interpretation and supporting a narrative that challenges white supremacy in our current society. Presiding was Redell Hearn of the Mississippi Museum of Art and Tougaloo College, and panelists were John Hayes (Augusta University), Robert Luckett (Jackson State University), Anthony Dixon (Bethune-Cookman University), and Rachel Stephens (University of Alabama).

The panelists immediately revised the panel title to remove the question mark. There was no question, historians must be involved in current questions about history and memory. Hayes shared his personal experience of becoming more involved in his own community of Augusta in local discussions of historical memory and using his expertise as a historian to speak up. He said that is was important that those who created the problem help solve the problem, essentially that white people need to challenge other white people to pay attention to these issues and to ask questions. As beneficiaries of white supremacy over the course of history it is important to be proactive and have a public voice, be out as an ally, counter bad history, and take the time to engage in these situations.

Dixon’s advice was to bridge the gap between academia and the public and “just tell the truth.” Look at all the angles of the topic and just tell the history as it was. This can be difficult when engaging with the public and he gives some practical advice for bridging that academic-public gap. Have some knowledge of the community you are working with because you need to know the local culture and how they view the subject already. Think about the outcome, purpose, and use of your project—you want to show the community how this will help or affect them, especially with sensitive topics. Some historical topics can be very emotional and you must be able to explain to the community why you are bringing it up and understand how the topic will resonate past the limits of your program. Look carefully at all angles and perspectives and give everyone’s perspective to try to connect to everyone in the community.

Stephens approached the topic from the angle of an art historian, and she said that with more and more discourse about monuments and artistic representations, they also have a part to play. It is important that we all use our skills to bring these topics to public awareness, even if these are not places of comfort to many of us. She spoke about visiting over forty sites (as a tourist) to see how slavery was being presented on their public tours. She was happy to see that audiences were receptive to information when it was included, but information about slavery was not included at every site. She pinpointed one possible problem which was funding; many sites, especially smaller sites, might not have the funds to update their interpretation. She suggested to apply our skills and expertise in a public way, doing alternative types of history, to help sites like this. She made a personal commitment during this panel to do so and illustrated the ways she was going to do that: writing a public opinion piece, having students research slavery at an underfunded site to help that site change their interpretation, and to speak more about her research to public audiences.

Luckett is the one that drove the point home that the panel title must be a statement, not a question. He spoke about being called on to debate with Sons of Confederate Veterans on Mississippi Public Broadcasting; he didn’t want to do it, but they said if you don’t, then who will. We must be intentional in what we do within these debates, acknowledge how we ourselves have benefited from white privilege, and diversify who we are talking to. He called out the Southern Historical Association very bluntly and said that it needed to diversify its membership. He said that the organization was based in white supremacy and had not diversified. Not only does the SHA need to diversify, we need to speak outside of ourselves or else it is just white people talking to white people and not making any progress.

Hearn summed up the main talking points of the panelists:

• We must acknowledge the privilege and advantage that comes from a history of white supremacy, and in doing that take a step back and listen to those whose voices have not been historically heard.

• Chose how we will engage, either as a choice or by default.

• Just acknowledge the truth.

• Just be active—if you see something, do or say something.

• It important who is at the table—need diverse voices, but also our voices as professionals.

• Need more diversity in the SHA.

• Change the language about race, it is a necessary conversation—she tells her students “relax, lets have a conversation about race.”

The audience discussion was robust in this session, so these are a few highlights:

The first audience question was “How do you engage with students who do not want to face issues of white supremacy.” Stevens said that you could ease students into it but did not think that was the best approach. Someone else suggested framing these issues as “necessary history,” not “difficult history.” Hayes noted that students are deferential and think that you as the professor know what you are talking about. Use that to your advantage and chose readings carefully. I suggested the use of primary sources too, with the idea of just tell it as it is. Students are reading the words from historical actors, and often they express disbelief in what people said in history and how much they did not know. Dixon added that using personal stories to emphasis that these historical issues were not that long ago helps students make that connection and makes it more relevant to them. They need to see how the past connects to them and their experiences, and then you can encourage them to put that understanding into action in their own lives.

Another audience question asked about how female and African American professors often face more pushback from their students. How do you deal with challenges that you are just presenting politically correct revisionism? One challenge brought up is that students, and the public, usually do not understand historiography and how interpretation changes over time. Dixon talked to that point and that we need students to understand not only change over time, but how we still do things that connect back to culture in the past. Hayes commented that white students come into classes with a nationalistic ideology and view of history that they get through their public school education; we need to dynamite that and bombard them with evidence to give a more balanced and accurate historical interpretation. Luckett commented that a lot of students won’t challenge their professors and will instead express outrage that they had not learned of these things before (a member of the audience did push back a little and reinforce the point that female educators do see more challenges from their students). A member of the audience offered an analogy to introduce the need for historiography: you would not trust a doctor who was using 1950s knowledge and techniques, so you shouldn’t use historical understandings from then either. Another audience member commented that this needs to beyond the classroom, You can think that we are connecting to our students, but they still hold these ideas. Discuss systemic racism in class, make it relevant to them, and get them involved. Students become the public; give them the foundation in your class that they can take into the rest of their lives. Hearn noted that white people need to engage and do the work since they are the ones panicking in a crumbling system.

The discussion turned back to the lack of diversity in the SHA. Stephens asked what the SHA could do to increase diversity and acknowledge their history in white supremacy. Would it be an apology? Diversity funding? What steps could the organization take? Luckett commented that he had stopped engaging in the SHA and had decided to engage in more diverse organizations instead. Dixon suggested increased collaboration between organizations to increase diversity and lead to community programming in collaboration between different organizations.

I then raised a question about engaging with the public through the internet since that was where much of the public engages with history, through websites or social media. Dixon commented that engaging on the internet can be difficult because some minds are just shut and some people will not be convinced to change their opinions. The panelists brought up Ed Ayers’ podcast as a good example of how this type of engagement can succeed and they discussed how social media can be used to amplify issues. The internet can also be a tool to build relationships between museums and academics, and someone noted that even if you don’t convince the person that you are debating online you are giving information to anyone else that reads it, and you could still have an impact on them.

Final takeaways from the panelists included their ideas in “five” words: “proactively seek your public voice” [Hayes], “using research to educate and inspire” [Stephens], and “be intentional about undermining white supremacy” [Luckett] (I didn’t quite get Dixon’s phrase down in my notes).

Dr. Kathleen Logothetis Thompson earned her PhD in Nineteenth Century/Civil War America from West Virginia University, and also holds a M.A. from WVU and a B.A. from Siena College. Her research is on mental trauma and coping among Union soldiers and she is currently working on her first book, tentatively titled War on the Mind. She currently teaches history at several colleges and university and leads tours of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater. Kathleen was a seasonal interpreter at Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park for several years and is the co-editor of Civil Discourse.