In Tuesday's class, Haley and Drew led a discussion on the article "Slavery in American History, An Uncomfortable National Dialogue" by James Oliver Horton. Horton argues that the majority of Americans do not have the depth or accuracy of historical knowledge needed to discuss slavery and how it pertains to present day race relations.  Horton notes that surveys from the 90's show that most people perceive American slavery as a southern institution, not that bad, and existing primarily right before the civil war.  In reality, slavery began in America in the 1500s, and thrived in the North until the early 19th century.  Attempts to minimize the horrors, dehumanization, and violence of slavery are common among many American today.  Because of the gaping historical holes and misinformation believed by many adults and taught by the public school system, Horton argues that it falls upon public historians of non-academic spaces to take up the task of reeducating Americans about slavery.  His definition of public historian includes the filmmakers, park rangers, and museum interpreters of America.

    How does Amistad fit into this role of public historian educating the public on slavery?  Horton quoted NAACP coordinator Salim Khalfani, "whenever entertainment is used to teach history there is the possibility for error or insensitivity and historical inaccuracy."  As an interpreter on Amistad, I've thought a lot about this issue, agreeing with Khalfani's statement.  Amistad is a cool, exciting boat.  Often it's at tall ship festivals, or a posh dock on a fun Saturday afternoon. It begs to entertain.  I can't count the number of kids who run onboard, and immediately ask if this is a pirate vessel.  Most people do expect some measure of entertainment when visiting.  Pandering to this demand, in the past I've caught myself playing up the violent parts of the Amistad incident to kids.  I realized, however, that this was not a sensitive way to approach the subject.  Did I want kids to leave remembering the machetes the Africans used, or did I want them to remember that Africans and Americans worked together to fight for human rights? My goal in talking to people about the Amistad is to engage them in the amazing successes of the Amistad history as an incident of resistance by Africans.  I also try to impart the value of the abolitionist conversations and human rights court rulings that happened in the United States.  Lastly, I hope people walk away with a deeper sense of the dehumanization, violence, and oppression slaves faced.  My ultimate goal is to be engaging and thought provoking, rather then entertaining.
      Many visitors show their lack of knowledge about slavery and their expectation to be entertained by coming on board in a jovial mood, asking where the slaves are.  Because I have a background knowledge of slavery, I find this subject serious and emotional.  I feel these types of comments are offensive especially in the space of the Amistad.  This is the challenge of being a public historian: people will visit without contextual knowledge and without thinking about the space they're in.  I see insensitive visitors as a gift because it is a chance to open dialogue with someone who usually doesn't think about slavery in their every day lives.  Usually I respond by pumping these visitors full of facts, hoping that if they embrace the gravity of what it meant to be taken on a transatlantic passage, they will change their attitudes.  The most valuable task Amistad has is opening up people's minds to new information and ideas. Amistad may be one of the only spaces someone will come to discuss slavery, and I hope every visitor leaves with a new perspective.

Comments (0)