“He Was a Nice Slave Owner” and Other Myths
How to explain tough subjects without being an apologist
I ran into a writing issue the other day. I was writing a piece about a noted horticulturalist who was responsible for hundreds of varieties of plants we see today. He was also an adamant Eugenicist and believed that imperfections could and should be bred out of the human race. As a narrative historical writer, juxtaposing the good and bad of a person or event can be difficult. No one wants to be labeled as the person who supports racist or eugenicist writing, much less people. So, how does one navigate the tricky and messy points of history?
One of the best things about being a history writer and researcher is the chance to view history through an objective lens. It is an opportunity to read history for history’s sake. Although academics are often accused of bias, any researcher knows that bias skews the story and if one enters into research with a preconceived notion, they are simply doing research wrong. The common mantra is that historical analysis is subject to bias, but the history itself doesn’t lie.
Or does it?
Half History and Mr. GoodGuy
When researching difficult subjects such as slavery, women’s history issues, and labor unions, we often run into a couple of key issues: that of “historiography” and of apologists. My favorite part of historical research is historiography, or analyzing history in the time it was written. It is truly the History of History! Who wrote it, and for what reason? What was the author’s purpose in particular phrasing? We can learn a lot about the writer and time by seeing what issues they choose either to amplify or gloss over.
Take for instance, the subject of slavery. In books written more than fifty years ago, even well respected historians tried to smooth over the abject brutality of slavery. Sentences state “By all accounts, he was a kind slave owner” or “The master was known to grant freedom to his slaves after he died.” These are what historians call “apologist” sentences. Simply put, historians made up excuses for the enslavement of human beings by attempting to make some sound nicer than others… that they somehow were exceptional in their treatment of enslaved human property. Statements like this turn a person with questionable values into a person I call Mr. GoodGuy: historical figures that we all know had questionable values, yet historians ignored the negative in order to push a narrative. We see it especially when the American Founding Fathers are concerned: history writers of the past did some linguistic gymnastics to ameliorate the general horrors of slavery by painting a portrait of kindly fathers who took care of their enslaved property as if they were their own children. This style of apologist writing acknowledges that slavery was a horrible institution, but gives a pass to the actions of important Americans in order to uphold specific narratives. Concepts such as Manifest Destiny, reverence for the Founding Fathers, and even the glorified concept of the United States itself depended on kindly paternal guidance from our Mr. GoodGuy leaders. It would have been almost un-American to portray these men as they truly were: wealthy, tax-dodging landowners who enslaved others and participated willingly in the brutal institution of slavery because they financially benefitted. This truth is far from the kindly paternal image we were raised to revere. They were flawed human beings, and not infallible. Far from Mr. GoodGuy, but still had some redeeming qualities.
Apologist writing seems somewhat unnecessary in hindsight, but we must understand that we ALL learned history based on apologist concepts. That in itself is the nature of historiography. In a literary sense, historiography is the concept that an historical author’s statements and style of writing are reflective of the time in which they were written. If, for example, statements about slavery were made during the 1840s, they mean something far different than if the statements were made in the 1890s, or even something completely different if the statements were made in 1964. What was the author trying to prove, in context of the history in which he or she was contemporarily existing? Perhaps the author was personally against the Civil Rights Act and chose phrasing that downplayed the historical horrors of the Black American experience. Or, maybe the author in the 1840s was an abolitionist and was using his writing to sway opinions towards, say, Liberian Nationalism. As historians and readers, we have an obligation to analyze time and source concurrently so we can determine the validity of statements or omitted information.
Historiography is the explanation of information that was written at a point in history. Even if the primary source was written during a particularly difficult point of history, that part of the story gives context to the reader and allows the author to explain information without making apologies for the content. Omitting that information perpetuates historical ignorance.
The Question of Revisionist History
Revisionist history is often criticized for “changing the story.” That could not be further from the truth. The long-standing practices of apologist writing and neglecting historiography are to blame for perceived changes — those pieces of information were intentionally omitted from the beginning, or were poorly explained by those who chose to research events in the first place. By including additional pieces of historically verified information, we are now getting the complete history of events. Historical writing depends on truth and the later inclusion of omitted or glossed information may seem like the story has “changed.” The truth, however, tells a more complete version of historical events. Some of those additions may be uncomfortable, but that does not mean they are ahistorical. History is messy. Oppression is a standard of societies from the beginning of, well, history.
Culturally, we are currently experiencing a historical war, but it is a war of information. The information that makes us feel good about our nation is not necessarily the complete truth, but we shouldn’t feel bad about the new addition of omitted information. Rather, we should think like historians: truth is not subject to analysis, and it gives us a more human appreciation for the realities of our lives. Acknowledging eugenics, racism, slavery, oppression are awful and necessary concepts that help us have a more complete grasp on our history and conversely, our future.
How can writers help?
Writers, especially historical writers, are in a unique position to expose some of the hidden truths, but we have to be careful when doing so. Take for example, my article about an infamous Eugenicist. I included that fact in my article because 1) it was relevant and 2) it is important to explain difficult historical concepts without glorifying the fact. I chose to write the following about my subject: “He was a known Eugenicist and believed in selective breeding of human beings. He was a product of his time and even though many of his contemporaries were also Eugenicists, there were many who absolutely disagreed with this controversial and dangerous theory. It was a complicated time for science.”
See? It’s not that difficult.
The main goal of historians is to tell the truth, regardless. Clarifying historiography can be confusing, but it is important to tell facts without glorifying or further convoluting controversial concepts. Through careful word choice, we can confront the tough parts of history and teach people a more truthful story.
