Civil Rights in the Archives – Access

In the current issue of American Archivist (v. 77 no. 1), Alex H. Poole‘s fine article, “The Strange Career of Jim Crow Archives: Race, Space, and History in the Mid-Twentieth-Century American South,” details the incredible, nearly unbelievable difficulties black scholars had in gaining access to the raw materials of history. Winner of the Theodore Calvin Pease Award for the finest work by an archival studies student, Poole is working towards his Ph.D. at University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill.

Poole’s extraordinary article chronicles the hardships encountered by noted African-American scholars such as John Hope Franklin, Lawrence Dunbar Reddick, and Helen G. Edmonds, among others. All of these individuals were well-established, respected scholars with Ph.D.’s, with university positions. Yet, when they tried to enter places like UNC, the Woman’s College, and other all-white institutions with major research collections, their presence could “generate a panic and an emergency among the administrators that was….an incident of historic proportions,” in the words of John Hope Franklin (as quoted by Poole).

The first dilemma the white staff faced was whether to admit Negro scholars at all. From the 1930s through the 1950s, most white institutions did not have formal policies in place. In the age of “separate but equal” most facilities assumed that black scholars would perform research at black institutions. At times, administrators at white institutions might reluctantly grant access, if it could be proven to their satisfaction that their repository was the only facility that housed the needed materials.

Even then, granting an African American scholar access was merely the first of a series of hurdles. A letter of introduction might be required, presumably written by a white scholar who could vouch for the African American’s credentials.

Where the black researcher would sit to do his or her work presented an enormous crisis. One library director wrote that white researchers would raise an “objection” if a black researcher was seated in the same reading room. In a number of cases, black scholars were given keys to the stacks, where they could work in a study carrel, alone and out of sight.

Yet another problem encountered by black scholars doing research at white institutions in the Jim Crow South was the indelicate matter of access to restroom facilities. Segregated restrooms apparently had stalls with steel doors; under no conditions would an exception be made to allow blacks to use white-only facilities; and the facilities were white-only because no provision had been made to provide “colored only” restrooms on an all-white campus. On at least one occasion, a black professor suffered the indignity of having to use a janitor’s closet, and Helen G. Edmonds was forced to make a long walk to Morehead Planetarium when she was doing research in the Southern Historical Collection at UNC.

Poole’s article contains many more details, and touches on issues of the facade of Southern “manners” for both races during Jim Crow. He illuminates the power that resides in access to archives – and the ways in which access (or lack thereof) correlates to the production of history. Finally, he concludes with jab at our modern consciousness, encouraging all archivists and administrators to understand how our work intersects with social justice, and urging us all to take this into account in our daily actions, from the reference desk to acquisitions.

Part 1 in a series.

Part 2 – Collections

Part 3 – Description

Part 4 – Acquisitions

Monuments Men rescued archives, too!

Monuments Men

Monuments Man Capt. Isaac Bencowitz of the Offenbach Archival Depot.
From the collections of Yad Vashem.

As an archivist, I’m keenly interested in the Monuments Men and their work to save the cultural heritage of the West, including archives.

Too often, their work with archives, libraries, and non-art museums are minimized or forgotten entirely. It puzzles me that the public and even scholarly fascination with them is so rooted in art, when their work was so much broader than this.  Perhaps art is more accessible. After all, we can all acknowledge the importance of a Michelangelo, Rembrandt, or Vermeer. Certainly, when it comes to the movies, art is going to be more glamorous and photogenic than stacks of books or manuscripts. But the rescue of ancient Torah scrolls or Egyptian papyri must be at least equal in their importance.

I hope that one day I’ll have an opportunity to further explore the Monuments, Fine Arts & Archives (MFA&A) work to rescue archives, and in particular, the operations at the Offenbach Archival Depot. Back in 1999, I did some initial, somewhat theoretical work on the use and abuse of European records during World War II, which featured some cameo roles by the Monuments Men. But the access to research sources then, compared to what they are now, is vastly different. Plus, my intent with that article was not so much to focus on the Monuments Men, but rather to look at how both sides interacted with records during the war, and what became of the records.

In the meantime, there are some outstanding resources now posted online, which can serve as a starting point for the exploration of the Monuments Men work with archives:

Series of articles profiling individual Monuments Men at the Text Message, a National Archives blog.

More articles about the National Archives and the Monuments Men (both real and in the movie), featured in the Prologue blog “Pieces of History” from the National Archives.

New exhibit at the Archives of American Art, including digital images and oral histories!

Photograph albums of the Offenbach Archival Depot (Album #1) and (Album #2) from the Yad Vashem archives in Israel.

Guide to the Offenbach Archival Depot collection at University of Chicago.

Guide to the Ardelia Hall Collection, Offenbach Archival Depot, records at the National Archives.

“Personal Reminiscences of the Offenbach Archival Depot, 1946-1949” by Col. Seymour J. Pomrenze, from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

Guide to the Col. Seymour J. Pomrenze Papers at the American Jewish Historical Society

“Cultural Looting: The Seizure of Archives and Libraries by the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg …” by Martin Dean of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

Guide from the National Archives to February 2013 events and other resources related to the release of the movie, “The Monuments Men”.

University of Wisconsin – Madison ‘s connection to the Monuments Men as found at  UW Library News, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Flickr and Tumblr

Tourism, History and Memory

Jim Weeks, Gettysburg: Memory, Market, and an American Shrine
 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2003).

In honor of the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg, instead of reading yet another book about the furious fight on the Pennsylvania hills, I chose to read this book by Jim Weeks. It was recommended to me earlier this year by Rob Thompson whom I met at the Future of Civil War Studies Conference this past spring. I had asked Dr. Thompson if he knew of a good book about Gettysburg and tourism, and this was the title he mentioned.

It is an extraordinary example of public history, and one that carries many lessons and examples far beyond Gettysburg and the Civil War:

How do tourists in the present day encounter history? What are their expectations? What do they feel they already know about the site or its story? How do their educational experiences and background affect their outlook? How has the historic site been commercialized? How do the business people involved in such activities view their association with the historic site?  What kinds of objects or services do tourists purchase, and why? How has the interpretation and commemoration of the site changed through time? How did the historic site come to be marked, remembered, and commemorated? Has this changed over time? What is the natural environment at the site – and how does that affect interpretation and the visitor’s experience? How do issues of race, class, and gender intersect with all of these issues? And the ramifications go on and on and on.

Every page is full of keen insights about the history of commemoration and tourism at Gettysburg. But even more enriching than that, nearly all of Weeks’ observations can be extrapolated to virtually any other historic site.  It is a case study, that can serve as a guide.

Highly recommended!

Ghosts of the Past – Part 2

Continuing my previous post about the session on ghost tours and the dark side of tourism at the Future of Civil War History Conference – more thoughts and questions raised by this session:

1) It’s my belief that ghost tours speak to the desire of some tourists to have a “transcendent experience” of the battlefield. To be sure, some people obtain this experience through touring the battlefield itself – but the ghost tour allows them to indulge their imagination, and through the descriptions provided by the ghost tour guide, the battle and its casualties may become more “real” to them. I recall the deeply shocking and moving photograph shown by Peter Carmichael at the session the night before; do some ghost tourists seek to “commune” with a man like this in his suffering? Do ghost tours “bring this man back to life”?

2) Several members of the panel made the point that ghost tours can give tourists a closer look at subjects not readily explored at a battlefield park. Rob Thompson, for example, a performance scholar and former Gettysburg ghost tour guide, said that the battle of Gettysburg was just the prelude to the stories told on ghost tours, because the tours focused on civilians, in the town. Glenn W. Gentry said that ghost tours often are more inclusive of blacks and women than more formal history tours. Both of these men added that ghost tours provide an opportunity for a negotiated history – providing a forum for open discussion, questions, speculation, and a customized experience (as in, “what do you all want to see tonight?”)

3) Question: Do ghost tours make history more accessible?  Think about kids bored with a standard history tour – but excited by the idea of a ghost tour. True, ghost tours are not factual history – but like the broader question raised frequently throughout the conference: if something gets people interested in and excited about history – can we live with the less-accurate if it will inspire visitors to seek out more information and get them interested in history?

Ghosts of the Past & Lingering Questions

Briefly, here are some questions that remain for me after this evening’s session about ghost tours and “dark tourism” at the “Future of Civil War History: Looking Beyond the 150th” Conference at the Civil  War Institute at Gettysburg College:

Question #1: Starting from the point made by Jill Ogline Titus that ghost tourism is not about history but rather about death and mortality (and more about our own mortality than about now-dead persons from the past): Is there, can there be, and/or should there be a link drawn between Drew Gilpin Faust’s work in This Republic of Suffering and ghosts/ghosts tours?

Question #2: Quote from Glenn W. Gentry, a geographer, “You can’t know Savannah until you know her ghosts.” How does this apply to U.S. history in general?  A.K.A. “You can’t know America until you know her ghosts.” AND taking that metaphorically – the ghost of slavery that haunts everything, that hangs about the ragged edges of the American psyche, that we don’t really want to look at, believe in, confront – because it is simply too fearful and shattering of the way we want to think of ourselves (or our ancestors) as Americans.

Question #3: Mentioned in passing, but worth exploring, David Glassberg asked, “To what extent was the Civil War an armed insurrection of slaveholders?” I’ve not heard it put this way before, and it is striking to think of it as an insurrection of slaveholders when the slaveholders themselves were so terribly paranoid about an insurrection among their slaves.

To be continued…..

Meanwhile, please discuss!