World-class historical sites, from Monticello to Colonial Williamsburg, play a critical role in Virginia’s economy and self image. (Any state blessed with a “Bacon’s Castle” is truly endowed with a rich heritage). Historical sites generate tourism and dollars. And therein lies a problem for historians and those who interpret history for visitors.
The current edition of The University of Virginia magazine profiles the work of UVa anthropology prof Richard Handler, who scrutinizes the history doled out at Disneyfied attractions like Colonial Williamsburg. There is an inherent tension, he argues, between pleasing the crowds with feel-good commentary, so they want to come back, and searing them with the ugly truth of an institution like slavery.
Focusing on the role of the tour guides and interpreters, he says, “They’re caught between educating and appeasing. They have a combination of anger and a lot of pride in their jobs. They live with contradictions they can’t resolve. And when we’d criticize the general historiographical contradiction at Williamsburg between constructivism and objectivism, they’d defend the institution.”
Handler raises a legitimate issue. Ideally, historical interpretations shouldn’t be tainted by commercial considerations. But things are changing. A critical strain of interpretation has made inroads, though Handler is still frustrated by the persistence of patriotic elements:
In the end all we can say is that the social history came to the museum in the ’70s, and by the ’80s and ’90s, the left-wing social historians were in control of the agenda. And yet so deeply anchored is the celebratory, patriotic story that a critical message doesn’t get out nearly as loudly as you’d think. You can certainly pick up strands of social or critical history, but the dominant message is still one of celebration.
Oh, what a shame. How terrible it is that Virginians still take pride in any aspect of their past.
The point that prompted this post is the line I italicized: the left-wing social historians [are] in control of the agenda. Handler obviously considers that a good thing. To me, that’s a huge story that needs telling. How did left-wing social historians take control of the agenda? Have they satisfied themselves with merely correcting the hagiographical excesses of past interpretations, or have they imposed a leftist race/class/gender construct onto the messages meted out to thousands of visitors every year? Inquiring minds want to know.
