The Power of Oral History
Smithsonian Institution Archives
Smithsonian Institution Archives
Martha S. Jones, in her review of Scott E. Casper’s Sarah Johnson’s Mount Vernon, emphasizes a critical tension in how we comprehend and conserve historical monuments, particularly those associated with slavery. Her argument is around the language we use and the voices we prioritize.
Part 1: The “Shrine” Effect
Casper and others refer to Mount Vernon as a “shrine.” How does such language shape historic preservation and interpretation at the enslaved labor plantation of George Washington?
The language of “shrine,” frequently used to describe Mount Vernon, significantly shapes its historic preservation and interpretation. This designation fosters an environment of reverence, often leading to a sanitized portrayal of the plantation’s history. By emphasizing George Washington’s legacy and contributions, the “shrine” label can inadvertently downplay the brutal realities of slavery that underpinned Mount Vernon’s existence. It risks prioritizing the narrative of a national hero over the experiences of the enslaved individuals whose labor and lives were essential to the plantation’s operation.
This can result in preservation efforts that focus on the grand architecture and Washington family artifacts, while neglecting the quarters and burial grounds of enslaved people, further marginalizing their stories in the historical record. The “shrine” mentality can also limit the scope of historical interpretation, making it difficult to address the complexities and contradictions inherent in Washington’s legacy and the institution of slavery he upheld.
PART TWO: The Value of Oral History
Despite the prevalence of factual errors, misremembering, and embellishment in oral history, what value does it offer for historic preservation?
Even though memories can fade and stories might get a little mixed up over time, oral histories are incredibly valuable for preserving the past, especially for communities like the enslaved people of Mount Vernon, whose stories were often left out of the official record. These personal accounts can offer crucial glimpses into lives that were systematically silenced, giving a voice to those who were historically ignored.
Oral histories can also challenge the usual, often one-sided, stories we hear about the past, revealing the complexities and hidden details that written documents sometimes miss. They keep cultural traditions alive, passed down through families, and help us remember the struggles and triumphs of past generations. Most importantly, oral histories humanize the people we study. They give names and faces to those who were enslaved, reminding us that they weren’t just property, but individuals with rich inner lives and experiences. And when we include these stories in our understanding of history, we create space for descendant communities to share their own family histories and become active participants in telling the true story of their ancestors.
Connecting the Arguments:
The tension between the idealized image of Mount Vernon as a “shrine” and the necessity of incorporating the often-messy realities of oral history highlights a central challenge in historic preservation. As Martha S. Jones suggests, the reverence associated with the “shrine” label can create resistance to narratives that complicate or challenge the established heroic narrative surrounding George Washington and Mount Vernon.
However, oral histories, despite their imperfections, are essential for providing a more complete and truthful account of the plantation’s history, including the lived experiences of the enslaved. Reconciling these conflicting forces—the desire to honor a national icon with the imperative to acknowledge the injustices of the past—is crucial for creating a more inclusive and accurate historical interpretation at Mount Vernon. Oral histories are not meant to replace traditional historical documentation, but rather to complement and enrich it, offering a more nuanced and human-centered understanding of the past.
