Civil War Actor Kicked out of Park Over Slave Comment

Newsbusters.org ^ | 6/15/06 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

In another example of PC stupidity gone wild, a Civil War re-enactor portraying a Confederate officer was kicked out of Historic Crossroads Village Park, near Flint, Michigan this past weekend, for saying that a young black child would probably have been a slave in 1860's Georgia.

Civil War re-enactor Tim VanRaemdonck said he was just staying in character when he wrote "slave" as the occupation of black children on fictitious enlistment papers during Civil War Days at Crossroads Village.

Word reached Crossroads Village manager Garry Pringle, who had two conversations with VanRaemdonck and asked him to leave.

Gosh! Imagine that! A black person being assumed a slave in 1860's Georgia?

What's next, assuming a Japanese man might have been in the Imperial Army circa 1930? Maybe an English soldier being thought a Cursader in the 14th century? Maybe it would be wrong to generalize that a North Vietnamese man would be a Communist in 1965?

Darn that history stuff anyway!

Not to be outdone by the stupidity of Village manager, Garry Pringle, Parks Director Amy M. McMillan said the following to the Media:

McMillan believes there were better choices than labeling the young boy a "slave" - even if the label was designed to share history.

"There were also free people of color in the southern states during this time period," she wrote in an e-mail to The Flint Journal. "More appropriate answers could have included occupations such as farmer, blacksmith, or other occupations typical of that time period.

"It would have been equally inappropriate to respond 'slave owner' to a Caucasian child who had asked such a question. Had any re-enactor provided such a response, he/she would have also been asked to leave the village."

Um, no Mz. McMillan. You are wrong on all counts proving you know next to nothing about American history. But, also proving you are a swell practitioner of the dark arts of PCism.

For some REAL history, Mz. McMillan, the total number of free blacks in Georgia as noted in the 1860 census was only 3,500. By contrast, the total number of slaves in Georgia in 1860 amounted to 462,198! So, NO, Mz. McMillan, it would NOT have made much sense to assume that, on average, a black person in Georgia would have been a free man. There was nothing "more appropriate" to have said to the child but that he would probably have been a slave, Mz. McMillan.

Now, to clear up your other garbled historical claim, Mz. McMillan; The number of white slave owners in 1860 Georgia was 41,084 out of a total white population of 591,550. So, while it would not have been an automatic assumption that a white person in Georgia in 1860 was a slave owner it was far, far more likely to assume that a white person might own slaves in 1860 Georgia than to assume a black person was a free man in the same place and time period. The statistics do not lie, Mz. McMillan.

The reenactor was right and the staff of the Crossroads Village is wrong to have removed him from the Park for telling history like it is.

Another member of the group to which the unduly accosted reenactor belongs told the Flint paper:

"If we don't discuss it, children don't learn."

"Learning" is NOT what the putrid purveyors of PCsim want. They want whitewashed, cleansed history free of anything that might "upset" or cause certain people to have any "low self-esteem". They don't want people to actually understand the history of this country at all. They just want to label all white people as evil and let that "lesson" go unexamined, kept as a vague notion never investigated and never spoken of directly.

I hope that Civil War reenactors in Michigan stop participating at the "Historic" Crossroads Village Park and stop helping them make all that money off a public whom the Village refuses to help learn about our history. Sadly, the "Historic" part of their charge is to be ignored.

[Chickensoup]

A better answer? Ya mean one that would have appeased more people.


No, a more accurate answer. Many slaves were not just "slaves." They had special functions and trainings. Southerners were businessmen who for the most part, used their slaves wisely and trained them to produce income.

[ladyinred]

So much for free speech in America folks. We can only speak what the liberals deem suitable. They of course may speak as they wish. BTW: What the heck was supposed to be wrong with what he said, and where is the ACLU demanding his rights??

[PeteB570]

I read through Post 19 and I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Most persons visiting a historic site generally are not aware that some people are in "First Person" while others are not.

Running into someone in "first person" can be somewhat unsettling the first time a visitor tries to make conversation.

Sometimes having a park volunteer, historian or other reenactor explain about that before a visitor hits the first group of "First Person" historians helps a great deal with the "uncomfortable factor".

Then again I've seen some who claimed to be in "First Person" but I thought should have been locked up for being a loon.

Not all Living Historians are equal.

[Doctor Raoul]

Not every black person in Georgia was a slave in 1862.

How many and why not?

[Old Professer]

History is a thin membrane separating reality from disaster.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Reading the original newspaper article, it seems the kids were acting as if they were signing up for the army. the reenactor put slave on the "occupation" line for a few of the black kids.

Seems to me like everything was known and above board.

[Old Professer]

They aren't used to Redskins down there, you know. :)

[Old Professer]

And not all are living.

[PeteB570]

You can get a bunch of laughs and good feelings by drafting everybody within earshot into the Infantry. Wisely keeping at least one family member with a camera out of the formation.

Adults and kids formed up and given a few basic commands and movements will suck them into the spirit of things, break the ice and step up the interaction in the other areas.

Sometimes the kids pick it up better than the grownups.

Two people can do exactly the same activity but it comes out 180 degrees different just based on their personality.

Just my opinion of course.

[colorado tanker]

Excellent point, "slave" was a status, not an occupation. Slaves filled many occupations.

[RushLake]

"And have you seen the History Channel lately?"

A few months back they had a program on Lincoln which centered around the premise that he was a homo. The author, whose name escapes me, of "April 1865" was one of the featured historians. His book is terrific, and he was not pushing the homosexual agenda, but they sure had enough dyky looking female "historians" who were pushing that crap. I didn't make it thru more than about 20 minutes of that crap

[wingnut1971]

Perhaps a little off topic, but my great-great grandparent's house is located in Crossroads Village.

[HostileTerritory]

Also, you know, you're working with kids. Slavery is a fact of history but it's a painful one for kids to understand and there are better ways of doing it.

It's like how you don't lead 7 year-olds into the Holocaust Museum and say, "who here is Jewish? You would have been gassed with your Mommy!" There are better and more sensitive ways of approaching the truth in a way whose first message isn't to restate the dehumanization.

[Mobile Vulgus]

You should take it back, then!

[Mobile Vulgus]

Your comment would make sense if anyone was being "dehumanized", but the original article does NOT support your wild conclusion.

[AzaleaCity5691]

But all that is going to do is prejudice the black kids against the grey, and against symbols of the Confederacy, we'll give them a misunderstanding about what the war was really about. We know where the free black enclaves were in the Southeast, whats so hard with putting on that little form, it's not like this is reality anyway, that they're from said enclave, and giving them an occupation that would have existed in these enclaves. It gives a more balanced telling of the war, maybe even organizing a replica black unit, under the command of a black officer, all in grey, if we're going to give accurate history.

[babydoll22]

This is not PC hogwash.

All the black people at that time were astronauts.

At least that's what they taught me in my Black History Class.

[Boxsford]

lol. best post of the day!

[Mobile Vulgus]

Azela,

You are NOT offering "balance" with your lame attempt to wash slavery away!

The reenactor said GEORGIA in 1860. He did NOT say New Orleans! He did not even generalize it to "the south". He said Georgia. The REALITY is that in Georgia the stats were that less than 1% of blacks in that state were free blacks in 1860. Reality is a tough one, eh?

Or are you one of those who want to pretend that slavery didn't really even exist during the Civil War?

[Cheburashka]

Southerners were businessmen who for the most part, used their slaves wisely and trained them to produce income.
---
Umm, duh. A human being needs to be fed, clothed, sheltered. A slave owner will have to pay those monthly costs, as well as the initial cost of acquiring the slave, whether by purchase of by support of a slave child born to its slave mother until it is old enough to be put to work. The only reason you would do such a thing is that you expect to make a profit. Therefore the profit motive is the underlying basis and sole reason for slave holding.
Every slave (with the temporary exception of children too young to be put to work) had work to do for the benefit of the slaveholder. This is true of slave holding at any time or place in history. The implication that slaves in the South were were were utilized in any way differently than slaves in Greece of Rome is clearly erroneous. Training given to the slave is irrelevant.
Slave holding was never charitable work, and never done for the benefit of the slave.