American Civil War, Two Museums and Two Perspectives

America was willed into existence, as Americans are fond of saying, with the 'Declaration' that 'all men are created equal'. A nation, so born, was also mired in hypocrisy by not just refusing to end slavery but by enshrining it in the constitution. It is mild to call it hypocrisy, it is America's shame and America's original sin. However we might dress it up as "expedient arrangement" or that "the promise was what enabled the country to end slavery, eventually", it remains a dark chapter that continues to cast a shadow, two centuries later, on America.

Nearly a century after America went to war with itself, and nearly two centuries after the founding, Martin Luther King Jr scolded the country that the promise of equality, a promissory note, came returned,"marked insufficient funds".

Last year as I toured the Nazi museums of Berlin I wondered why does America not have a single museum that would match Germany's 'Topography of terror' museum. That museum is constructed right where the Gestapo headquarters used to stand. The museum not only bares the horrors of the Nazi regime but also puts to rest myths about the Nazi regime such as Hitler resurrecting German economy and the lies about lack of direct involvement of Nazi higher officials in Holocaust. Several of Berlin's museums were constructed solely to cleanse a nation of its sin. The goal is to ensure 'never again'. America should learn this lesson from Germany and learn it with urgency.

As Hillary Clinton saw her hopes to be President evaporate in wintry Iowa and New Hampshire her husband Bill Clinton became unhinged. After a brutal, ill advised, contest in South Carlina where Obama defeated Hillary handily Bill Clinton told a reporter "well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina when he ran". The entire black community erupted in anger. That remark was interpreted, unfairly, as suggesting that Barack Obama, like, Jesse Jackson, another black aspirant to the Oval office, cannot go beyond a traditional stronghold like South Carolina. When rumors surfaced that Bill Clinton wanted Obama to 'wait' his turn the resentment in black community crossed boundary. Black voters interpreted the 'wait your turn' comment as "the time has not yet come for a black President". Racial politics still tears into America.

The pivotal moment of 2008 primaries was when news of Obama's pastor cursing 'God damn America' emerged. Obama's campaign went into a tail spin. A largely sympathetic press then helped Obama tamp that story down aided by a mediocre speech on race relations. Commentators helpfully quoted MLK Jr that "sunday morning 10 AM is the most segregated hour in America". MLK Jr was talking about the fact that black and white churches where, well, 'black' and 'white'.

I visited "The Museum of the Confederacy" and "Civil War Museum" in Richmond recently. The Confederacy Museum, thankfully, was not outright racist but it showed a remarkable blindness to America's shame. We have to note that both museums only deal with the war as their central theme. Slavery is an incidental topic in one and a side note in the other.

The first exhibit in the Confederacy Museum was titled "Why Secession, Why War". The exhibit explains that the leaders of the Confederacy acted because "they believed that the election of Abraham Lincoln as U.S.President threatened the South's interests. Lincoln's Republican Party championed a high tariff and federally subsidized internal improvements-economic policies that the South had long resisted-and opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories". The exhibit concluded saying that Abraham Lincoln wanted the South to fire the first shot and start the war. A third exhibit speaking about the firing at Fort Sumter ends with "Abraham Lincoln had succeeded in maneuvering the Confederacy into firing the first shot of the war".

The exhibit "Why did they fight" said the South thought it was embarking on a second revolution to protect constitutional rights and that 'among these rights was the right to own slaves-a right sanctioned by Constitution and by custom-even though the vast majority of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves".

The most curious exhibit was about refuting the rumor that Jefferson Davies, President of the Confederacy, tried to escape wearing his wife's clothing. The museum carefully and most emphatically disproves that rumor.

The museum hews close to a typical narrative in the South that the war was all about rights, that slavery was not the prime mover, that after all slavery was indeed a right under the constitution (and sanctified by subsequent Supreme Court ruling as in Dred Scott). The museum is titled "The museum of the Confederacy". But it has nothing about life in the Confederacy and is only about the Confederate view point regarding the Civil War.

A sad exhibit was the one titled 'Fraternization' that spoke of how soldiers of the Union and Confederacy who were butchering each other would still get together to relax, share food and even trade. It reminded of a poem by T.Hood that speaks for a soldier who remembers his opponents and wonders if they had met in bar that they would have shared a drink. Civil War historian Drew Gilpin Faust in 'Republic of suffering' estimated the US lost nearly 1/6th of its population.

My next museum was the 'Civil War Museum' at Tredegar near Richmond. This is a more intellectually honest museum. This museum traces the history of the conflict through the two key issues of slavery and economic structures. The agrarian South was dependent on slavery for its labor. Industrialized North, by virtue of industrialization, needed free men. As a college student I had read Nehru's 'Glimpses of World History' wherein Nehru quotes Lincoln showing that freeing slaves was not the primary aim of the war. Lincoln only desired to keep the union. Emancipation was a by product of the war. In fact if Lincoln had declared Emancipation as the goal, it can be fairly said, many in the Union army would not have gone to war.

Through out the war slaves were defined as property by both the Union and the Confederacy. Wartime customs of confiscating enemy 'property' was used to liberate slaves in conquered territory. Lincoln hated slavery but never believed that blacks and whites were equal.

At a place where visitors could write their thoughts on a stickie paper a visitor wrote "African kings helped white traders in getting slaves. Where would those slaves be in life if they had lived in Africa". Pre-eminent Afro-American Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates Jr wrote an oped in New York Times about a much less spoken part of slavery. White slave traders would dock their ships in the port and wait for slaves to be brought by local kings from the inland. This is a controversial part in the slavery debate akin to the role of the 'Judenrat' (Jewish Councils) in Holocaust. But that a person in 2013 America could ask indirectly "did they not have a better life by being brought to USA, albeit as slaves" is what is appalling.

I read Margaret Mitchell's 'Gone with the wind' when I had not yet read much about slavery in USA. I did not think much about the glorification of the South's way of life much. Only when I read Malcolm X's biography by Alex Haley the political angle of the book struck me. Malcolm X, a vagabond when the movie was released, watched it in Harlem (of all places). Not knowing much about the movie he went to the theater and he was startled that he was the only person in a Harlem theater watching 'Gone with the wind". Mitchell glorifies the South and makes it appear that slaves were treated like human beings, even almost equals, with great care and concern by their masters.

Henry Louis Gates edited a nice collection of writings by slaves titled 'Slave narratives'. It is a moving collection of writing. When children are torn from their parents and sold into slavery it is hard not to shed a tear. Young girl children were abused. Education was denied. Even unto the modern era the lynchings, Jim Crow, KKK all tell a very sordid saga. KKK was born out of the civil war.

Both museums concentrate mostly on just how the war went. Neither museum delve into any aftermath in considerable measure. Drew Gilpin Faust in her book would focus on how the war completely remade gender relationships and redefined role of women in society. The museums barely scrape such an effect.

On civil rights I've a note to add. It is a misconception that racism is only by whites against blacks. Racism is usually intertwined with what a race feels perceives as threats to its economic prospects. Black mayor of Washington DC recently made very objectionable comments about stores owned by Asians in DC. When Asian basketball player Jeremy Lin became a sensation he was mocked by blacks chanting 'go back to your books'. During the recent 50th anniversary of MLK Jr's immortal 'March on Washington' a columnist recalled the pivotal role played by Bayard Rustin, a little spoken of civil rights hero. MLK Jr shunned him because Bayard Rustin was a homo-sexual. When Obama made the decision to support gays in military he had to placate Afro-American pastors. Black churches are stridently anti-gay rights. Ever since the formation of Israel Jewish Americans and Blacks have parted way with anti-semitism taking roots among black churches. When Obama's estranged, disavowed, pastor Jeremiah wright was asked if he made peace with the President he said "them Jews will not allow me". Obama's then chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, was a Jew.

America, on tax payer money, has to construct two museums. One for slavery and another to tell the story of civil rights. This will be America's atonement. This should be Barack Obama's calling. I wish he undertakes it as his first post-Presidential task. This will go a long way in educating millions about the basic decency to respect all as human beings. America needs to face up to its shameful past unflinchingly as Germany does. Only such an honesty will make this great country greater still.

Nina Simone, Bob Dylan And Protest Songs: Music, Civil Rights Struggle And Politics.

India is a land of music, song and dance. It has a very ancient tradition in fine arts and a uniquely continuous civilization over the centuries. India's dance forms and music heritage is a widely admired one. Yet it is in the same India that such art forms are mostly relegated to the ivory tower with no relation to the ups and downs of a great country. What is worse is that for almost 99% of the country the finer forms of the arts and India's true heritage in music has no meaning. What most Indians consume by way of music is a bastardized version of the country's richest music with haphazard borrowing of western music (classical and otherwise) served up as what is called 'cinema music'. India's greatest achievement was its most unique freedom struggle. Yet the struggle did not produce any outpouring of music. Musicians did not compose music, on any notable scale barring random efforts of setting some poems by revolutionary poets to music, to provide an artistic expression of the greatest emancipation in human history. Indian musicians did not think of using their music as an art form to protest against the colonizer. On that count cinema musicians at least attempted something when they provided music for some movies that depicted the struggle.

Jeyakanthan in his novel 'Paarisukku Po' sets up an argument between two characters, an orthodox father who is a Carnatic musician and the son, a western classical musician and a recluse from Paris. Father and son battle through intermediaries on what each of their music means to them and to the world in general. One of the chief complaints of the son is that Carnatic music is mostly other worldly and lacks the varieties found in Western classical which has both secular and religious music. I spoke of how Shostakovich and Beethoven were political in their compositions. Music as an art form and art as a function of protest reaches greater heights, to my knowledge, in America.

Jazz music is inseparably braided with the Civil Rights struggle in America. One cannot write the history of civil rights struggle without mention the Jazz musicians or Afro-American gospel song tradition. Songs and music are a wonderful part of the Afro-American tradition. Jazz, the blues, R&B and soul music form a wonderful repertoire of art that blacks used to give voice to their oppression.

Jazz musician Nina Simone is a good example. Simone, in an interview, defiantly states "I choose to reflect the times and situations in which I find myself. That, to me, is my duty...we will shape and mould this country. I will not shaped and moulded at all anymore....How can you be an artist and not reflect the times"

Peruse the words carefully. She uses words like "I choose", an assertive "that is my duty", a defiant "I will shape and mould this country". Ilayaraja once retorted that politics is a sewer and he will have nothing to do with it. Just recently Tamil Nadu saw an outbreak of protests by college students demanding that the genocidal state of Sri Lanka be punished by the world community. Where was their Nina Simone? Did the students have a 9th symphony to blast from loudspeakers? Where was their Bob Dylan? Who was their poet? Did they an Allen Ginsberg? No. In a state and country addicted to entertainment that is by definition mindless (else its not considered 'entertainment') any such hopes are meaningless. Asking such questions, as I do, or seeking to live by such a code is often considered 'abnormal' and 'at war with world'.

I first came across Nina Simone in a book review in NYT. Then I sought out her songs and then I learned more about her. Mississippi in the 50's and 60's was considered a hotbed of violent racism in America. When a black church in Alabama was bombed and 4 little girls died Simone exploded into "Mississippi Goddam" in a live concert. The lyric, written by her, and her singing bristled with defiance. She went on to compile her 'protest songs' that included 'four women' which talked about the stereotypes of black women, 'strangefruit' talked about lynching and so on.

From the other end of the spectrum, racially speaking that is, comes Bob Dylan. When black teenager, 14 year old, Emmett Till was gruesomely murdered in 1955 Dylan burst forth in 'The ballad of Emmett Till". Emmet Till murder was a crystallizing moment that launched the civil rights struggle in the south. Dylan later performed in the historic 'March on Washington' where MLK Jr spoke of his dream. Dylan went on to compose his protest songs "The times, they are a changing" etc. He became the voice of protest for a long time.

Sometimes musicians like Ray Charles and Louis Armstron used their prestige as musicians to fight for civil rights. Ray Charles who was initially lukewarm towards fighting segregated performances at a pivotal moment refuses to play at a Georgia performance because the audience was segregated. Louis Armstrong was trotted out by the American government to tour the world and be an exhibit for American freedom all the while racism raged back home. Armstrong attracted flak for that. Armstrong lambasted Eisenhower  over what he perceived as Ike's waffle over school integration in Arkansas. Two days after Armstrong's outburst Ike sent Federal troops to Arkansas to ensure that black girls can enter the school.

Ravi Shankar brought Indian music to the west. Shankar has played to packed audiences of westerners across the globe and specifically in America. Ravi Shankar, famously, played along with the Beatles at Woodstock. I've not read of any incident where Ravi Shankar composed any protest music or used his prestige as world renowned musician to fight for any justice. The same can be said of almost every musician, film and non-film alike. When Lalgudi passed away there were obituary writers fell over each other to write glowing tributes. I cannot remember any Carnatic musician lifting a single finger to bring diversity into caste ridden Music Academy. If anything Carnatic music is zealously guarded from ensuring there is no diversity.

Since this series is occasioned by my comments on Ilayaraja I'll come to him. Ilayaraja, my friends keep reminding me, comes from a very oppressed community. Has Raja done anything to highlight their plight with his art form? If a Dalit writer or painter or politician or singer is expected to use his art form to speak of his or her people then should we excuse Raja for his intentional and singular failure to do so? A.R.Rahman runs a conservatory where he is trying to educate children from slums. Raja was only keen on making money through movies and had absolutely no social consciousness.

Nina Simone, Bob Dylan, Armstrong are all just a sliver in a glorious tradition of musicians using their music for 'shaping and moulding this country'. I respect and adore them. Never can I insult their memory by even mentioning Raja as an 'artist'.