I'm not sure what to make of the fact that this NYT article was published this morning, on the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.
I grew up in Atlanta (please note the emphasis on "in"), which would explain why I know a little bit more about Margaret Mitchell's legacy in the city than the article reveals. I guess I can't really fault the NYT for the tone of the story. A relatively brief article about "Gone With The Wind" enthusiasts celebrating the 75th anniversary of Mitchell's book is not the best forum for exploring the complex web of history, money and race that still exists in Atlanta.
But there's a lot of subtext and missing context in the article. GWTW is not as loved in the city of Atlanta, a majority African-American city, as a casual observer might guess.
The article points out that the GWTW museum is in Marietta, where Newt Gingrich lived while he served in Congress and which has resisted efforts to be connected to Atlanta via the city's transit authority (MARTA). I'm not sure why the museum is in Marietta, but I'm guessing that it might somehow be related to the fact that arsonists have twice set fire to the house in midtown Atlanta (pictured above), at the corner of Peachtree and 10th streets, where Mitchell wrote the book. No one seems to think the arsonists were ignorant of the building's legacy when they lit it on fire. As the article points out, GWTW "means a lot in Atlanta" - but what it means is debatable.
The "windies" in the NYT article (whom, it points out, are "usually white") no doubt have opinions about those attempts in the mid-1990s to burn the Mitchell House down. [To read about the house's complicated history, check out this Creative Loafing article] Should they have been asked? Should the article's focus have been shifted away from literature fans celebrating their favorite work? I don't know.
But a GWTW anniversary celebration is not like a Star Trek convention, which celebrates an entirely made-up universe. The Civil War was real, and 150 years later it remains the most divisive episode in the country's history. How it is remembered naturally will be a divisive issue. Some say the war was about state's rights, but if there were other "rights" at stake beyond whether white people should be allowed to own black people, they escape me at the moment.
Were the fires set by people who see the house as an antiquated relic of a racist past? Maybe. I know many Atlantans believe the house (such as the even more polarizing symbol of the huge stone carving of Confederate generals on the side of Stone Mountain) overly emphasizes Atlanta's racist past and skews the way the modern city is and should be viewed by the outside world.
The novel does have a strong lead female Caucasian character in Scarlett O'Hara, but many have criticized its depiction of black people and slavery as flat, incurious and vapid, if not outright racist. Given the fact that Mitchell was a white woman, the development and focus on her white, female lead character is not all that surprising.
The NYT article suggests that GWTW does appeal to some demographics more than others. It quotes one enthusiast (Mrs. Sorrow - what a name!) as saying that the Civil War-era depicted in the book "would have been a precious time to enjoy being a lady." Really? How might a modern-day African-American lady feel about that idea?
And, regardless of the race issue, how might Mrs. Sorrow's comment reflect her understanding of the true horrors of the Civil War? More than half a million soldiers died on both sides, not to mention civilians. You can see why some people allege that the book, and its fans, romanticize and give a false depiction of the ugly realities of life in the Confederate South.
The irony of the effort to preserve the Mitchell House is that Atlanta does not have a history of preserving its history. Many people assume that the relative lack of historical buildings in Atlanta is a result of General Sherman setting the city on fire during the Civil War - a significant symbolic and practical blow to the Confederacy. If that were the case, Atlanta would have buildings that date from the late 1800s, after the war ended, one would think.
But it doesn't. In fact, it has few buildings that pre-date World War II. Why? Because after World War II, and even throughout the civil rights era, the city's leaders set an agenda of aggressive economic growth, which led to old buildings being torn down and increasingly taller and shinier new ones going up in their places. That growth economically benefited both Atlanta's black and white communities, which some say is the reason why Atlanta had no truly violent episodes during the Civil Rights era. Anyone who has visited Atlanta recently can see that its infatuation with real estate and development is as strong as ever.
According to the Creative Loafing article, defenders of the Mitchell House believe the efforts to burn it down were a result of this redevelopment zeal, not of cultural criticism. Someone wanted the house out of the way so the lot could be developed into a lucrative commercial property. This certainly is a plausible theory. Based on the surrounding buildings, it seems certain that if it were not for the presence of the Mitchell House, a tall skyscraper now would stand on that urban corner.
What kind of history Atlanta has, and what kind of legacy it wants, really are the questions that arise from the Mitchell House situation. You would think a metropolitan area of several million people would be big enough to accommodate the inevitable multiple answers to those questions without arsonists getting involved.
But, then again, it is The South. It has a history of symbols being set on fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment