Imagining Plantations: Slavery, Dominant Narratives, and the Foreign Born

southeastern geographer, 48(3) 2008: pp. 288–302

Imagining PlantationsSlavery, Dominant Narratives, and the Foreign Born

DAVID L. BUTLERUniversity of Southern Mississippi

PERRY L. CARTERTexas Tech University

OWEN J. DWYERIndiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

This article examines the responses of over ∞≠≠≠

tourists to an exit survey at Laura Plantation, a

tourist museum site located outside of New Or-

leans, Louisiana. Using Critical Race Theory, we

evaluate visitor interest in slavery at the planta-

tion compared to other, more dominant narra-

tives commonly associated with promoting plan-

tation history throughout the U.S. South. By

separating the respondents on the basis of race

and country of origin, we examined the relative

importance of different narratives between these

various socio-demographic groups. Findings from

some white visitors were not surprising; they out-

ranked other visitors groups in their interest in

dominant narratives other than slaves. However,

the responses from sub-groups of black and for-

eign born visitors were surprising in that the for-

eign born group was most interested in slavery at

the plantation, even over that of some blacks.

key words: plantation, tourism, slavery,

Critical Race Theory, the South

introduction

Butler (≤≠≠∞) completed a textualanalysis of brochures and associated mar-keting materials from tourist plantationsthroughout the United States. His analysis

found that plantation museums promotedseveral key, dominant narratives to visi-tors. Plantations frequently mentioned thearchitecture of the ‘‘Big House,’’ furniture,and the role of the original owners of thesite in local politics. Unmentioned in themajority of plantation marketing narra-tives were the historical contributions andstruggles of the enslaved. From a market-ing (supply) side, the owners and opera-tors offered a view of the plantation thatthey believe would attract tourists. It is aview that carries a ‘‘whitewashing’’ of thehistory of slavery and the enslaved at thesites. Butler (≤≠≠∞, pg ∞π∂) concluded hisarticle with the following statement:

Even though this preliminary studydemonstrates the extent to whichmany plantations eradicated the his-tory of slavery from their own world-view, it fails to answer many questionsregarding the tourist. For example,who actually visits these plantations,where are they from and what aretheir demographic profiles? Do thesetourists bring with them pre-conceivednotions of slavery at plantations?

Imagining Plantations 289

Figure ∞. The Laura Creole Plantation, Vacherie, Louisiana. Photograph by David Butler.

As a memorial landscape and museumspace, tourist plantations play a centralrole in directing how the public values, in-teracts with, debates, and experiences thepast (Alderman ≤≠≠≥). There is perhapsno better place to study how the public, inthe form of tourists, interacts with (or failsto interact with) the memory of slaverythan historic plantations, sites built uponthe labor and sweat of the enslaved.

Picking up where Butler (≤≠≠∞) left off,we seek to identify the typical visitor totourist plantations and his/her relativedesire to learn about aspects of slavery.Our study is unique in that, to date, noother research has directly surveyed per-ceptions of slavery held by visitors to his-toric plantation sites. The site for the re-search was The Laura Creole Plantation inVacherie, Louisiana, located outside ofNew Orleans, Louisiana (hereafter LauraPlantation) (Figure ∞).

literature review

This research draws its theoretical in-fluences from Critical Race Theory (CRT),in particular the tenet that focuses on therole of narratives in the social construc-tion of race and how whiteness and white-centric views become the norm in societythrough the storytelling process. More-over, CRT has more of an activist ten-dency than other theoretical perspectives,drawing on narratives to better under-stand and critique how Americans see raceand suggesting that storytelling is impor-tant to challenging racist views (Delgadoand Stefancic ≤≠≠∞). As Delgado and Ste-fancic (≤≠≠∞, pg ∂≥) articulate, ‘‘Storiescan name a type of discrimination; oncenamed, it can be combated. If race is notreal or objective, but constructed, racismand prejudice should be capable of de-construction.’’ Therefore, this research at-tempts to understand what stories visitors

290 david butler, perry carter, and owen dwyer

to plantations leave with and then deter-mine if such narratives need combating.

Critical Race Theory also places greatemphasis on examining the social con-struction of attitudes in non-monolithicways. Past studies perpetuate an unques-tioned racial dichotomy in how the planta-tion is viewed and interpreted by people.For example, David Shipler, in his book ACountry of Strangers: Blacks and Whitesin America (∞ΩΩ∫, pg ∂∞), described thetourist plantation as seen by blacks andwhites: ‘‘A double image shimmers be-neath the towering trees. One is for thosewho do not consider the history; beautyshrouds the shame. The other is for thosewho recognize that they have come uponthe site of a great crime and can feela shiver of remembrance.’’ Our researchsheds light on whether Shipler is accuratein suggesting that blacks and whites inAmerica view the plantation, as an historicsite, in starkly different ways.

The plantation, or more accurately theplantation ‘‘Big House,’’ has become deeplymemorialized within the American con-sciousness, helped along in large part bythe famous book and film Gone with theWind. As Jessica Adams states in her bookWounds of Returning: Race, Memory, andProperty on the Postslavery Plantation(≤≠≠π, pgs ∞≠–∞∞):

The plantation became popular as a filmset in the early to mid twentieth centuryand, later, as a tourist destination. Aseach of these sites, strange things hap-pen to property—to physical property,to the memory of property, and to thepeople. Counter narratives and unex-pected hybrids overload attempts to re-create the plantation as a nostalgic set-ting, a signifier of national unity, or thescene of an uncomplicated hierarchy.

Our research investigates the touristplantation as a site for the construction ofhistorical narratives, to determine if tour-ists see slavery and the enslaved as part ofthe stories they seek to have fulfilled byvisiting the plantation. Butler (≤≠≠∞),Shipler (∞ΩΩ∫), and Adams (≤≠≠π) are alllinked in that each scholar has suggestedthat a range of narratives compete for at-tention and legitimacy at tourist planta-tions and that these narratives resonate indifferent ways with certain visitors. Ourstudy hopes to add to the existing litera-ture by measuring the desire of tourists tohear about the counter-narrative of slav-ery versus other historically more domi-nant narratives, while recognizing that allof these narratives carry with them thepower to challenge or reaffirm the racial-ization of the plantation.

methods

During a personal visit to Laura Planta-tion in early ≤≠≠≤, Butler met with thesite’s marketing manager. An agreementwas made with the manager in which ac-cess to the plantation and visitors was ex-changed for sharing survey data with theplantation managers to assist them withunderstanding their visitors’ characteris-tics and perceptions.

A survey instrument was created tomeasure the characteristics, perceptions,and interests of visitors. The instrumentwas composed of numerical, ordinal, andcategorical questions (Fink ∞ΩΩ∑). Thedominant feature on the survey instru-ment was a Likert-scale table that listedthe key narratives of interest derived fromButler’s (≤≠≠∞) textual analysis research.The top nine most frequent narrativesfrom the brochures were listed, in alpha-


betical order, with an additional category of‘‘other’’ inserted as a tenth category. Wethen inserted the subject ‘‘slaves’’ as a finalnarrative, in alphabetical order, giving thefinal instrument a total of eleven narratives.The level of interest in each narrative wasmeasured on a Likert-scale from five to onewith five being ‘‘very interested,’’ three ‘‘in-terested,’’ and one as ‘‘not interested.’’ Otherquestions on the instrument included dem-ographic information, geographical origin(including country of origin), and a numberof open-ended questions to allow visitors toshare their thoughts.

The topic of ‘‘slaves’’ was inserted intothe narrative list to determine if in factthere was a latent demand existing amongtourists for seeing and hearing about slav-ery and the enslaved at this tourist planta-tion. Or does the selective marketing ofplantations, as documented by Butler(≤≠≠∞), accurately capture consumer de-sire to ignore this uncomfortable, shame-ful side of slavery?

Laura Plantation was selected for thisresearch for several reasons. One, as al-ready mentioned, we were able to gain ac-cess to this site as part of an exchange fordata and findings. Other plantations in theRiver Road area are wealthier than LauraPlantation and thus have access to morecapital to fund their own internal market-ing data collection. Two, Laura Plantationis part of the River Road plantation tourseries and just a few miles down the roadfrom one of the most popular tourist plan-tations in the area, Oak Alley. It was sus-pected that even though access to Oak Al-ley was not gained, that a number oftourists at Oak Alley would also visit LauraPlantation due to its uniqueness. Last,Laura Plantation is unique in three ways.First, it was a matriarch-run plantation.Second, it was a Creole plantation, dif-

ferent from other nearby plantations inthat its owners were of French, not Anglo,heritage. French, not English, was the pri-mary language at the home. Third, LauraPlantation actively includes the mentionof slavery, and docents point out artifactsof slave construction on the house tour(Gore ≤≠≠≠). It was decided for these rea-sons to use Laura Plantation as the site tocollect data and determine the level of in-terest in hearing about slavery and the en-slaved at a tourist plantation. We believedthat if such interest could not be found atthis site, which was at the time the mostprogressive tour to include the enslaved,then such an interest in the narrative ofslavery did not exist.

As a result of conducting surveys in thepast with large numbers of people on differ-ent projects, we knew that to gain access topeople’s ideas through a survey instrument,an environment that was comfortable andnon-threatening must be created. To thisend survey tables were set up at the exit ofthe plantation. On the tables were clip-boards with attached surveys and pens witha sign designating this as ‘‘University Re-search.’’ A second adjacent table offered‘‘Free Food,’’ which consisted of snack foodsfor visitors to eat while they completed asurvey. There were benches and chairsnearby so that the tourists could sit andcomplete the survey. The researchers andassisting graduate students asked tourists asthey exited if they would take five minutesto complete a survey.

data

Tourist surveys at Laura Plantationwere conducted on April ∫–≤≠, ≤≠≠≤. Wecollected ∞≤∏∏ surveys, representing ap-proximately one out of every three visitorsto the Laura site (or ≥∞.∂π percent) during


the ∞≥ days of the survey. Due to spaceconstraints, this paper highlights key datafrom the survey that we believe are mostrelevant to the focus of the argument ofthe research.

Based on mean scores derived from thesurvey, the typical visitor to Laura Planta-tion is a white female who has a bachelor’sdegree and possibly an advanced graduatedegree. She has a household income nearor above $∞≠≠,≠≠≠ annually and is ∑≠ yearsold. She learned about Laura Plantationthrough a brochure or travel guide, and isstaying in New Orleans while on personalvacation. Our tourist’s favorite part of thetour was the history told through storiesand believes that tour guides are a criticallyimportant part of the tour experience. Shehas plans to visit one or two more planta-tions during her trip, most likely Oak Alleyand Nottoway. During other vacations shehas visited approximately five other touristplantations, mostly in Louisiana and Vir-ginia. Our average visitor was born in andcurrently lives in California but does notspeak a foreign language.

In terms of race/ethnicity, an over-whelming majority of the visitors at LauraPlantation were self-described as ‘‘white/Caucasian’’ comprising ∫∑ percent of thetotal sample. The next largest race/eth-nicity category was ‘‘Other’’ at ∑.≥ percent,followed by black/African-American (≥.∑percent), Hispanic-American (≥.≥ per-cent), and Asian-American (≤.Ω percent).Though we expected, based on previousobservation, that the tourist plantationwould be visited largely by whites, theoverwhelming number of white visitorscompared to that of other racial groupswas startling.

Country of origin was also a questionasked on the visitor exit survey. The rea-son for asking this question was two-fold.

First, Laura Plantation is unique as a Cre-ole plantation and as a plantation that of-fers select tours in French. Because of thisFrench connection it was expected that asignificant number of the visitors to thesite might be from French-speaking coun-tries. Second, New Orleans is an interna-tional city attracting tourists from aroundthe world. Since nearly ∫≠ percent of thetourists at Laura Plantation traveled fromNew Orleans while on vacation there,it was determined worthwhile to measureinternational perception of plantation nar-ratives at the Laura museum site.

The majority of the visitors to LauraPlantation originated from the UnitedStates (π∫.∞ percent), but foreign born vis-itors constituted ≤∞.Ω percent of respon-dents to the survey. With over forty coun-tries represented, the largest number offoreign born visitors claimed their countryof origin as the UK (≤∫.∏ percent), Canada(∞∑.∂ percent), Germany (π.∑ percent),and France (π.∞ percent). The race/eth-nicity makeup of the foreign born visitorsis similar to that of total group in thatthey are overwhelmingly white/ Cauca-sian (Ω∞.∑ percent). None of the foreignborn respondents to our survey identifiedthemselves as ‘‘black.’’

We asked in the exit survey abouthousehold income to determine where vis-itors fell within the typical U.S. demo-graphic profile. Similarly, information onhighest education level completed wasalso collected. The findings are in Tables ∞and ≤ respectively. To our surprise, sur-veyed visitors to Laura Plantation werequite well-heeled compared to the averageAmerican. The typical/average Americanhousehold earned $∂≥,≥∞∫ in ≤≠≠≤ and≤≠≠≥ according to the United States Cen-sus Bureau (United States Census Bureau≤≠≠∂), while ≥∑ percent of responding vis-


Table ∞. Annual household income of respondents

to the Laura Plantation survey.

Annual Household

Income ($)

Number of

Respondents %

≤≠,≠≠≠ and under ≤∫ ≤.Ω

≤≠,≠≠∞–≥≠,≠≠≠ ∑∂ ∑.π

≥≠,≠≠∞–∂≠,≠≠≠ π≠ π.∂

∂≠,≠≠∞–∑≠,≠≠≠ Ω∞ Ω.∏

∑≠,≠≠∞–∏≠,≠≠≠ Ω≠ Ω.∑

∏≠,≠≠∞–π≠,≠≠≠ ∏∑ ∏.∫

π≠,≠≠∞–∫≠,≠≠≠ ∫∂ ∫.∫

∫≠,≠≠∞–Ω≠,≠≠≠ ∏≥ ∏.∏

Ω≠,≠≠∞–∞≠≠,≠≠ π≠ π.∂

∞≠≠,≠≠∞ and over ≥≥π ≥∑.∂

Total Ω∑≤ ∞≠≠

Table ≤. Highest level of education completed by

respondents to the Laura Plantation survey.

Highest Education

Completed

Number of

Respondents %

Less than high school ∏ ≠.∑

Some high school ∞∫ ∞.∏

High school graduate ∫∏ π.∑

Some college or

technical school

∞∫≥ ∞∏.≠

≤-year college degree ∫Ω π.∫

∂-year college degree ≥π∞ ≥≤.∑

Advanced graduate

degree

≥∫∫ ≥∂.≠

Total ∞∞∂∞ ∞≠≠

itors to Laura said they had an annualhousehold income of $∞≠≠,≠≠∞ and more.Almost π∑ percent of those surveyed earnedover $∑≠,≠≠≠ per year, suggesting that thesevisitors are not ‘‘typical’’ or ‘‘average’’ Ameri-cans in their household earnings.

The typical visitor to Laura Plantationwas also highly educated (Table ≤). Ac-cording to the US Census Bureau (UnitedStates Census ≤≠≠≥), the largest group inthe ≤≠≠≠ census in terms of highest educa-tion attained was ‘‘high school graduate’’at ≤∫.∏ percent. This was followed byBachelors Degree (∞∑.∑ percent) andsome college, but no degree (∞∂.≠ per-cent). Comparatively, the largest group inour visitor sample had attained an ad-vanced degree (≥∂.≠ percent), followed bya four-year college degree (≥≤.∑ percent),and some college (∞∏.≠ percent). Combin-ing all of the groups from some collegethrough advanced graduate degree cap-tures Ω≠.∂ percent of the total visitors. Thesame calculation using ≤≠≠≠ census dataproduces only ∑∞.∫ percent, suggestingthat the average visitor to Laura Planta-tion is much more educated than the typi-cal American.

analysis

Initial examination of collected surveydata suggests that most visitors to LauraPlantation were highly interested in thenarrative of ‘‘slaves’’ despite the great ab-sence of this narrative in the marketingmaterials examined by Butler (≤≠≠∞)(Table ≥). We viewed these results withsome skepticism given that the academicliterature suggests visitors to tourist plan-tations do not generally seek slavery his-tory and the owners and managers ofplantation sites do not normally engageguests in critical discussions of slavery(Brundage ≤≠≠≠; Gills ∞ΩΩ∂; Handler andGable ∞ΩΩπ; Alderman and Modlin forth-coming). There are too many white visi-tors to the plantation museum and too fewnon-white visitors for all of the positive


Table ≥. Level of survey respondent interest in

narrative topics, measured with ∑-point likert

scale in which a value of ∑ is ‘‘most interested.’’

Narrative

Average

Interest Level

Architecture ∂.∂

Civil War ≥.∫

Crops ≥.∑

Current Owners ≥.∞

Furnishings ∂.≠

Gardens/Grounds/Landscape ∂.≤

Heritage/Politics/Public Office ∂.≠

Local History/Culture ∂.∏

Original Owners ∂.∏

Slaves ∂.∂

Other ∂.∂

rankings of slavery to be attributed to onlyblack visitors. Because all of the responsesto narratives were not only positive (above≤.∑), but strongly positive (the lowest be-ing ≥.∞), it is difficult to discern the rela-tive importance of narratives in relation toeach other. Additionally, the non-whitesample is very small both in terms of ab-solute number and percentage of visi-tors (for example only ∂≠ black/African-American visitors were surveyed) so theonly way to detect any differences is toseparate the data into visitor demographicgroups and conduct a ranking of relativeinterest in narrative topics among thesegroups. Doing so can assist us in determin-ing which group appears most or least in-terested in traditionally dominant narra-tive themes or topics versus the counternarrative of slavery.

We categorized survey respondentsinto four socio-demographic groups basedon race and country of origin: whites,

blacks, foreign born, and other (every-one who did not fit into the other threegroups). By creating such groups, we arenot advocating an essentialist position, butinstead, as Delgado and Stefancic (≤≠≠∞,pg π≠) contend, ‘‘like other paradigms, theblack-white one allows people to simplifyand make sense of a complex reality. Andof course, it is helpful in looking at thehistorical ongoing relationship betweenblack and white Americans.’’ Disaggregat-ing respondents in this way allows us toillustrate how different groups attachstronger weights of interest to various nar-rative topics, even as most visitors re-corded high levels of interest in all nar-ratives, including slavery. Furthermore,since we are most concerned with the rela-tive importance that these groups place onthe counter-narrative of slaves, we directlycompared group interest in slavery versuseach of the more dominant narratives his-torically associated with tourist planta-tions, such as architecture, furnishings,Civil War, etc.

For each narrative comparison be-tween slaves and these other topics, wedetermined, in rank order, which groupsexpressed the most (or least) interestin discussions of slavery in light of an-other competing, typically more domi-nant theme. This was achieved by takingthe percentage of interest in each socio-demographic group for a particular narra-tive; specifically, the number of personsin each demographic group above, belowor at the mean score for each narrative.The researchers focused on the socio-demographic sub-group that consisted ofvisitors whose responses were significantlyoutside the mean for that particular nar-rative. Doing so, allowed us to measurelevels of interest for those whose percep-


Table ∂. Ranking of relative interest in narrative topics among sub-groups of respondents,

comparing interest in ‘‘Slaves’’ versus ‘‘Architecture.’’

Ranking Narrative Topic

Architecture Slaves

Most interested ∞ White Foreign Born

≤ Other Black (tie)

≥ Foreign Born Other (tie)

Least Interested ∂ Black White

Note: Not all members of the four socio-demographic groups are represented here, but sub-groups

consisting of selected visitors whose responses were significantly above and below the larger group

mean of interest in architecture.

tions and opinions are obscured by the re-sponses of the entire group, which is astandard statistical practice. For example,if the average Likert scale score among allwhites for architecture is ∂.Ω, then we cre-ated a sub-group of white respondentswho fell below and above that mean. Thiswas completed for the rest of the surveyedsocio-demographic groups such as black,foreign born, and other. Within those de-rived sub-groups, we then determinedwhich socio-demographic group was most(and least) interested in architecture. Atthe same time, we ranked each of the sub-groups on the basis of their relative inter-est in slavery, allowing us to compare in-terest in traditionally dominant narrativeversus the counter narrative of slavesamong those visitors who deviated fromthe norm. This procedure was repeated forfive other narrative themes (furnishings,Civil War, heritage, architecture, land-scape/grounds), resulting in Tables ∂–Ω.Each table shows how sub-groups of visi-tors compared to each other in their in-terest for both dominant plantation nar-ratives versus the counter narrative ofslavery.

In comparing the narratives architec-ture versus slaves (Table ∂), whites werethe visitor sub-group most interested in ar-chitecture as compared to slaves. The for-eign born sub-group at Laura Plantationdisplayed the least interest in architecture,but the greatest interest in slaves relativeto the other examined sub-groups, evenover some black respondents. In this samecomparison, the white sub-group, whileshowing a clear positive interest in theslave narrative, was the group least inter-ested in slavery.

Comparing the narratives of Civil Warand slaves (Table ∑), the white sub-groupwas most interested to hear about the CivilWar while the black sub-group was leastinterested in the War Between the States.Conversely, members of the black sub-group were most interested in hearingabout the slave narrative while whiteswere the least interested.

When asked about furnishings (Table∏), the white sub-group once again showedthe most interest in this narrative with theforeign born visitor sub-group was least in-terested. Interestingly, as in the compari-son with architecture, the greatest interest


Table ∑. Ranking of relative interest in narrative topics among sub-groups of respondents,

comparing interest in ‘‘Slaves’’ versus ‘‘Civil War.’’


Civil War Slaves

Most interested ∞ White Black

≤ Foreign Born Foreign Born

≥ Other Other

Least Interested ∂ Black White



mean of interest in the Civil War.

in stories of slaves is found among the for-eign born rather than blacks, while whitescontinue to be least interested in slaverycompared to other socio-demographic sub-groups. Table π highlights the comparisonbetween landscape/grounds and slaves,with the white group most interested in thedominant narrative about landscapes/grounds. Again, the foreign born sub-group appears most interested in the slaveexperience as compared to hearing aboutother, more established plantation narra-tives. Of note is that fact that some blackvisitors to Laura are more interested in thelandscape/grounds of the plantation thanother groups, suggesting that the few Afri-can Americans who visit plantations comenot just to hear about slavery.

Examining the narrative comparisonbetween heritage and slaves continues toexpose the dichotomy in relative levels ofinterest between domestic whites and for-eign born tourists (Table ∫). The notion ofheritage, although a broadly defined term,possibly speaks to the extent to whichsome respondents feel a sense of belong-ing or connection with the plantation.While whites originating from the United

States perhaps are interested in this connec-tion, even in a very general cultural way,some visitors originating from abroad per-haps see the plantation as an outsider look-ing in, a point that we address in more detailin our conclusion. For the black sub-group,comparing interest in heritage and slaverynarrative is difficult given that, dependingon their history, slavery was their heritage interms of the plantation.

Finally, Table Ω illustrates sub-groupvariation in levels of interest between localhistory and slave narratives. In another in-teresting result, some blacks were found tobe more interested in local history thanany other surveyed group. Once again, theforeign born sub-group, which is over-whelmingly white, shows a greater level ofinterest in slaves than the black sub-group,which shows the second greatest level ofinterest in slavery.

In five of the six narrative comparisonspresented here, selected foreign born tour-ists weighted their interest in the counter-narrative of slavery the highest among allthe other socio-demographic sub-groupsexamined. Moreover, on no occasion didthe foreign born sub-group outrank other


Table ∏. Ranking of relative interest in narrative topics among sub-groups of respondents,

comparing interest in ‘‘Slaves’’ versus ‘‘Furnishings.’’


Furnishings Slaves


≤ Other Black

≥ Black Other

Least Interested ∂ Foreign Born White



mean of interest in furnishings.

Table π. Ranking of relative interest in narrative topics among sub-groups of respondents,

comparing interest in ‘‘Slaves’’ versus ‘‘Landscape/Grounds.’’


Landscape/Grounds Slaves


≤ Black Other

≥ Other Black

Least Interested ∂ Foreign Born White



mean of interest in landscape/grounds.

socio-demographic cohorts in their inter-est for other, more dominant plantationnarratives that have traditionally beenused to deflect discussion of the enslaved.This suggests that some foreign born visi-tors show a relative level of interest inslaves much stronger than their relativeinterest in any of the other narratives.We expected the black sub-group to haveweighted their interest in slaves higherthan any other analyzed group. Because ofstrong foreign interest in slavery, compet-ing areas of interest among African Ameri-cans, and other factors, our results did

not support this hypothesis among selectedblacks. The one exception was when blackswere asked to express their level of interestin the narrative of slavery versus interest inthe Civil War, which has long been roman-ticized and politicized in the South througha white-centric lens, namely the Lost Causemythology. The final sub-group, whites, fre-quently displayed an opposite picture of therelative interests of the foreign born sub-group. White interest in traditionally domi-nant narratives is consistently higher thanany other studied group, in five of the sixexamined narrative comparisons to be


Table ∫. Ranking of relative interest in narrative topics among sub-groups of respondents,

comparing interest in ‘‘Slaves’’ versus ‘‘Heritage.’’


Heritage Slaves


≤ Black (tie) Black

≥ Other (tie) White

Least Interested ∂ Foreign Born Other



mean of interest in heritage.

specific. By the same token, the white sub-group never indicated their interest inslaves higher than another demographicgroup. In fact, in five of six comparisonscenarios, whites were the group least in-terested in the slaves relative to other com-peting topics at the plantation.

conclusions

Results from our Laura Plantation sur-vey indicate that while slavery is a popularnarrative theme for many visitors to LauraPlantation, a sub-group of whites did de-sire to see the dominant narratives of ar-chitecture, Civil War, furnishings, land-scape/grounds, and heritage more thanother examined sub-groups. Foreign born,on the other hand, are most interested inslaves compared to other groups, insteadof the dominant narratives of architecture,furnishings, landscape/grounds, heritage,and local history. The sub-group of blacksindicated preference for slaves over theCivil War, but were less clear in their pref-erences with the remainder of the narra-tives compared to the other groups.

It is interesting to note that we believed

that blacks as a visitor group would be themost interested in the narrative of slavesrelative to the other groups since thereis so much personal history embedded formany of these people at sites like LauraPlantation. If Shipler (∞ΩΩ∫) is correct andblacks see a plantation as a site of a terri-ble travesty, then one would expect thatthese visitors would consistently rank‘‘slaves’’ higher than any other group, butthis was not the case. Do these blacks con-form to a ‘‘typical’’ African-American orare they outliers to begin with since thedata suggest that most blacks do not visittourism plantations and instead opt forother sites of memory which reflect a morepositive contribution and success such asCivil Rights museums (Carter et al. ≤≠≠∫).Shipler’s (∞ΩΩ∫) view may be correct inthat blacks chose not to visit historicalsites associated with so much atrocity, vio-lence, and shame. A possible counter ex-planation is that the black group fully un-derstood the plantation landscape sincethe architecture is part of the material cul-ture that the enslaved built and thereforethe high level of interest would be ex-pected.


Table Ω. Ranking of relative interest in normative topics among sub-groups of respondents,

comparing interest in ‘‘Slaves’’ versus ‘‘Local History.’’


Local History Slaves

Most interested ∞ Black Foreign Born

≤ White Black

≥ Foreign Born Other

Least Interested ∂ Other White



mean of interest in architecture.

Relative to other groups, some whiteschose to see the dominant narrative inpreference to information about slavery.This does not suggest that whites, as agroup, were not interested in the narrativeof slaves. The general data on overall levelsof interest (Table ≥) suggest just the op-posite. Yet, when divided into a sub-groupbased and compared to the levels of inter-est of other sub-groups, whites were mostinterested in the other narratives. Thisshould not necessarily be surprising sinceprevious research suggests that the mar-keting of these sites is mainly selling theidea of the ‘‘Big House,’’ furnishings, andother trappings associated with the goodlife and Gone with the Wind rather than thehistory of enslaved people (Adams ≤≠≠π;Butler ≤≠≠∞). As the owner of the Oak Alleyplantation expressed to Adams (≤≠≠π, pg∏π), ‘‘while he is mindful of the surge in theinterest of slavery, he believes that Oak Al-ley visitors, for the most part, are lookingfor a Gone with the Wind brand of fantasy.They come for the hoopskirts, the gran-deur and the elegance. That’s a part of thestory, and maybe a better part of the storyfor us to tell.’’ Moreover, it may be the case

that the narrative of slaves was weightedhigh by the majority of surveyed visitors(most of whom were white) because notranking slaves as high as furniture or archi-tecture at a plantation would be sociallyunacceptable and embarrassing, even onan anonymous survey instrument. Usingthe same line of reasoning, it is very discon-certing to all of the authors that the narra-tive of slavery was only equal to that of theother narratives. At a site where enslavedpeople were the main means of productionand thus the foundation of all that wasbuilt and produced, the fact that this narra-tive did not have primacy may suggest atype of decoupling of the concept of theplantation narrative with that of enslave-ment. We wonder if the narrative of theenslaved were represented differently, pos-sibly decoupled with the other narrativeson the site, if the results would have beenas strongly positive to see the narrative ofslaves.

Foreign born visitors to Laura Planta-tion were the most interesting group byfar. We initially did not recognize theirimportant presence and contribution; in-deed, they were nearly excluded from the


analysis. The sub-group of foreign bornvisitors examined here, compared to theother sub-groups, demonstrated the mostintense interest in the narrative of slaves.We speculate that this is attributed to theidea that foreign born were not sociallyindoctrinated within the United Statesand thus do not have to carry the burdenor baggage of American and southern his-tory. This means that any shame, guilt, re-sentment, or other feelings that may befelt by black or white Americans becauseof the history of enslavement is generallynot attributed to the foreign born. Theylook upon the history of the U.S. South,and in particular that of the plantationeconomy, with a largely guilt-free gaze.Thus their level of interest, as suggestedhere, is that of a neutral observer of a for-eign history, not as a participant multiplegenerations removed. Another alternateexplanation is that the American versionof slavery was unique compared to that ofEuropean countries and thus there is a fas-cination in understanding how the U.S.system compared to that of their owncountry’s history.

Our survey research at Laura Plantationwas intended to highlight the level of in-terest in the narrative of slavery at a histor-ical plantation museum. Butler’s (≤≠≠∞)study of brochures and other material as-sociated with plantations found that slav-ery and the enslaved were neither absentfrom the narrative nor were the narrativesrejected by the visitors to the site. The re-search indicates an interest in slaves alongwith other traditional narratives. This leveland type of acceptance does not, however,place the counter narrative of the lives andhistories of the formerly enslaved at thecenter. As Adams (≤≠≠π, pg ∏∂) articulates,this ‘‘is not to suggest that greater attention

to slavery on tours formerly dedicated ex-clusively to ‘the beauty and elegance of thehouse,’ even attention marked by such pro-found irony, is not a step in the right direc-tion. But within the larger structure ofplantations as tourist attractions, the ‘addi-tion’ of slavery takes place within a frame-work that continues to privilege whiteownership.’’

Visitors to Laura Plantation are clearlysocio-economic elites as evident in theireducation and household income levels.This group should be quite aware of theconnection between the plantation econ-omy and the enslaved, however that doesnot distract such persons from ventur-ing to these historic sites to consume theHollywood-inspired narrative of Gone withthe Wind and the exclusive, genteel planta-tion imagery perpetuated by the magazineSouthern Living. We speculate that mostwhite visitors to tourist plantations do notseek out the messy and potentially uncom-fortable history of slavery and the en-slaved while on vacation. Instead, likemost tourists, they want an escape fromdaily routine while at the same time seek-ing a confirmation of their existing beliefs.

Critical Race Theory posits that storieshave naming power. Clearly, dominantnarratives at historic plantation sites havelong been maintained by a white elite classat the expense of the enslaved and Afri-can American history in general. Thereis evidence of an increasing inclusion ofthe enslaved at the plantation museums;however, this movement is slow and evolu-tionary—not revolutionary. It is quitelikely that market demand, rather than apolitical movement, will cause the counternarrative of slavery to upset and challengedominant narratives associated with thetourist plantation. For as Blight (≤≠≠≠, pgs


≥∂Ω–≥∑≠) suggests, ‘‘A lesson. . . is thatthose who can create the dominant histor-ical narrative, those that can own the pub-lic memory, will achieve political and cul-tural power. . . The story of all groups. . .demonstrates how susceptible historicalmemory is to the whims of the market.’’

This research adds to Critical Race The-ory in that there is evidence that mostgroups, when confronted, acknowledgethe presence of the enslaved as part of thehistory at plantation museums. Thoughthis is a step in the right direction of identi-fying and naming discrimination and rac-ism, both past and present, there is stillmuch work to be done in bringing thestory of slavery into the dominant narra-tive of the plantations.

references

Adams, J. ≤≠≠π. Wounds of returning: Race,

memory, and property on the postslavery

Plantation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina Press.

Alderman, D.H. ≤≠≠≥. Street names and the

scaling of memory: The politics of

commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr.

within the African-American community.

Area ∑≤(≤):∞∏≥–∞π≥.

Alderman, D.H., and E.A. Modlin Jr.

forthcoming. (In)Visibility of the Enslaved

within Online Plantation Tourism

Marketing: A Textual Analysis of North

Carolina Websites. Journal of Travel and

Tourism Marketing.

Blight, D.W. ≤≠≠≠. Southerners don’t lie; They

just remember big. In Where these memories

grow: History, memory, and southern

identity, ed. W.F. Brundage, ≥∂π–≥∑≥.

Chapel Hill, NC: University of North

Carolina Press.

Brundage, W.F. ed. ≤≠≠≠. Where these memories

grow: History, memory, and southern

identity. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina Press.

Butler, D.L. ≤≠≠∞. Whitewashing plantations:

The commodification of a slave-free

Antebellum South. International Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism Administration

≤(≥/∂):∞∑Ω–∞π∞.

Carter, P.L., D.L. Butler and O. Dwyer. ≤≠≠∫.

Gazing across the color line: White visitors

to southern heritage sites. A presentation at

the Association of American Geographer’s

Meeting, Boston, MA, April, unpublished.

Delgado, R., and J. Stefancic. ≤≠≠∞. Critical

race theory: An introduction. New York, NY:

New York University Press.

Fink. A. ∞ΩΩ∑. The survey handbook. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gills, J.R. ed. ∞ΩΩ∂. Commemorations: The

politics of national identity. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Gore, L.L. ≤≠≠≠. Memories of the old plantation

home. Vacherie, LA: The Zoe Company.

Handler, R., and E. Gable. ∞ΩΩπ. The new

history in an old museum: Creating the past

at Colonial Williamsburg. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.

Shipler, D.K. ∞ΩΩ∫. A country of strangers:

Blacks and whites in America. New York, NY:

Vintage.

United States Census Bureau. ≤≠≠≥.

Educational Attainment: ≤≠≠≠. Census

Bureau Brief, August ≤≠≠≥. Accesses

∞≠ June ≤≠≠∫ at www.census.gov/prod/

≤≠≠≥pubs/c≤kbr-≤∂.pdf.

———. ≤≠≠∂. Income stable, poverty up, numbers

of Americans with and without health

insurance rise. Census Bureau Press

Release, August, ≤∏, ≤≠≠∂. Accessed

∞≠ June ≤≠≠∫ at http://www.census.gov/

Press-Release/www/releases/archives/

income—wealth/≠≠≤∂∫∂.html.


david l. butler is an Associate Professor in

the Department of Political Science,

International Development, and International

Affairs at The University of Southern

Mississippi in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, ≥Ω∂≠∏.

Email: [email protected]. His research

interests include plantation tourism, call

centers, and political sovereignty.

perry l. carter is an Associate Professor in

the Department of Economics and Geography

at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas

πΩ∂≠Ω. Email: [email protected]. His

research interests include issues surrounding

race, gender, and methodology.

owen j. dwyer is an Associate Professor in

the Department of Geography at Indiana

University-Purdue University Indianapolis in

Indianapolis, Indiana, ∏∂≤≠≤. Email:

[email protected]. His research interests

include cultural landscapes, memory, and

public space.

Imagining Plantations: Slavery, Dominant Narratives, and the Foreign Born

Documents

Transcript of Imagining Plantations: Slavery, Dominant Narratives, and the Foreign Born