How has the Popularisation of 'history from below' influenced historians studying US race relations?

historians have followed Phillips which has led to only three of sixteen state studies carried out on plantation slavery from 1902 - 1972 being even moderately drawn upon slave testimonies. Conversely, some historians have followed different paths, i.e. Fedrich Bancroft extensively utilised testimonies of former slaves in his study ‘Slave – Trading in the Old South (1931)’.      The popularisation of history from below has influenced some historians in the case of US race relations, to confront the ideas proposed by Phillips, and assert that: for us to comprehend slavery from the vantage point of the blacks, we need to cautiously study black testimonies and suggest methods in which it can be utilised. Ergo, there has been a large influence in how historians utilise black slave testimonies and white eyewitness accounts.  Black testimonies would be analysed and scrutinised, to see who the authors were, editors, time period, and perspective to see whether or not the source is valid and reliable. This is due to the fact, majority of the narratives said to have come from the vantage point of the blacks, have been edited and written by white’s, whom have their own historical, educational and religious views which may affect the authenticity of a source.     The means and methods in which historians recorded US race relations history has also changed due to the influence of history from below. Majority of the editors from 1860`s to early 1900`s, would have carried out a un-structured interview, with an ex-slave in the same locality as them. Post to interview, if the “fugitive believed that the white man truly respected blacks, they discussed the advisability of publishing his account”[6]- this shows bias white history, which cherry picked history that favoured them, as opposed to the cold truth. Similarly the abolitionist historians and editors were bias, i.e. Blassingame states that, various editors such as “Elleanor Eldridge, Sally Williams, Jane Blake... generally reveal few of the details of slave life...there can be little doubt that the abolitionists interjected some of their own ideas into the narratives.” [7]        The popularisation of History from below has influenced some historians, to utilise interviews as opposed to narratives e.g. from 1936 to 1938 there were 2,194 interviews with ex- slaves. Historians such as George P. Rawick and Eugene D. Genovese believed the WPA “interviews are much more representative of the total slave population, less bias, and less distorted than the published narrative of former slaves”. [8] Conversely, even the interviews have their limitations as the subjects were interviewed by whites, who added inputs via leading questions and editing post to the interviews were conducted.     Overall, this article shows that the popularisation of history from below has influenced historians studying US race relations, by making them curious of the sources they utilise, i.e. WPA interviews, or past narratives. Historians are now utilising both the vantage points of black slave’s as well as white owners, to paint a more accurate picture. I believe the popularisation of history from below has enabled historians studying US race relations, to depict a clearer illustration of lives of slaves and owners by corroborating various sources and questioning motives and stances of writers as well as government documents.      David W. Blight article depicts clear changes made by the majority white, within the US, post to the civil war – which is referred to as “ ...The old spirit of slavery, and nothing less”[9] by Frederick Douglass. This history from below, has influenced historians studying race relations in the US to be more cautious with white sources and study history from below in more depth, as the majority of the American Acts amended were by the government.  History knows best how well the leading elites can remove occurrences from history – leaving only the under classes memories to cherish, what once existed. This contradicts with the view displayed by Ulrich B. Phillips, although slave testimonies may have abolitionist authors, they would more likely explain and depict the negatives of white supremacy than government documents and history written from a white perspective.  However, a key issue that needs to be taken in to consideration is: Frederick Douglass was a politician – in essence a man who would not be a complete under class, thus his views have to be taken with care as it’s not exactly ‘history from below’.       Additionally, the article – from the perspective of Douglass, outlines the control and struggle for power was won by the Southern parties. Douglass claimed that black people were “destitute of political memory”[10]. The article emphasis on the changes to various acts since the civil war and emancipation times, this influences historians studying US race relations to study sources in more depth and breadth, i.e. sources of history from below – because it seems the racist white southerners, managed to control ‘history’ in the past e.g. 1883 and re-arrange people’s views.     Conversely, historians are also influenced by history from below, to not take their views as total truth, this is due to the fact the ‘underdogs’ of history will always exaggerate their case and often portray minuscule incidents as overly significant. Or use ‘history’ as a tool against the opposition. According to Blight Frederick Douglass utilised such dexterities: “In his retrospect...Douglas’ intention was to forge enduring historical myths that could help win battles in the present”[11]. This is further supported by Blight: “Such myths are born of divergent experiences and provide the cultural weapons with which rival memories contest for hegemony”[12].       The article shows that the civil war became a war of white versus white, great issues of the war i.e. slavery, emancipation, black equality... “Faded from national consciousness”[13] as the South and North united and “confronted war with Spain in 1898”[14]. The controllers of history from ‘above’ i.e. white supremacy and the United Nations leaders gave more importance to the war with Spain, so for historians studying race relations, the ‘history from below’ became more significant.      Hale outlines the vast economic alterations occurring in America during the turn of the 19th century and advent of the 20th. African-Americans became richer and more politically demanding in terms of integration and equal rights. Afro Americans lost the right to vote in 1886; however they managed to gain on the marketplace. They consistently lost rights, and became fed up – the market place was not one, which they would lose: “...the marketplace, southern blacks asserted would not join the ballot box as an arena of racial exclusion”[15]. Moreover, for the first time blacks seemed to have what many white southern desired, “at least a few dollars to spend”[16].      Two activist writers are highlighted: Mary Church and Wells, these writers printed history from below. I believe this has influenced many historians studying race relations to consider the battle between white supremacy and Black equality to be a more equal matching of intelligence and control, as opposed to total black defeat. This is further supported by Hale who states – “Out in public, many whites looked considerably worse than better-off blacks”[17]. This demonstrates a clear shift in education and financial amplification for blacks, such economic changes gave birth to new ‘middleclass blacks’.      Blacks and whites now shared; similar dress senses, products and leisure. This leads to the belief that life for blacks was enhancing, as they seemed to become more equitable to whites, which has influenced historians to view race relations growing over history as a constant increase in rights for blacks. Growth of black consumer choice led to the Southern whites to increase segregation, as Hales notes: “Whites spread segregation to try contain the confusion of appearances generated by modernizing, increasingly consumption-oriented world.”[18] The article depicts ‘history from below’ from the lower white working-class who disliked and consistently acted racist towards uprising and professional middle class blacks whom could afford a higher standard of living. This has greatly influenced historians studying race relations, by clearly depicting what classes of whites bred the most hatred for the blacks.     African Americans began to realise how significant they were in society and business: “...stores depend as much on the Negro buying public as on the white”[19]– African American - Johnson. Johnsons, studies show that making race and money did not always coincide. This was later captured by Farm Security Administration Photographs, in domains where the economy depended upon white and black consumers.      Blacks were certainly treated as second class citizens in various domains of society, however inside shops and in the wider marketplace it proved very difficult to segregate.  Hale illustrates this: “The collective white need for superiority clashed headlong with white individuals’ desire for greater income, and money often won.”[20] Afro-Americans new that they weren’t seen as equal but more so economic assets for bourgeoisie, this is displayed by a black professional from Richmond: “Of course, none of them want to give you the same service they give white people....but competition for Negro trade is so keen that every store has to make some pretence of fair play.” [21]      In conclusion, I believe history from below has significantly influenced historians studying race relations in the US, based on the reasons explained above. In particular historians are now more cautious of the sources they utilise, i.e. WPA interviews, narratives, personal documents and so forth. Furthermore historians are using both the vantage point of black slaves, as well as white owners to illustrate a clearer picture of race relations in the US. Moreover, from using history from below historians have managed to depict how different social classes merged with ethnicities, i.e. the white bourgeoisie class coincided on more humble terms with the professional middle-class blacks whom could afford to purchase their products, whereas the white working class bred ample amount of hate towards the blacks, who could now live at least on par with them. Finally, history below has also changed how one perceives the role of blacks, from utilising this history, it has come to mind – that the blacks began to realise and understand how important they were to society, thus acted upon it i.e. Frederick Douglass. [1] All Experts, ‘History from below’ (http://en.allexperts.com/e/h/hi/history_from_below.htm) Accessed on 24th November – 8:30 PM [2] Ibid., All Experts, ‘History from below’  [3] John W. Blassingame, ‘Using the Testimony of Ex-Slaves: Approaches and Problems’ (Southern Historical Association – Vol. XLI, No. 4, November 1975) – P.473 [4] Ibid., P.473 [5] Ibid., P. 473 [6] Ibid., P.476 [7] Ibid., P.478 [8] Ibid., P.480 [9] David W. Blight, ‘For Something beyond the Battlefield’: Frederick Douglass and the Struggle for the Memory of the Civil War (Organisation of American Historians, March 1989.) P. 1159 [10] Ibid., P. 1160 [11] Ibid., P. 1161 [12] Ibid., P. 1161 [13] Ibid., P. 1167 [14] Ibid., P. 1167 [15] Hale Grace Elizabeth, ‘”For colored” and”for white”: Segregating Consumption in the South’, Dailey Jane (2000) Jumpin? Jim Crow: Southern Politics from Civil War to Civil Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 162-182. P. 1163 [16] Ibid., P. 1163 [17] Ibid., P. 1165 [18] Ibid., P. 1166 [19] Ibid., P. 1173 [20] Ibid., P. 1175 [21] Ibid., P. 1176