I learned from a reader that James Audubon, the famous naturalist painter, was black. I was really surprised, since I visited the small, local Audubon Museum in Key West and the docent never mentioned it.
The reader was right, Audubon was the son of a slave-owning French Sea Captain and an enslaved Creole woman. Surprisingly, Audubon (who looked “white”) was an ardent racist, owning black slaves, and writing critically of emancipation. In school, I learned of his art and his talent, but not his heritage or his views.
I was taught the history of propertied, white men. I am not critical of that; these men had the platform. Our country’s founders were white, mostly-privileged males who were courageous and selflessly worked to build a country. And since I learned history through those eyes, I didn’t know, for example, that there was a female Paul Revere, named Sybil Ludington, who also warned of the approaching British Army.
The historical narrative that I was taught was a pretty simple one, good vs. evil. But even the best people have shortcomings.
We now know that Thomas Jefferson fathered six children with Sally Hemmings, his slave. He died in debt, unable to fulfill his promise to free all of his slaves upon his death.
Ben Franklin was a lothario.
One of my heroes is Margaret Sanger. She dramatically changed women’s lives by advocating for birth control for all, regardless of race or economic status. The widespread availability of birth control has arguably done more for women’s rights than any other innovation. Birth control allowed women to become educated, pursue careers, and explore their sexuality. Yet, Sanger also supported the racist philosophy of Eugenics (although, according to Wikipedia, she stopped short of some of the more virulent racist forms).
Other heroes, such as Gandhi, had shortcomings as well. In his younger days, Gandhi was prejudiced against Black South Africans.
St. Paul is often reviled for his statements about women, yet his statements were a product of the misogyny of the day (for example, daughters of famous biblical figures are rarely mentioned). Women were among the first and most revered patrons of the early church and St Paul recognized and supported their leadership.
Famous historical figures also had interesting talents and interests. Richard Nixon was an accomplished musician. George Washington and Helen Keller were animal lovers (Helen Keller introduced the Akita to America).
In school, I learned about the ruthlessness and brutality of Genghis Khan. But he also was progressive (for his time), allowing religious freedom and prohibiting the capture and enslavement of women.
Today’s students learn more about different kinds of people. They are taught about largely hidden contributions (like Black American, Lewis Latimer whose filament patent was an important contribution to the invention of the lightbulb).
But most history still ignores frailties or achievements that don’t fit the narrative, giving us an incomplete picture, either canonizing or demonizing.
Today, we love to tear people down. Celebrities and politicians know all too well that the higher they rise, the more likely that they will become a target.
And I wonder, if we learned the full history, the frailties, and accomplishments of our historical figures if we would be less likely to venerate or demonize them. Recognizing that even our heroes suffer from the same human condition that we do, making mistakes, being flawed, may help us to accept the flaws in some of today’s heroes.
Just a thought.
Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.
Mary S. De Shields,MD says
Unfortunately, truncated history is still present and in our midst.
The legacy of Bellevue, Maryland, a historically African American waterfront maritime community, is being erased. The first strike was retirement of the Zip Code in favor of Royal Oak. The second was the loss of historic properties. The third, and most disturbing, is the rebranding campaign from potential developers to rename Bellevue as North Oxford.
Sad but true.
Chip Heartfield says
I totally agree that too much time is spent tearing down the important figures from our past. One of the first rules of history is to leave behind your own experiences, prejudices and presumptions and seek to understand those figures in the context of their own time and their past. So yes, for example, it is necessary to acknowledge Margaret Sanger’s racist side, but not to the extent that we should therefore dismiss her out of hand because of it.
On the issue of John James Audubon’s parentage, it should be noted that the vast majority of historians and scholars agree that Audubon’s mother was his father’s French mistress, Jeanne Rabin. There is hard evidence in the form of numerous itemized bills from the doctor who delivered Audubon in Haiti in 1785 and treated the mother – “Mlle Rabin” – for several months before and after the birth (she would die before the end of the year). There are also letters from that period mentioning the pregnant Rabin and Audubon was named Jean Rabin until he was taken back to France in 1788 and formally adopted by his father, Captain Jean Audubon and the Captain’s wife (who was unable to bear children). At that time, Audubon’s name was changed from Jean Rabin to Jean-Jacques Audubon.
The claim that Audubon’s mother might not be Jeanne Rabin, but rather Captain Audubon’s mixed-race housekeeper, Catherine “Sanitte” Bouffard, has arisen only very recently and with zero documentation to back it up. It is true that two years after the death of Audubon’s mother, Jeanne Rabin, Bouffard did give birth to a daughter by the captain; this was Audubon’s half-sister Rose. Rose was taken to France in 1791, also adopted, and raised there.
Because Rose was listed as “white” on the ship’s manifest even though she was mixed race, a single writer has speculated that maybe Audubon was mixed race as well – again, there is no evidence to back up this speculation and there is ample hard evidence documenting the identity of his real birth mother. But in this viral age, there are now websites claiming it to be true despite the lack of any evidence.
This is why history is both fun and frustrating, and often changing; new evidence can come to light, old evidence can be exposed as wrong, and new writers can take a different (revisionist) view. But in the case of John James Audubon, all the evidence continues to indicate his mother was of French descent and not mixed-race.