David pilgrim what was jim crow

This is very well done, very well done. This history is not only an important part of understanding where America was but, in an age of states making it harder and harder for citizens to vote, it is relevant to note that we have been here before. Everyone found the material from the museum to be compelling and eye-opening, and they found his presentation style engaging. This work is invaluable. This history is not only an important part of understanding where America was but, in an age of states making it harder and harder for citizens to vote, it is relevant to note that we have been here before.

This was a horrific time in our history, but it needs to be taught and seen and heard. This is very well done, very well done. David Pilgrim makes a vital contribution to help us understand the grotesque depths of the psychological and cultural war of anti-black racism throughout the Jim Crow era.

For decades the author has been on a Pilgrimage to bring out from our dank closets the racial skeletons of our past. His is a crucial mission, because he forces us to realize that race relations grew worse in the first several decades of the twentieth century— something many Americans never knew or now want to suppress.

What it did remind me of too was the biggest supporters of the work we do are the people who see the work we do. Then they have to fill in the blanks and imagine. They imagine us as a shrine to racism, or a shrine to sexism, depending on which facility. Then the objects, and this is something Tamzie used to say all the time, that she had a hard time talking in the facility, in the museum, because the pieces were talking. MH: Sure, yeah.

In your book, Understanding Jim Crow, you described this time when your children were playing with one of your anti-black racist artifacts, and you collected it. At one point they broke it. You were angry with them. I think, in this case, it was an accident when they broke it, but I wonder, when you mentioned this in your book, it was almost in a side in your book actually, but I wonder if you recall that time that you smashed that artifact you first purchased, and just thought about the difference between the experience and the one that your children had had.

DP: Yeah, I think about it every time we drop something in the storage area. Yes, for that particular case, yeah, the irony is not lost on me that here I am screaming at them for accidentally dropping something, and there I was trying to make what, in my, 12, 13, year-old mind it was some kind of statement.

I am pleased these days, and at the time I had two daughters. They enjoy telling the story. Except, at some point, I think they were going to start saying they did it on purpose. The practical part of that was it was sort of a bell ringing telling me, get that stuff out of my house. Are you going to preserve this?

Or whatever. I ended up donating it to Ferris, which made all the sense in the world. Washington to our school, who preached Booker T. Percival Prattis, the first African-American journalist admitted to Congress in that gallery.

There is so many of them, and they did such wonderful things. Our founder created that, and he had no tolerance for racism. He brought in international students. He had no tolerance for sexism. This guy was so far ahead of his time. Because it was possible there. DP: Well, and with the Internet, we have a pretty good virtual presence.

That can go all over the world. MH: Looking back, particularly the first four years of the Obama Administration, there was this hopeful talk about a post-racial America, and even President Obama helped perpetuate that, I think, a little bit.

In the second half of his presence, it became clear, even to those Pollyanna of us, and I think I was one of those, there was not a post-racial America. Then we moved into this election season, and postelection time period, during which conversation has become increasingly blunt.

This is where, I kept thinking about this this morning, trying to figure out how to phrase this question, but I guess I find myself wondering if this new, in-your-face approach to communicating about matters of race and discrimination, is more useful to dealing with issues that have been largely unspoken for a couple of decades. Which is almost the opposite of what you were saying a few minutes ago about finding those borderline objects to talk about. DP: Well, I agree with you that things have changed.

Because we were having those kinds of really difficult, painful, ugly discussions for the last 15 years in the facility. When I traveled the country, because of my work, people assumed that we should continue those, and that was good.

There are more people willing to say things that are not racist, but that are racially insensitive. I think the opportunities will be greater in frequency, and in intensity, and duration. We've started to see that.

What do I mean by that? Quite frankly, we should have been doing that all along. Or a famous black ex-football player being charged, and then found not guilty, or not convicted rather, in order to have conversations. On the one hand, I am almost discouraged at the racist, and sexist, and homophobic, and ablest rhetoric that I heard during the most recent presidential election.

Quite frankly, discouraged to see people that I know aligned themselves with white supremacists, thinking in positions of power in our nation. On the other hand, I do recognize the value of people having direct conversation.

I believe in the triumph of dialog. So I was a little down there for a while. What advice are you sharing with administrators, faculty, staff, and students about what we can do today to address barriers to making our campus a more inclusive place? People are unusually nice here.

I think, as might be expected in some of the groups, there is been some reluctance to really just jump right in. How do you get past that? Well, you just got to keep talking. I kind of think about difficult dialoguing around issues of justice like that. Or this is hard. But if they keep talking. What was the term? DP: Pollyanna, yes. It means coming back and having more and more conversations, and eventually taking some chances. And then not being punished for taking the chances. You don't have to win.

I have to tell you. Just again, listening to the conversations, listening to talk about some of the programming that you have in place. Available On Air Stations.

All Streams. Michigan Radio By Caroline Llanes. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email. Tyler Scott. Caroline Llanes. Caroline is a third year history major at the University of Michigan. She also works at The Michigan Daily, where she has been a copy editor and an opinion columnist.