Voluntary Migration

Example of Negative Actions' Acceptance over Positive Action: Reinforcement of the White Frame through Education

Before I begin to talk about the representation of voluntary African American migration that I have chosen, I want to talk about a prominent example of the negative portrayal of African American action through the white frame. Abolition in American textbooks has become a largely negative narrative (Stoskopf 92). The nonviolent actions of abolitionists have all but disappeared in American textbooks, leading to a very limited conception of political change and conflict revolution and helping to negate the wrongdoings of white Americans by portraying abolitionists as unnecessarily violent  (92).  The negative depiction of the abolition movement adds to the negative collective memory of African Americans that feeds into the White Frame–an example of memory production. This makes it hard to see African Americans in a positive lights and reinforces systemic racism. By placing this image of African Americans in textbooks, the volume of memory consumption grows and this negative association with African Americans is perpetuated throughout society. Many other skewed narratives similar to this are perpetuated throughout society. By replacing positive actions with negative collective memories, the White Frame is further maintained, and counter-narratives become more challenged.

Another Time's Voice Remembers my Passion's Humanity

Positive Passive Essence in Memorials and its Acceptance

This memorial in Chicago, Another Time's Voice Remembers My Passion's Humanity, was made to represent the Great Migration: the movement of African Americans to the North after the Civil War. It shows the essence of African Americans in a positive light, but was only recognized and celebrated decades later (many murals like it were controversial and taken down). This mural and many others like it were made by black artists in the 60s and 70s as an acknowledgement of black heritage. However, they were not celebrated at the time they were made in the same way that they are today; In his presentation on mural preservation, John Weber states that the "political and social context was still too remembered, too fresh to be forgiven" when he is describing the rejection of murals within the community. Weber's analysis touches on the idea that reconstruction is not confined simply to the era that directly followed the Civil War, but rather that is is an ongoing struggle.

However, Jean Charlot takes on a different perspective. When discussing murals, Jean reminds us that “a time may come when onlookers will have lost the key to their meaning. For the very reason that your murals document strictly contemporary attitudes, they deserve to last and enter history, as medieval shrines did, as Mexican murals do,” (Cockcroft xvii). Jean brings to the foreground the possibility that erasure of experience can occur when memory consumers reject a narrative that is in disjunction with popular political and social norms, as this mural depicting the positive essence of African Americans conflicted with social norms at the time it was created. Many similar to it in nature were not preserved but rather their similar image schemata caused them to be removed or deemed unimportant in times of construction or renovation. Therefore, the acceptance of murals like this one is rather new. Even voluntary migration is still not fully acknowledged and accepted due to the White Frame. Much of society still experiences discord when discussing appreciation of African American history and celebration of heritage within our nation. In the present day even, black artists lack sufficient funding and resources and preservation of black art needs organization in many areas. Though this mural shows the emergence of a new narrative counter to the one created by the White Frame, there is still a long way to go before multiple interpretations and perspectives are included in dominant scripts of our nation's history.

Gray Area: Is Any Large Group Migration Really Voluntary?

Dred Scott Memorial

This Dred Scott Memorial in Florence, Alabama's Walk of Honor can be seen as a positive representation of action. The memorial seems to frame Dred Scott's narrative in a noble, and voluntary, manner by stating that he "waged" a legal battle. Similarly, by ambiguously describing the Supreme Court decision as simply "pivotal", there is a possibly positive connotation. The plaque makes the events in Dred Scott's life seem as if they were by choice, including the migrations that he completed. Though his actions were certainly noble, Dred Scott was forced into the situation he found himself in. He had to flee Missouri because he was forced into slavery; he was also forced to return to Missouri. The Supreme Court decision that resulted from Scott's legal battle ultimately indorsed forced migration and caused similar situations to become more prevalent. Therefore, even though the language and emphasis on action makes this memorial seem like it has to do with voluntary events, Dred Scott's story is really one riddled with forced migration. This memory production creates a false narrative that protects the prevalence of the white frame in our society by negating the fact that external–and unjust–social institutions forced Dred Scott's reality upon him.

Similar to the shortcomings of the Permanent Memorial, the Dred Scott memorial in Florence lacks recognition of the societal ills of the time period. Actions committed by white Americans and the Supreme Court decision alike should be condemned or at least described in a less neutral manner. The framing of the memorial serves to hide the actions of perpetrators and, in doing so, negates the experiences of those forced to migrate. The failure to publicly condemn the wrongdoings of the past is in stride with the White Frame's ignorance when it comes to denouncing racism. Not only this, but keeping in trend with the Permanent Memorial and Another Time's Voice, Dred Scott was only inducted into the Walk of Honor in 2011. It took more than a century and a half for even this misrepresentation to be deemed acceptable enough to memorialize.

Is Any Migration Voluntary?

According to USA for UNHCR, a refugee is considered "someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence." Going off this definition, it is possible to classify most memorials as pertaining to a group of refugees or those forced to migrate. Dred Scott fled from violence and persecution. Those partaking in the Great Migration left the South due to violence and persecution as well. Slaves were undoubtedly forced to migrate. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to identify a mass migration or immigration which was not caused by some external pressure. The Irish were brought to America due to the Potato Famine. Vietnamese "boat people" came due to repercussions of war. Immigrant populations often don't grow simply because people want a change in scenery. Keeping this in mind, we should all challenge the way our communities memorialize the history of immigrants going forward: the frame they're placed in, the scope of the memorials, and the emphasis they place on essence vs action. Do we ever acknowledge the causes of immigration and migration? What history do memorials really represent? To what extend have we held ourselves accountable as a nation for our past? These are all important questions that must be asked when digesting representations of history, and based on the above analysis, questions that have not been asked enough.