Remembering and Reimagining the “Old South” in Mississippi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title seems lacking. It's quite short and doesn't give readers a sense of the content. Consider including a colon after the beginning that alludes to contribution. The list of references is also quite short and again doesn't include key scholars that have theorized white supremacy and resistance (Mills - The Racial Contract; Omi and Winant - racial formation theory and racial projects; Collins - Black Feminist thought, matrix of domination and controlling images). The author should consider including their critical reflection on their positionality (e.g., social location race-gender-class, etc., narrative of identity and ethical/political commitments - see Yuval-Davis 2011 Intersectional contestations for discussion on the aforementioned domains of belonging).

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them.

The following is my response. Your comments are reflected in my revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The case of the Natchez Mississippi 'historical tableaux/pageant' is an interesting one worthy of further investigation (this is not the first).

One of the main limitations with this paper is that it is not very clear what the core question or argument is.  If it is about how nationalism is social reproduced, the engagement with nationalism theory in this area is rather limited, and no argument is made about why we might generalise form this one  very particular case.  If it is about the changing race relations and politics in Natchez, then a more systematically historical approach would be better, brining in more data and tracing the historical process.  It is not clear what research methods have been used here.  The result is a rather impressionistic and static account of what this reviewer thinks is a complex historical process.

The paper would be improved by a more systematic presentation of historical, sociological, economic, and demographic data.  These are only hinted at.  From this paper the reader would get no idea that in 2016 Natchez voted in a Black and Gay Mayor with 91% of the vote.  there is clearly a complex local process going on, negotiating the small town's need tourism income, while also changing incomplete and distasteful representations of the town's history.  A deeper look at how locals on all sides of the issue negotiate this would be more interesting.  That might entail interviewing, which there is no sign of here.

Parenthetically, I found the midway reflection on 'archives' not very illuminating.  It seemed liek a diversion form the flow of the paper.  

More generally, I found the paper loosely argued.  Why should we regard Natchez as a 'microcosm' of the wider nation?  How do we know that that 're-enactors' are reproducing the nation and passing it on to the next generation?  How do we know that it 'links the nation and the family emotionally'?  These points are more asserted than argued.  In academic writing I would avoid very subjective language such as 'To me...' and '...seared into my brain.'  (lines 142-146).

Finally, it seems to this reader that what this case really shows is that, slowly, by fits and starts, the town of Natchez has been grappling with, and catching up with, the post-1960s civil rights movement world.  It is a story of the local black population taking an increasing critical role, and the organisers adjusting to those pressures.  It's far from perfect, and it is not over, but the movement is in the right direction.  Exploring that narrative in depth would be more interesting.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them.

The following is my response. Your comments are reflected in my revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a stimulating and in many ways thought-provoking article, but rather unusual for an academic piece in certain aspects of its research approach, historiographical location, and general conversational tone. The article’s (over)use of italics to stress various points makes one wonder what the level of the intended audience for it is. And although its initial notes detail some of the admittedly extensive historiography on the subject of the South and memory, the article as a whole does not engage with the various conversations within the overarching and overlapping literatures either on Southern memory or nationalism more broadly much if at all. I’m also not clear as to the purpose of the list at the end. Is this a preliminary introduction to a more extensive piece of research or a stand-alone argument? Or is it simply the case that the author has misunderstood that the list of sections in any submission is optional and not all will apply to all articles? (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/genealogy/instructions)

 

As to the actual argument and evidence that this article presents, the choice of Natchez as a case study is a good one, but much of the evidence presented here is either gleaned from secondary literature or it is entirely anecdotal and not verifiable by future researchers. For example, we learn about how events such as Charlottesville’s 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ rally (no dates given here though) impacted the author’s sense of the links between violence and nationalism, but was his/her reaction typical, or widespread, or an outlier? We simply do not know. Similarly, the contested nature of memory as that played/plays out in Natchez’s pageants, between different groups of white organizers and between white organizers and Black participants, is suggestive, and certainly capable of greater analysis. But the debates within the garden club, over, for example, the historical accuracy of a Black ballet dancer are neither grounded in any relevant archives (garden club minutes, maybe?) nor referenced in secondary texts; at least not clearly so. We are told, too, that the financial returns from ‘Confederate heritage tourism’ have declined recently. The author suggests, but offers no evidence, that the cause of this decline consists in ‘social change and the proliferation of entertainment options.’ But where did the money primarily come from in the first place? American visitors? Foreign tourists? Asking ‘what memories will tourists want to pay to experience’ is a valid question, but where is the answer likely to be found?

 

Above all, the premise of this piece, one clearly (as the author states) from inside the state and by an individual familiar with its culture, begins with some strong assertions about the importance of theater and performance in nationalism, which is entirely valid. But in the case of confederate heritage tourism, we are surely not looking simply at an ‘imagined community,’ but are witnessing an act of double imagining: there never was any such entity as the Confederate Nation, so what is being imagined was itself imaginary. This may impact on the way that the confederate past is remembered, performed, and discussed, and the author might consider how this impacts the kinds of debates and disagreements that s/he has uncovered. It might also be helpful to draw more of Pierre Nora’s Lieu de mémoire thesis when discussing the role that children perform in Natchez’s confederate pageants, since he placed a great deal of stress on the performative and politic transfer of idea of the nation from one generation to the next. Drawing this into conversation with Lee Edelman’s No Future thesis in the context of the microhistory of Natchez’s confederate pageants has the potential to transform how we think about the generational transfer of memory, nationhood, and racial prejudice not just in the United States but more widely.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them.

The following is my response. Your comments are reflected in my revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Report on revised article for Genealogy: ‘Remembering and Reimagining the “Old South” in Mississippi.’

You have clearly expended some effort in locating his/her approach here in the context of the historiography on nations and nationalism. This has the effect, however, of rendering the claim in the Abstract (‘In the first half of the essay, I discuss how Natchez’s confederate heritage tourism has endured…’) somewhat misleading since the first long section of the article is now largely about the methodology, although writing as an historian I’m not sure that the fact that the secondary works used are rooted in archival research obviates the need to do more oneself. This may be a narrow disciplinary perspective, however, and you do stress that your work is ‘primarily theoretical and privileges performance as the central point of analysis, to argue how performance creates meaning and shapes culture and ideologies.’ The additional material on memory studies and nationalism does help the reader orientate her/himself in the article, but the later section on memory is (as you suspect) overly long and detailed and has the effect of swamping the article’s main focus, the Natchez Confederate pageant. However, without knowing what approach the other articles in this Special Issue have adopted, this conceptual and historiographical framing could be of real value to the overall shape and direction of the issue as a whole.

            The revised section on Black Mississippian history, and especially the discussion of the archival absences and potential material is much improved now as a discussion of source problems and solutions, but the link with Natchez and Black memory has been lost. If possible, move this section to later in the article and thereby tie the discussion more explicitly with the role of African Americans in Natchez (would be my advice). This would have several potentially positive effects: first, it would curtail the long historiographical section and get the reader to Natchez quicker; second, it would strengthen what you later have to say about the Black perspective and memory; and finally it would prevent the (very slight) repetition of the material on Johnson.             

Minor

Be consistent with capitalization of Confederate.

Sort out formatting problems in Abstract and Introduction that seem to be causing line and word breaks.

Very minor typos throughout (e.g. (there are no page numbers) ‘…rights and calling the Civil War as the “War Between the States.”)

You suggest that ‘Many Americans (excepting historians) have probably never heard of Natchez.’ You sure about this? Mississippi is (a) not the end of the world and (b) significant in US culture and literature.

Author Response

Reviewer note:

You have clearly expended some effort in locating his/her approach here in the context of the historiography on nations and nationalism. This has the effect, however, of rendering the claim in the Abstract (‘In the first half of the essay, I discuss how Natchez’s confederate heritage tourism has endured…’) somewhat misleading since the first long section of the article is now largely about the methodology, although writing as an historian I’m not sure that the fact that the secondary works used are rooted in archival research obviates the need to do more oneself. This may be a narrow disciplinary perspective, however, and you do stress that your work is ‘primarily theoretical and privileges performance as the central point of analysis, to argue how performance creates meaning and shapes culture and ideologies.’ The additional material on memory studies and nationalism does help the reader orientate her/himself in the article, but the later section on memory is (as you suspect) overly long and detailed and has the effect of swamping the article’s main focus, the Natchez Confederate pageant. However, without knowing what approach the other articles in this Special Issue have adopted, this conceptual and historiographical framing could be of real value to the overall shape and direction of the issue as a whole.

Response:

The abstract was from the original version and, I agree, not accurate. I updated the abstract.

I agree that the section on methodology was long, but I provided a thorough literature review because previous reviewers felt the methodology was unclear and/or that my conclusions were unsupported. I still feel that a longer literature review and discussion of methodology will thoroughly address any concerns about my scholarly framework, and readers can easily jump to the following sections if they are familiar with the scholarly framework. However, as you suggested, I did move the section on Black archives and memory to the end, to more directly connect how the activists in Natchez illustrate these theories/methodologies.

To your note that “I’m not sure that the fact that the secondary works used are rooted in archival research obviates the need to do more oneself”: I agree, but I’d like to gently point out that I am untenured faculty with a heavy teaching load and extremely high student loan debt. My institution does not support my research in any way, so I have thus far self-funded all field observations, trips to archives, etc. If you know of resources that might fund my travel for archival research purposes, I would gladly investigate that.

Reviewer note:

The revised section on Black Mississippian history, and especially the discussion of the archival absences and potential material is much improved now as a discussion of source problems and solutions, but the link with Natchez and Black memory has been lost. If possible, move this section to later in the article and thereby tie the discussion more explicitly with the role of African Americans in Natchez (would be my advice). This would have several potentially positive effects: first, it would curtail the long historiographical section and get the reader to Natchez quicker; second, it would strengthen what you later have to say about the Black perspective and memory; and finally it would prevent the (very slight) repetition of the material on Johnson.             

Response:

As noted above, I followed your suggestion and moved this section.

Reviewer note:

Be consistent with capitalization of Confederate.

– FIXED, thanks

Sort out formatting problems in Abstract and Introduction that seem to be causing line and word breaks.

– I believe the formatting is better now

Very minor typos throughout (e.g. (there are no page numbers) ‘…rights and calling the Civil War as the “War Between the States.”)

• Fixed, thanks

You suggest that ‘Many Americans (excepting historians) have probably never heard of Natchez.’ You sure about this? Mississippi is (a) not the end of the world and (b) significant in US culture and literature.

• I altered the phrasing here somewhat, but this still is my belief, because generally when I mention Natchez to people outside of Mississippi, they have not heard of it.