Author's personal copy Surrogation and the politics of remembering slavery in Savannah, Georgia (USA) Derek H. Alderman a, b a Department of Geography, Brewster 227-A, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA b Center for Sustainable Tourism, RW 208 Rivers, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA Abstract There are growing calls from some African Americans, particularly in the U.S. South, to create sites of counter-memory that recognize the often forgotten historical struggles and contributions of the enslaved. Commemoration of slavery is not only a contentious issue for whites but also African Americans, who differ with each other over how best (or even whether) to narrate these difficult memories. Few geographers have explored the politics of remembering slavery among African Americans and how these struggles shape the commemorative landscape. I explore the efforts of Abigail Jordan to establish a monument to the enslaved in Savannah, Georgia (USA) and the ensuing public debate that took place over the appropriateness of inscribing the monument with a description of the inhumanity found on slave ships during the Middle Passage. Led by two outspoken black officials, Savannah’s city council refused to give final approval for the monument until the inscription was revised to end on a more optimistic note. An analysis of public comments made about the Savannah monument reveals that the inscription debate served as an arena for multiple ideas about how best to represent African Americans as victims of slavery, the legacy of racism and slavery in contemporary America, as well as conflicting personal and political visions within the black community. In interpreting the Savannah case, I suggest that the politics of remembering slavery be examined in terms of surrogation, the search for a suitable commemorative stand in for the enslaved, and textual politics, the recognition that the words used to represent slavery are at the heart of the struggle to remember (or forget) the trauma of enslavement. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Slavery; Surrogation; Monument; Inscription; Textual politics; Counter-memory; U.S. South; Savannah; African American Introduction The analysis of monuments, memorials, and other places of memory is of growing importance in geography as well as a wide range of fields in the humanities and social sciences. Much of this work asserts that what is commemorated is not synonymous with all that has gone on in the past; what is defined as memorable or historically significant is open to social control, contest, and nego- tiation. Places of memory narrate history in selective ways that not only contribute to the process of remembering, but also the process of forgetting. 1 Robin Wagner-Pacifici and Barry Schwartz observed: ‘Memorial devices are not self-created; they are conceived and built by those who wish to bring to consciousness the events and people that others are more inclined to forget’. 2 The potential struggle to determine what (and whose) conception of the past will prevail constitutes the politics of memory. The politics of remembering/forgetting through commemora- tion is certainly controlled by those in power, but marginalized social actors and groups can use memorials and monuments to challenge dominant narrations of the past. Stephen Legg used the term ‘sites of counter-memory’ to identify the material spaces and symbolic practices created by subaltern groups who ‘refuse to forget’ and seek public recognition of their historical contributions and experiences. 3 About social justice in addition to historical completeness, these sites ‘can affect contemporary restitution and reparation, force recognition of wrongdoing, and increase readiness of groups to E-mail address: aldermand@ecu.edu 1 S. Hoelscher and D. Alderman, Memory and places: geographies of a critical relationship, Social and Cultural Geography 5 (2004) 347–355; K. Till, The New Berlin: Memory, Politics, Place, Minneapolis, MN, 2005; A. Charlesworth, Contesting places of memory: the case of Auschwitz, Environment and Planning D, 12 (1994) 579–593; T. Chang and S. Huang, Recreating place, replacing memory: creative destruction at the Singapore River, Asia Pacific Viewpoint 46 (2005) 267–280; S. Legg, Reviewing geographies of memory/forgetting, Environment and Planning A 39 (2007) 456–466. 2 R. Wagner-Pacifici and B. Schwartz, The Vietnam veterans memorial: commemorating a difficult past, American Journal of Sociology 97 (1991) 376–420, 382. 3 S. Legg, Sites of counter-memory: the refusal to forget and the nationalist struggle in colonial Delhi, Historical Geography 33 (2005) 180–201. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Historical Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhg 0305-7488/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2009.08.001 Journal of Historical Geography 36 (2010) 90–101