VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:52:44 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
Henry Wiencek quite correctly draws our attention to Douglas
Deal Smith's excellent study, MANAGING WHITE SUPREMACY.  His
post is, however, a little bit misleading.  Smith's book is
about post-World War I Virginia, and focuses on the management
of Jim Crow, not on its origins.  Anyone seeking a definitive
study of Reconstruction and "Gilded-Age" Virginia will be
disappointed.

Smith's 20-page opening chapter is, to my mind, the single
best synthetic treatment of the period we are concerned with
here (1861-1902) in print.  But we should note its brevity and
its focus.  The section that recounts the narrative of our
period is only about 10 pages long.  And it focuses almost
exclusively on the actions of white elites, for the reasons
Smith makes explicit in his introduction.  The story of how
those people in power acted, and how they developed rationales
to define and explain their actions, is well worth telling.
But it is only part of the story.  What is missing of course
are the actions, choices, and strategies of those people who
wound up becoming oppressed by the actions of white elites:
tens of thousands of poor white families, and just about every
African American in the state.

From the perspective of the author wishing to tell a dramatic
story, this kind of history has depressing consequences.  The
advantage of Lemann's kind of account is that its story, while
tragic, focuses attention on the agency of African Americans,
who did not submit passively to their own exploitation.
Smith's story, precisely because it does not focus on the
agency of African Americans, is potentially misleading, *if*
we use it as our primary narrative.  It carries with it an
implication of African American passivity in the face of the
forces gathered against them.  Having had some brief
acquaintance with professor Smith, I can say with some real
assurance that he did not intend his short chapter to provide
the basis of that kind of narrative.

All best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US