Comments on: Another Angle on the State of Jones http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/ Where History, Heritage, and Education Intersect Thu, 24 May 2012 01:47:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Allen http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10335 Allen Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:29:34 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10335 I have been reading about Newt Knight on the internet for the past week and happen across this site. Though I am not educated as many that post here I have lived in Jones County for the past 63 years. Jonathan post was a very insiteful bit of information that I had never considered. And the consequences of overlooking his points are obivious. As far as the legend of Newt Knight goes he would be considered a terrotist in todays terms. As legend goes around here he would take food or whatever he needed to survive in his flight from the Confederacy, praying on the weak and helpless. He was never considered a hero of anything except his own survival by anyone that I have talked to. As far a the Free State of Jones goes and its orgin, not the book, one would best be served by reading the writing of Goode Montgomery. Even so one must remember that his writing were in the early 1900 when the KKK was very real and very powerful and that even Mr. Montgomery may not have been as candid as he would be today. For those of you that are interested in the civil rights history I would recommend the reading of, Clear Burning, by W. A. Chet Dillard. Dillard was a District Attorney for Jones County in the turbelent 60s and provided me with an insight to that time that I was unaware of, even though I was a resident of Jones County. The book is out of print but one may be able to find it on Ebay or similiar site. It starts off slow but is a very insightful book as far as the civil right go to Jones County. I apologize for getting off subject here but just wanted to share this information. I have been reading about Newt Knight on the internet for the past week and happen across this site. Though I am not educated as many that post here I have lived in Jones County for the past 63 years. Jonathan post was a very insiteful bit of information that I had never considered. And the consequences of overlooking his points are obivious. As far as the legend of Newt Knight goes he would be considered a terrotist in todays terms. As legend goes around here he would take food or whatever he needed to survive in his flight from the Confederacy, praying on the weak and helpless. He was never considered a hero of anything except his own survival by anyone that I have talked to.

As far a the Free State of Jones goes and its orgin, not the book, one would best be served by reading the writing of Goode Montgomery. Even so one must remember that his writing were in the early 1900 when the KKK was very real and very powerful and that even Mr. Montgomery may not have been as candid as he would be today.

For those of you that are interested in the civil rights history I would recommend the reading of, Clear Burning, by W. A. Chet Dillard. Dillard was a District Attorney for Jones County in the turbelent 60s and provided me with an insight to that time that I was unaware of, even though I was a resident of Jones County. The book is out of print but one may be able to find it on Ebay or similiar site. It starts off slow but is a very insightful book as far as the civil right go to Jones County. I apologize for getting off subject here but just wanted to share this information.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10306 Kevin Levin Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:12:33 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10306 Sarah, You make some excellent points here. First, I believe Stauffer is an American Studies Professor at Harvard, which I assume involves training different from an English Professor. There is something very wrong with this picture and you put your finger on it. Actually, you've raised two important issues. The first one is nothing new when it comes to the publicity tours for new books. In this case, I suspect that Jenkins is woefully ignorant of the broader historiographic terrain, though she is clearly aware of Bynum's work on the subject. As for the screenplay, I have no idea what transpired behind the scenes. You are right that it will a sad day indeed if the movie is made and reflects the shoddy scholarship in the Jenkins-Stauffer book. Sarah,

You make some excellent points here. First, I believe Stauffer is an American Studies Professor at Harvard, which I assume involves training different from an English Professor. There is something very wrong with this picture and you put your finger on it. Actually, you’ve raised two important issues. The first one is nothing new when it comes to the publicity tours for new books. In this case, I suspect that Jenkins is woefully ignorant of the broader historiographic terrain, though she is clearly aware of Bynum’s work on the subject. As for the screenplay, I have no idea what transpired behind the scenes. You are right that it will a sad day indeed if the movie is made and reflects the shoddy scholarship in the Jenkins-Stauffer book.

]]> By: Brooks Simpson http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10301 Brooks Simpson Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:51:26 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10301 It's worth making clear that my response to Kevin's post was directed to the broad question he raised. As I've not read the book by Jenkins and Stauffer, I don't have anything to say about it, and I won't until I've read it. It’s worth making clear that my response to Kevin’s post was directed to the broad question he raised. As I’ve not read the book by Jenkins and Stauffer, I don’t have anything to say about it, and I won’t until I’ve read it.

]]> By: Sarah Wilkerson Freeman http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10300 Sarah Wilkerson Freeman Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:23:19 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10300 While this commentary is good stuff (excellent points about gender/race and power), there is an important part of the controversy that goes far beyond issues of valid history and valid interpretations--a screenwriter for Universal was so taken by Bynum's book that he bought the film rights from UNC Press, and then turned around and shopped it to Doubleday to "inspire" a book. Isn't there something very wrong with this picture? Especially since we hear Sally Jenkins snidely asserting on camera, before millions of Daily Show viewers, that southern historians did not like the Newt Knight story so they deliberately ignored it and wrote it out of history. She is clearly making false claims about the originality of “State of Jones,” and seems to think that burying Bynum’s work in order to claim more for her and Stauffer than they deserve is just okay. Her efforts to give the book a scholarly pedigree by saying that her co-author is a “history professor” is especially troubling since Stauffer is an English prof., not a trained historian. If Bynum had been told that this was what the screenwriter intended to do with the rights, and if Jenkins did not keep telling millions of people that this was a big new discovery that historians deliberately buried, then we could simply debate the quality of the scholarship and interpretations--but that is not the case. There is an ethical issue here. A great injustice has been done to a bonafide southern historian. Furthermore, if this movie gets made and it is another glossy, sexy, based-on-bad-history commercial product that claims to be historically accurate, it does a huge disservice and complicates our already difficult job of teaching our students the difference between history, mythology, folklore, Hollywood—and deliberate deception. While this commentary is good stuff (excellent points about gender/race and power), there is an important part of the controversy that goes far beyond issues of valid history and valid interpretations–a screenwriter for Universal was so taken by Bynum’s book that he bought the film rights from UNC Press, and then turned around and shopped it to Doubleday to “inspire” a book. Isn’t there something very wrong with this picture? Especially since we hear Sally Jenkins snidely asserting on camera, before millions of Daily Show viewers, that southern historians did not like the Newt Knight story so they deliberately ignored it and wrote it out of history.

She is clearly making false claims about the originality of “State of Jones,” and seems to think that burying Bynum’s work in order to claim more for her and Stauffer than they deserve is just okay. Her efforts to give the book a scholarly pedigree by saying that her co-author is a “history professor” is especially troubling since Stauffer is an English prof., not a trained historian.

If Bynum had been told that this was what the screenwriter intended to do with the rights, and if Jenkins did not keep telling millions of people that this was a big new discovery that historians deliberately buried, then we could simply debate the quality of the scholarship and interpretations–but that is not the case. There is an ethical issue here. A great injustice has been done to a bonafide southern historian. Furthermore, if this movie gets made and it is another glossy, sexy, based-on-bad-history commercial product that claims to be historically accurate, it does a huge disservice and complicates our already difficult job of teaching our students the difference between history, mythology, folklore, Hollywood—and deliberate deception.

]]> By: Peter http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10296 Peter Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:04:05 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10296 Kevin, It seems to me that as Brooks points out, most people seek out what they want to believe and are quite comfortable on the whole to dismiss all else (think here of a relativist "flavor of ice-cream" line of argument). The very nature of our democratic society today reinforces this privatization of the past and perhaps demands it. To turn to an adjunct point; I suspect that most people who are willing to weigh competing interpretations (whether against whatever "popular Civil War memory" might be or a different historical interpretation) will do so. Chances are, they have already walked away from some other book with a challenge to the Lost Cause already. So I think the "utilitarian approach" really just covers the segment of the population who (a)reads books (b)accepts challenges to their interpretations, and (c)has not yet picked up anything on the Civil War in the past 25 years (d)will buyJenkins and Stauffer's book because they saw publicity for it somewhere. Kevin,
It seems to me that as Brooks points out, most people seek out what they want to believe and are quite comfortable on the whole to dismiss all else (think here of a relativist “flavor of ice-cream” line of argument). The very nature of our democratic society today reinforces this privatization of the past and perhaps demands it. To turn to an adjunct point; I suspect that most people who are willing to weigh competing interpretations (whether against whatever “popular Civil War memory” might be or a different historical interpretation) will do so. Chances are, they have already walked away from some other book with a challenge to the Lost Cause already. So I think the “utilitarian approach” really just covers the segment of the population who (a)reads books (b)accepts challenges to their interpretations, and (c)has not yet picked up anything on the Civil War in the past 25 years (d)will buyJenkins and Stauffer’s book because they saw publicity for it somewhere.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10292 Kevin Levin Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:57:49 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10292 Jonathan, Thanks for the comment. I should have noted that I am less concerned with the content of the quote than the overall question of whether the perspective I outlined in the post is warranted at all. Jonathan,

Thanks for the comment. I should have noted that I am less concerned with the content of the quote than the overall question of whether the perspective I outlined in the post is warranted at all.

]]> By: Jonathan Odell http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10290 Jonathan Odell Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:42:41 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10290 Just another thought. I was raised in Jones County and have been fascinated to find that the Knights was not the only family line that diverged down two paths after the Civil War. Several former slave owners sired black offspring, and in this part of the country, the norm was that even your black children were to be cared for. Many acres of land are still owned by descendants of slaves who were bequeathed the parcel by a white father. But in none of these incidents do the direct black descendant assume that anything like romantic love played a part. According to them black women after the War were as much sexual slaves to white men as they were before the war. And interestingly enough, neither do they call it rape. "Taking somebody to the barn," as they commonly refer to the occurrence, was just the nature of things. I guess that's why context is everything. And the notion of 21st Century romantic love is not relevant contextually. Just another thought. I was raised in Jones County and have been fascinated to find that the Knights was not the only family line that diverged down two paths after the Civil War. Several former slave owners sired black offspring, and in this part of the country, the norm was that even your black children were to be cared for. Many acres of land are still owned by descendants of slaves who were bequeathed the parcel by a white father. But in none of these incidents do the direct black descendant assume that anything like romantic love played a part. According to them black women after the War were as much sexual slaves to white men as they were before the war. And interestingly enough, neither do they call it rape. “Taking somebody to the barn,” as they commonly refer to the occurrence, was just the nature of things. I guess that’s why context is everything. And the notion of 21st Century romantic love is not relevant contextually.

]]> By: Jonathan Odell http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10289 Jonathan Odell Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:24:14 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10289 After interviewing many of the "Black Knight" descendants, one thing I've learned that concerns them is how easily whites are convinced to idealize the "romantic" relationship between Knight and the ex-slave Rachel. I don't think they would agree with the commentator you quote when he says, "it’s less problematic that they sexed up a romantic relationship for the sake of a film." Black women in the days following the Civil War were at the bottom of the heap power-wise. Whether Knight's assumed romantic feelings for Rachel were reciprocated is missing the point. We will never know, because in the context of that era, it was irrelevant. Good for her if she did, but for black mothers in those days, romantic love was not the driving motivation. Who they loved was immaterial to surviving. She had to find the least worst choice that would keep her and her children alive. Sexing up the relationship for a more satisfying (and modern) ending, further obscures the wrenching sacrifices made and amazing courage displayed by black women of that era. After interviewing many of the “Black Knight” descendants, one thing I’ve learned that concerns them is how easily whites are convinced to idealize the “romantic” relationship between Knight and the ex-slave Rachel. I don’t think they would agree with the commentator you quote when he says, “it’s less problematic that they sexed up a romantic relationship for the sake of a film.”

Black women in the days following the Civil War were at the bottom of the heap power-wise. Whether Knight’s assumed romantic feelings for Rachel were reciprocated is missing the point. We will never know, because in the context of that era, it was irrelevant. Good for her if she did, but for black mothers in those days, romantic love was not the driving motivation. Who they loved was immaterial to surviving. She had to find the least worst choice that would keep her and her children alive. Sexing up the relationship for a more satisfying (and modern) ending, further obscures the wrenching sacrifices made and amazing courage displayed by black women of that era.

]]> By: TF Smith http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10287 TF Smith Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:23:03 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10287 Given the generally poor record of Hollywood when it comes to American history, is the question really whether half a loaf is better than none? As in does the reality that the Stauffer/Jenkins book/movie novelization may reinforce the points that A) the Civil War was fought over slavery; B) slavery was unrefined cruelty, and C) the pro-slavery rebellion of the Confederacy against the United States was opposed by many southerners (white and black), outweigh the lack of academic rigor and intellectual honesty that has been explored in great detail in the past few weeks in this and other forums? (Fora?) I have great sympathy for Dr. Bynum, and agree with Dr. Simpson's arguments; that being said, given the generally crappy record of popular entertainment regarding American history (the premis of Tarantino's in-coming opus on WW II sets my teeth on edge), perhaps the pragmatic response is simply to be thankful for small favors? As in, this is about the best that can be expected from the likes of Ross and Jenkins; but Stauffer's involvement leaves me wondering... YMMV, of course. Given the generally poor record of Hollywood when it comes to American history, is the question really whether half a loaf is better than none?

As in does the reality that the Stauffer/Jenkins book/movie novelization may reinforce the points that A) the Civil War was fought over slavery; B) slavery was unrefined cruelty, and C) the pro-slavery rebellion of the Confederacy against the United States was opposed by many southerners (white and black), outweigh the lack of academic rigor and intellectual honesty that has been explored in great detail in the past few weeks in this and other forums? (Fora?)

I have great sympathy for Dr. Bynum, and agree with Dr. Simpson’s arguments; that being said, given the generally crappy record of popular entertainment regarding American history (the premis of Tarantino’s in-coming opus on WW II sets my teeth on edge), perhaps the pragmatic response is simply to be thankful for small favors?

As in, this is about the best that can be expected from the likes of Ross and Jenkins; but Stauffer’s involvement leaves me wondering…

YMMV, of course.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10284 Kevin Levin Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:01:14 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10284 Brooks, I agree with you that this does run the risk of leading to a "slippery slope". The point of the post was simply to report on the broader response to this book and offer an assessment. I have to assume that you understand that I am not suggesting that this is how we ought to evaluate new historical studies. By all means we should highlight more reputable books and I couldn't be more pleased that this debate has exposed people to Prof. Bynum's research and blog, but the fact is that the vast majority of people who consider The State of Jones will never read through these exchanges. I was just wondering what they might walk away with given the continued prevalence of the Lost Cause. I know you directed that comment at Larry, but I thought I might respond. Brooks,

I agree with you that this does run the risk of leading to a “slippery slope”. The point of the post was simply to report on the broader response to this book and offer an assessment. I have to assume that you understand that I am not suggesting that this is how we ought to evaluate new historical studies. By all means we should highlight more reputable books and I couldn’t be more pleased that this debate has exposed people to Prof. Bynum’s research and blog, but the fact is that the vast majority of people who consider The State of Jones will never read through these exchanges. I was just wondering what they might walk away with given the continued prevalence of the Lost Cause.

I know you directed that comment at Larry, but I thought I might respond.

]]> By: Brooks Simpson http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10283 Brooks Simpson Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:53:17 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10283 Larry: A "Lost Causer" will presumably read these posts and emphasize the the book making this argument is characterized as bad history. Doesn't exactly advance whatever cause some people want to advance. If the major concern is dissent within the CSA by southern whites, then time is better spent highlighting those books that present a far more compelling argument sustained by sound scholarship. This whole argument promises to grease a slippery slope. Larry: A “Lost Causer” will presumably read these posts and emphasize the the book making this argument is characterized as bad history. Doesn’t exactly advance whatever cause some people want to advance. If the major concern is dissent within the CSA by southern whites, then time is better spent highlighting those books that present a far more compelling argument sustained by sound scholarship.

This whole argument promises to grease a slippery slope.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2009/08/01/another-angle-on-the-state-of-jones/#comment-10282 Kevin Levin Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:41:42 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=4297#comment-10282 Yes, I finished most of it before I left for Amsterdam and knocked off the last chapter or so last week. Yes, I finished most of it before I left for Amsterdam and knocked off the last chapter or so last week.

]]>