Question about women out of place

Kerber keeps referencing women being sexually available, such as a black woman on the street is considered to be sexually available or a prostitute, or a white woman teaching black children also sexually available. She then states in a general since that a woman out of place is considered to be sexually available. this is a theme that comes up every once in a while in the book but I don't think she every really explains or discusses this. Does anyone have thoughts about this?

Kerber and Wood

After my pre-reading of Kerber's book, I am curious if she would take issue with Gordon Wood's argument in "The Radicalism of the American Revolution." While she may agree that society did essentially shift in nature after the Revolution, her point seems to be that this only went for men. While we are generally aware of the shift in institutions before and after the founding of the nation (as well as the limited scope of the line "all men are created equal"), her declaration that the Founders "did not have the heart or the energy to reconstruct the entire legal system" is an important one. She goes on to state that "even after the Declaration of Independence, the forms and procedures of American law-the understanding of what a contract means, the manner of probating a will, the very concept of phenomena like juries or sheriffs-all had their bases in English practice." Her argument must be that the Founders were either too tired, too lazy, or just didn't think they needed to fix something that worked for them. The fact that the system of laws they changed would not only affect less than half the population but keep women in the same system of bondage and obligation that they had in England is startling. At the very least it raises the question of just how radical the revolution was.

Initial thoughts on Kerber

So far I like this book because of some of the questions it raises for me fits into some of our larger discussions this semester. Kerber in the first chapter begins by discussing the status of women during the time of the Revolution and immediately after. What she shows is that while the men of the new nation were pressing for a new republican government, they left in place a patriarchal system in their marriages. What I find intriguing about this comes from some of our other readings such as Gordon Wood who makes a point of describing the aversion the republican founding fathers had with patriarchy and dependency. I know that dependent relationships existed in America as republican ideas were being asserted like slavery and Roediger's hirelings, but the people who were under dependent relationships were looked upon with disdain and certainly would not have been viewed as having the ability to participate in government. However, the men left in place a system of patriarchy with their relationships to their wives. Yet we have Holton's depictions of Abigail Adams who was constantly making large financial decisions for her husband John while he was away. I guess the question it raises for me is, if dependent relationships were seen with skepticism under republican ideals, how did the founding fathers justify leaving in place patriarchal relationships with their wives? Also if people living under dependent relationships were looked upon with skepticism  how did men living under republican values truly feel about their wives?      

Obligations and Kerber

I have just finished my pre-read and the preface so this is by no means an extensive observation, however I am very excited to read this book. As students of history we all know have an understanding of women throughout history whether they were "covered" as Kerber calls it, under husbands and fathers identity or later not included in the 14th amendment. But I find it interesting that recently, 1980, someone tried to use this previous obligatory relationship between women and state to fight women being added to the draft. I also found her question of what would a "Bill of Obligations" look like? Could there be one based on obligations of citizens and I think her answer is no. There is a relationship and difference between rights and obligations for both men and women. Obligations of the people directly relate to the rights of people but how women are bound (obligated) to act as a citizen is different than that of men. It is Kerber's goal to call in to question obligations of women as citizens.

Paternalism, Hegemony, and (the lack of) slave revolts, oh my!

I've been reading everyone's posts and comments avidly, and decided this week to stay out of the business of commenting, as I felt like last week I did little more than chill conversation, which was not my desire. The results have been impressive. In general a lot of thinking going on here.

Let me direct everyone to a review essay on Genovese written by the impressive historian Walter Johnson. It calls attention to the Gramscian concept of hegemony, which is little understood. His discussion of it is helpful. If nothing else, it explains why Genovese focuses the way he does on paternalism and their dialectical slave responses--work slow downs, etc.

Look forward to discussion this week.

Paternalism, Marxism, and White People Oh My!

I will admit, the first hundred pages or so of Roll Jordan Roll surprised me in their efforts to understand the psychology of slave holding society.  I felt the author gave a nuanced and non-polemical treatment to antebellum slave-holding society.  In the preface, you can tell that the author was concerned that this balanced treatment might be interpreted by some as being too soft on the institution of slavery.  I do not believe it is.  I believe that author was attempting to show the contradictions and the humanity of both groups of actors in this tragic saga - both masters  and slaves.

Especially in the first division of Roll Jordan Roll, with its emphasis on the mentality/actions of white slave-holders, it was at times difficult to keep track of what seems to be a major theme in Roll Jordan Roll - how slaves themselves were just as important in the creation southern society.  It wasn't just the whip holding white people.  But enough of this theme shines through, especially in the discussion on paternalism, that it is still discernible.  

Also, the sudden and sometimes disconnected injections of Marxist ideology/interpretation in the narratives can be off-putting.  They are off-putting because I feel they aren't necessary to the arguments of the author, i.e. agency of slaves in creating southern society. 

Slavery and Paternalism

Even though I haven't read a whole lot of Genovese's work yet, it is really unusual, at least in my opinion, for a book about slavery to spend so much time trying to 'humanize' the slaveholders. Slaveholders were not in touch with humanity; that's why they had slaves, and many of them treated them so brutally. One aspect of the book that has really stood out to me is how Genovese tries to portray slaveholders as, as he describes, "authoritarian fathers." I can see the point he is trying to make with this, but I can't bring myself to agree with him. Sure, no one can speak for all the slaveholders, but for the most part, and looking at primary sources from being who were slaves, etc., it seems like this is certainly not the case. Also another reason I find fault with the argument that slaveholders tended to view themselves as "authoritarian fathers" is this: many slaveholders didn't even consider their slaves to be human. I know a good part of the book is devoted to paternalism and slavery, but Genovese's argument regarding those two things seems slightly far-fetched.

Methods and Themes

Having read Part 1, there are some basics I want other people's opinion on before I make up my mind. One is structure, which appears decidedly thematic in nature. Having the initial chapters set up the themes which defined the master/slave relationship (paternalism, hegemony, etc.), it is clear that, in  so far as the first part, Genovese's intent is not to provide a traditional narrative but a thematic approach to prove his point. Am I off the mark here? This brings me to my second question, which is method. This feels like a classic Marxist text here. The themes themselves imply a power structure which provide "class exploitation that had to depend on the willing reproduction and productivity of its victims." Does his apparently controversial thesis imply a shockingly accepted, however manipulated, subjugation on the part of the slaves? If so, is he saying this could only be achieved through culture, not just force?

A Troubling Preface / Preread

Before reading some of the book, I read the Preface and the title chapters throughout, and figured out even on a surface level why many people have considered Genovese's work to be controversial.

I found it odd that Genovese spends much of the Preface apologizing for his book's apparent tone as being apologetic towards planters and the South. Although Genovese points out several times that his work is in fact NOT being apologetic and denounces slavery as a criminal institution, why spend so much of the preface / introduction in defending the book? I feel like this approach is troubling, because it seems to be making the assumption, even before being read, that there is controversy regarding the book.

And although at this point I had not read his arguments for his position that planters and slaves held mutual cultural influence with one another, I find it hard to believe. I also don't see how the Southern white "planter" population was a "hyphenated minority along with Afro-Americans" as Woodward states in the lines that Genovese quotes in the preface. I understand that the Southern whites were a cultural minority compared with Northern whites during the time of slavery, but I just don't see why Genovese wants to try to make such a close connection between these two very different groups of people.

I think that I needed to read further to see what Genovese means in tying these two cultural groups together, but I think its difficult to try to connect two different cultural groups with such distinctive cultural backgrounds, and I am curious to see how Genovese reconciles African-American cultural traditions with Southern white cultural traditions.

How Should We Deal With Negativity / Disinterest?

Before I approached Roll Jordan, Roll I felt disappointed that so much of this book and its interpretations have been told to me by others in the class and classes I have had in American history in the past. What I had heard about the book and Genovese's writings is that they are highly controversial and tend to paint slavery in a flattering light and explain away the negatives of slavery through a discussion of southern whites and African-American slaves as having equal influence on one another. (Note: This is what I have been told, not necessarily what I think or know the book actually says.)

Therefore, it is hard to approach the book without having built-in negative judgment.

When you read, does hearing negative criticisms of a historical book tend to ruin the experience of reaching your own conclusions? I feel like sometimes approaching history books, I have a built-in bias against them and it is harder for me to get into them and dig out their deeper meanings. Ex: I loved Edmund Morgan's book that we read because it was a topic that I hadn't read a lot about, and the writing style was incredibly engaging. I could have a confident, longer discussion of that book. And then we got into Gordon Wood's book, in which I personally found the writing style to be incredibly dull, and it was on a historical time period I don't have a particular interest in. I try to keep an open mind to fishing out the topics of interest to all American historians and in an ideal world, I would be a student of history who is always ready to engage in that approach, but sometimes I can't motivate myself on topics I am disinterested in or the negative criticisms I have heard make me less engaging....Long story short, what I'm asking is: What tactics have you guys found to be effective to engage a book with an open mind even if your initial response or the popular response from others is negative?

Ironies of the master/slave relations

What I have found most interesting so far about Genovese's book is his ability to show the ironies that occurred from slavery. The first comes in the chapter on paternalism. Genovese shows that slaveholders justified their use of slavery by needing to direct and care for the blacks they had under their control. One way the slaves were directed and cared for was by giving them Christianity. Christianity gave them their greatest weapon against the slaveholders by teaching them that they were of value and equal in the sight of the Lord. Another interesting irony I found amusing came from the law that forbid blacks to testify against whites. Genovese gives some great scenarios where this law would ironically hurt the white slaveholders even more than the slaves. He gives the one example that is perfect in which a white man started a slave rebellion, yet he could not be convicted because the slaves were not allowed to testify. A final interesting point Genovese brings up is the constant need to redefine the status of a slave to fit the needs of the slaveholders. An example would be when the slaveholders wanted to convict slaves of crimes. If a slave is just property without human qualities how could the slaveholders hold them accountable. However, if they are indeed people than the slaveholders would have to redefine what the slaves really are and justify how they can own them as property. I don't know how others thought about these things, but I found them very interesting. 

Roll Jordan Roll Comments

I believe Genovese established an alterior view of slavery in the South by capturing the master/slave relationship in new perspectives.  Throughout the 200 pages that I have read so far, it can be perceived that the slaves did "not have it so bad."  Slaves were able to influence masters to fire cruel overseers, Southern laws were made to protect slaves, and many slaves protected thier masters and their masters' family members against invading Yankees.  In that instance, an extended family relationship was formed showing familiar bonds between master families and slave families, despite incidents of whippings and cruelty.  Genovese records that the cruel masters were not as prevalent in Southern society.  Futhermore, slaves had days off, festivals, dances, and only worked on average, 12-14 hour days, unless they were on the sugar plantations.  For the book's theme, Genovese shows how slaves were able to create a human world out of their dehumanizing condition while all along maintaining some forms of pride and dignity in a system that generally considered them chattel property. 

After reading all of these "good" things about slavery, man, I would hates to be free myself. To my amazement, the book appears to take on an apologetic postion that favors the slaveholders by magnifying their benevolence, the slaves' propensity in not wanting freedom after the Civil War, and the slaves' dependency on the masters' good will, provisions, and paternalistic authority.

 Another interesting point it Genovese's constant used of Scripture and its themes and the encased 45 or 33 album-like book cover ( 45 or 33 were  round disc-shaped musical apparatus of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s), sparks my thoughts of visual purpose:  some sub-themed perceptions of African-American culture in music and religion.

Hate and Herrenvolk Republicanism

This is an interesting--and unavoidably, I think, problematic--text that has already made for some thought-provoking discussion. Here are my two cents for what they're worth: .01: What Roediger makes clear is the eagerness with which poor white men in the early 19th century participated in--and perpetuated--racial hatred in order to gather cultural capital that would, they hoped, yield political and economic capital. And instead of focusing only on African American populations, Roediger includes women, Native Americans, the Irish, and upper echelons of white society in his discussion of the objects of hostility. Thus he illustrates the "fear and longing" (and subsequent loathing) that circumscribed white men of the lower classes within an economic and social system that was becoming outmoded. But Roediger never puts it exactly in these terms, perhaps because some of the groups at which they directed their anger supplied additional members (the Irish anti-abolitionists, for example) and strengthened their cause and their numbers. Each chapter seems to dig a bit deeper into the objects and performance of their hate, even as Roediger leads the reader through the chronology. At the end, I felt that I better understood the mechanisms by which such hate was deliberately and systematically embedded into working class white culture. .02: Roediger amasses an army of sources(sometimes I wondered whether a footnote might have been less distracting than the litany of names in some paragraphs) to support his own Marxist interpretation that the origins of white supremacy lie within the devaluing of poor white labor. His careful linguistic analysis of how this happens, however, seems (ironically) compromised by his own occasional lack of sensitivity. At times, his phrasing (such as his description of the Christmas maskings in Philadelphia as both "tragic" and "fascinating") seems to counter his arguments, or at least the spirit with which he purports to engage in his research. In the same vein, I question why, with all of his talk of sentimentality, lack of empathy, and psychology, he doesn't focus more on what he seems to circumvent: the absence of compassion in herrenvolk republicanism. In addition to concerns of power, this seemed to be a driving force behind the differences between those who bought into white supremacy and those who could have but didn't. My own cynicism aside, I do wonder what an examination of this might yield.

Whiteness and nativism: different or the same?

OK, first a disclaimer: I might be way off base here. Roediger's work argued that "whiteness" as an identity created by white wage workers to separate themselves from Black Americans. OK, the section about the Irish immigrants was solid...however, I was left wondering how the Irish immigrants' section mentioned nativism just twice. I was expecting to see Roediger directly (or indirectly) challenge John Higham's nativist argument in this section. Alas, I found nothing of the sort. I did not see anything else in the rest of the text either. I also did not see Higham in the endnotes but did see several mentions of Oscar Handlin. I was a bit disappointed by this omission of Higham.

John Higham argued in Strangers in the Land that native-born Americans held negative perspectives of immigrants and Catholics.Many Irish who arrived during the early 19th century fit this bill. Higham's timeline begins in the 1860s and ended in the 1920s. Roediger did not provide an explicit timeline but I wonder if Higham would believe that whiteness equaled nativist. However, nativist sometimes did not equal whiteness.

Is whiteness merely an identity created by the white wage workers and nativism an ideology created by white Protestant Americans to create distinctions between themselves and the incoming immigrants (especially Irish)?

'white slavery' vs. 'black slavery'

I'm about half-way through the book so far, and one thing that I have been noticing is how Roediger seems to think that it would have been so much better to be a 'black slave' in the South than a 'white slave' in the North. Roediger compares how the employers of the 'white slaves' basically just work their employees until they can't work any more. However, in comparison, the slave-owners of the South don't work their black slaves as hard, because they sort of view them as an investment: if they have them to do the work, the work will get done, and they will make money. At some points, it's like Roediger is almost implying that being a slave in the South was like "a walk in the park," and everyone knows from reading about it that it certainly wasn't that way at all. Did anyone else notice this? It really stood out to me, because he does it quite a few times.

Is something missing?

While it's becoming increasingly clear that this Roediger's book is about the evolution of whiteness (as opposed to blackness) in relation to labor, I can't help but wonder if he is limiting himself by strictly relating whiteness to the perception of a "black problem." While he does make a persuasive case connecting whiteness to blackness, if his whole argument is couched within the context of labor history, should he be including other ethnic communities which make up the spectrum of American labor. He does pay lip service to Native Americans, and takes time to show the assimilation of "swarthy" immigrant races like the Irish into the category of whiteness, but what about Mexican and Central American workers? Historically, black and white relations have the longest and most complex relationship, but if Roediger's point is that current class/race issues are intertwined with labor, how can you omit such a large and provocative part of the contemporary labor force. While never part of American slavery, Mexican immigrants have definitely been a part of the American labor society for over a century now, and the only time Mexicans are mentioned at all in the book are to reinforce American notions of racism toward those living IN Mexico in the 19th century, I'm starting to wonder if (as implied by the introduction), this book has more to do with Roediger's personal history with race (i.e. African-Americans) as it relates to class and labor than the broad spectrum of "non-white" laborers. Does anyone disagree?

I am suspect of the usage of the words "nig---", coon, Buck, "ne--rs, Mose in two courses that I have taken so far here at GA State.  I understand the point the author is trying to contrast with the legacy of White workers and White Captialists dehumanizing the "other" populations in the US, in this case African-Americans, mostly, and in some cases the Indians.  He stresses his points with his own childhood in the 1960s,  growing up in Missouri.  He explains how the White lower class workers focused their attention to not being servantile or slave-like becuase then they would be no better than Black persons.  He goes on to connect Black with being inferior, slaves, lazy, unintelligent, and not deserving of freedoms and citizenship according the the US White Power System Structure (this is a Hamilton term, though not copyrighted yet).  The irony in all of these notions is that the very Black people who are hated by White members of society, they put on Black face and mock Black behavior for entertainment and business ventures.  Just like the author said in the beginning of this book, his schoolmates disliked Black people but cheered for Black athletes like Bob Gibson of the Cardinals, listened to Smokey Robinson, and more than likely, danced to Black music.  Overall, the book rings home to my childhood and life experiences becuase the author is mainly recognizing "White Privilege" in that White members of society are quickly to reach a solidarity in "Whiteness"  and fight against a non-White group that is not a threat to them, rather than fight the White groups that hold the power over them and the White groups that are exploiting them.  So it becomes a case of choosing Race Likeness over Class/Economic Likeness.

Race, Class, and Roediger's Model

After only reading the books first chapter, it's clear that Roediger is trying to unpack several intertwining themes which don't just engage historical topics but current political culture as well. This obviously has to be approached with care, and while I don't have much background in this area, the author is clearly trying to show the deliberate and thoughtful approach he is taking to the material. Am I understanding correctly his assertion he appears to keep hitting home in the beginning of the book about the fallacy of the political argument that class and race are essentially separate spheres? By extension, he appears to be criticizing the assertion made by both ends of the political spectrum that only when race is separated from class issues could social cohesion be possible. I get the impression that he finds this notion not only untrue, but detrimental to understanding the complex issues involved. Am I misreading his argument? I certainly don't want to wrongly perceive his purpose when reading the rest of the monograph.

Some Thoughts about Wages of Whiteness

The first thing I began to think about with this book was the title. The keyword I focused on was wages. Wages can have two meanings. One is the fruits of labor. Using this definition the book would suggest that whiteness has a inherent value. The other use of the term describes wages as a penalty for an action as the biblical passage found in the book of Romans, The wages of sin is death. Using this definition the book would suggest that there is a penalty for those who have used whiteness as an identity. After I read the introduction it seems that there are indications of both. The author of the introduction says that the Roediger adopted the theme of W.E. B Dubois' work that concluded that white workers prized whiteness over a unifying with black workers to the detriment of achieving true democracy. Focusing on the use of the term wages as a positive for those who claim it as an identity we can see the case made for the Irish. Rather than despising the dominant white Protestant culture in America that sought to oppress them, they stove to identify themselves with a white identity that was valued at the time. One thing I struggled with a bit was the idea that whiteness was constructed by the white workers rather than their superiors(xxii). As we discussed before with Edmund Morgan's book the creation of race was the tool used by the dominant land holders to dampen the rising power of the new white freemen who were growing in population in Virginia. I guess I am having trouble reconciling these ideas or I may be missing the point entirely. Any suggestions? More about wages later.

Holton

Okay. I have tried to respond to Ryan's post four times. The comment does not seem to stick. Maybe "allow reader comments" has been disabled?

Update: I am apparently unable to respond to individual posts. So I will repost one of my responses here as a stand-alone comment.

 I read Holton's take on the Constitution as a mechanism for both economic stimulus (and by extension wealth generation) and wealth preservation. It would be naïve not to consider that it was the founders' wealth that was the target for preservation. Likewise, the chaos of circulating individual state currencies –rather than not enough capital to pay taxes (as one poster commented)– I read that there was not enough value in capital. The overabundance of paper money outpaced the ability of currency to purchase goods and services. I appreciate how Holton examines aspects of currency depreciation and the protection of bondholders.

Bondholders'value of the outstanding debt was eroded through hyperinflation (i.e. Jefferson's oak leaves analogy). Nevertheless, these same bondholders were reluctant to exchange their bonds for paper currency. It is a small point that Holton makes but nonetheless important: State and national currencies depreciated simultaneously. This piece of the story provides a significant part of the scaffolding upon which this historical narrative is assembled.

 Too, the chaotic relationship among competing state and national currencies damaged commercial enterprise. Economic development would be retarded while bondholders resisted trading in their bonds for national currency. This handicap was exacerbated with an unstable monetary system such that outside investment would be unavailable.

As I read Holton's position – the founders recognized this limitation and sought to correct the systemic deficiencies with a strong central government. This need to collect debts seems to factor into the creation of the federal court system ("full faith and credit" being an extension of this); also the ability to regulate the volume and velocity of capital to control inflation.

Holton asks if some states perceived that they would derive a greater benefit under the confederation rather than under the federal plan. I am looking at those points that were critical to adoption of the Constitution as a kind of trade-off when states relinquish power to the federal government. Then there is the aspect of unintended consequences. Did the founders, perhaps unwittingly, empower people in the lower levels of the economic ladder to attain greater control over their own destiny outside the circumscribed ideals of a strong central government?

Holton's Argument

The more I read "Unruly Americans" the more I believe Holton is making an "anti-Founder" argument. By focusing so much on Herman Husband, a man whose proposal was "so controversial it was never actually introduced in Congress or any other state legislature," as well as others, I get the sense that Holton is building a counter-narrative to the reverence toward the nation's Founders. Am I wrong in seeing this book (so far) as an anti-Founder, and by extension, anti-Constitution argument? Anti-constitution in the sense that what the  "unruly Americans" were fighting for was not the Constitution's purpose, but something else entirely?