Sorry to jump back to Morgan, but one thing that I have been thinking about since Tuesday is Morgan's lack of (in my opinion) source material featuring the voices indentured servants, slaves, and Indians.
Having discussed that he was writing in the 1970s and the style of history that was being written then is my unease no longer valid? Many African historians, for example, "read against the grain" to try to get the voices and opinions of marginalized groups - should we have expected Morgan to do the same?
*I do, however, appreciate the lack of traditional material available and how this would make his endeavors extremely tricky.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteI've heard the same thing said about Wood. Is it possible that the same response applies to both, that they were interested in the mentalities of the ruling groups through which the changes came about. Not that they are necessarily denying the slaves agency, but that you can only do so much in one book. I'm not saying that that necessarily justifies leaving people out--it's just the response I've heard.
Richard & Kevin: I also was aware of the absence of the voice of the subalterns, but the question of sources and access to sources is a valid issue. Perhaps further digging in "government" records would have revealed something. But the absence is noticeable. I also agree... one can only address so much in one volume. And, Morgan was clearly building his argument on the strengths of the more accessible sources of the "big men" in England and the white settlers in colonial VA.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts about this also translate in to the absence of women's voices in both books and especially in Wood's....he pays the issue of how the Revolution impacted women in a couple of pages in the final chapter and that is it....Is this just a reversion to the history of the great men, or should we just accept that this is how history has to be sometimes?
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't accept that this is how history has to be. I think it is the duty of historians to try and go back and give voice to the traditionally voiceless in past societies and events. There are always new methodologies, ideas and techniques that historians may apply in the present and future to retroactively uncover more of the past, i.e. using archaeology to uncover slaves' standards of living. As historians we can also try to unpack any biases that may have inflected historian's works in the past.
Delete