Customer Reviews

Honor and Slavery

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Greenberg has written an informative and entertaining book on the importance of honor among men of the Old South. He is able to link such diverse topics as P.T. Barnum and the Feejee Mermaid, duels, men dressed as women, nose-pulling, and baseball to the idea of honor. He theorizes that the emphasis of this idea is rooted slavery and the fact that slaves had no honor. While he accurately describes the playing out of honor in everyday white Southern life, the notion that this all found a basis in slavery is somewhat difficult to heartily agree to. Certainly other factors played a part of honor's development such as religion, heritage, politics, etc. Despite this, the book is very entertaining and would be enjoyed by both the serious student of Southern history and the average reader wanting to learn more about Southern life.

Although still without logical grounding, the second to last paragraph in Honor and Slavery: Lies, Duels, Noses, Masks, Dressing as a Woman, Gifts, Strangers, Humanitarianism, Death, Slave Rebellions, the Proslavery Argument, Baseball, Hunting, and Gambling in the Old South (1996) by Kenneth S. Greenberg states his thesis and argument most succinctly: "The language spoken by antebellum Southern men of honor was dense with meaning. To pull noses was to comment on lies; to exchange gifts was to define community; to gamble on horses was to speak about death and about politics; and to duel was [sic] make statements about lies, gifts, gambling, politics, and death. Moreover, each of these conversations--and many others recounted in this book--was [sic] simultaneously also about slavery" (145). He reads actions and behaviors as larger historical truths or facts.

Honor and Slavery, historiographically speaking, belongs to the New Cultural History school. As Professor James Kirby Martin says, New Cultural History allows anything to pass as legitimate history. Unlike other works on slavery, Honor and Slavery is an attempt to move beyond the tangible evidence of newspapers and diaries so that readers can "understand the masters, the nature of slavery, or the Civil War" (xi). More than sharing in the discourse of slavery, Greenberg is in dialogue with other scholars of honor, especially Bertram Wyatt-Brown, and scholars of dueling.

Greenberg does have a few nice insights, especially in "Masks and Slavery." He explains the different interpretations abolitionists and Southerners read in the scars of the enslaved (15). Also, he recognizes that the accuracy of events or peoples does not matter and is not necessary for historical study if it had relevance in the culture (32). Finally, although not original, his description of slave auctions actually explores some of slavery's horrors (38).

With a few exceptions, newspapers and magazines still account for Greenberg's primary sources, as indicated by his footnotes. His footnotes also indicate heavy reliance on secondary literature. Generally speaking, the sound information, for example about Nat Turner's rebellion, is all based on secondary sources. Even for a book with 146 pages of text, there are surprisingly few footnotes when compared to other monographs. Furthermore, much of Honor and Slavery is simply based on interpretations, guesses, or the author's personal experiences--more sources are needed. Throughout the book readers have many questions involving accuracy or rather, the lack of accuracy.

Albeit Greenberg is original and creative, he lacks essential elements for solid historical scholarship. First and foremost, Honor and Slavery for all practical purposes does not actually explore issues of race-based urban and plantation slavery. It does discuss Nat Turner and touches on pro-slavery arguments, but when it comes to "slavery," Greenberg is primarily concerned with relationships and languages based on the metaphors of master and slave. When discussing people he mainly looks to the "great men" school of history. He also looks at politics. Second, the book lacks unity, even within individual chapters. Third, what does honor mean? Who was eligible for honor? When was he eligible? How did honor vary by region, including the North? An argument that ties virtually everything to honor should provide a definition. A fundamental principle of writing is defining terms, even if they seem obvious. Fourth, what about the other half of humanity? As legitimate historical actors or as even existing, Greenberg completely ignores women except for perhaps one reference to Jefferson Davis's wife. Slaves also do not have any agency in this study.

Finally, some of the statements are simply ridiculous, especially as they lack grounding in evidence and analysis: "This book is a work of translation" (xi), "The man of honor, held down by black slaves, slowly felt his nose disappear" (23), "We who live in a post-Freudian age smile knowingly at these men who dreamed about the loss of their noses....We must move beyond their genitals--to their noses" (23), "I buy the Boston Globe from a newsstand. I buy it because I want to read the Globe and the newsdealer [sic] sells it because she [sic] wants to earn money" (52), "Southern gift exchanges shattered time and cut apart space....A gift is a gift precisely because of its isolation in time and space" (86), "Men of honor believed that every slave had chosen a life of humiliation over an honorable death. It was precisely this preference for life that marked them as slaves (98), and "In the world of honor, animals spoke and thought in human language" (128).

Altogether, this is not a work of history. Historians should, however, continue to look at the non-tangible evidence of history. For a good example of cultural history see Shauna Bigham's and Robert E. May's "The Time O' All Times? Masters, Slaves, and Christmas in the Old South."

Much of Greenberg's book "Honor and Slavery" is based on misinformed exaggerations. The South, while having its noted and obvious shortcomings, is characterized by Greenberg in unrealistic generalizations. In this book, he states dueling as the Southern way to defend one's honor, putting them in the light of being foolish (Though I particularly think duels are foolish as well). Yet, this was not, as he implies, an exclusively Southern tradition. This happened in the West, in the North, and even in England. In fact, the North passed a law banning duels when former Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton was shot and killed by the Vice President (Burr) in 1804. Greenberg states that "Southern Men of Honor" would never live in towns because it was undignified. I suppose that would exclude the 2 million dollar townhouses in well known Downtown Charleston, South Carolina. He states that one would never call another man out for "dressing like a woman" because it would insult the cross dresser's honor and force the one in question to defend that honor, likely in a duel. That is not the case. It would have been more likely the case that a man dressing like a woman would have been attacked politically and socially--if not also physically. Greenberg's writing is very much based on his own interpretation of the South with little foundation for such remarks. I did not find the book to be a reliable source of information, mixing truth with fiction in a way to make it like rat poisoning (rat poisoning being 95% edible material, 5% poison, 100% deadly). The facts are so mixed together that it can not be deemed a credible source for my research. I do not recommend this book to anyone.

Kenneth Greenberg describes the habits, lives, and culture of "Southern men of honor (i.e. rich white planter sristocrats)." He illustrates how these men viewed the world about them and how the culture they created was dependent on slavery. Without slavery Southern Men of Honor could not exist. Slaves served as a statement of wealth and also as a relationship for the aristocrats. They considered slaves to be their opposites. Slaves were afraid. Men of honor were brave. Slaves never stood up to challanges, Men of honor always did even if it meant losing their life in a duel.

To make a long review as short as possible... Only buy is its required for school. Under no circumstance should you watse your time, nor money reading this rediculously terrible worded and written book.

This book is based more on psychological theory then hard fact. The author's attempt to explain why southerners allegedly did not like baseball is laughable. Greenburg would have been better served to do more solid research, as there actually were a lot of southern baseball teams. Still, it's always fun to read about the Jeff Davis in drag story.

This is a review of the slavery issue and wss required reading by a professor. I guess that says something.