3 Stars
“How do we discover
past lives for whom the historical record is abysmally thin?”
This is the problem faced by Harvard
professor, Tiya Miles, as she writes about the lives of enslaved women.
The book is framed by
an object: a cotton sack given by a
woman named Rose to her nine-year-old daughter Ashley just before she was sold
at a slave auction. The sack was filled
with a tattered dress, three handfuls of pecans, a braid of Rose’s hair, and
love for always. Rose’s
great-granddaughter Ruth Middleton embroidered this information on the sack in
1920, adding that Rose and Ashley never saw each other again.
Genealogical research
does reveal some information about these three women, but the author uses what
is known about the lives of other Black women, enslaved and free, to speculate
about Rose, Ashley and Ruth’s lives. In
the introduction, Miles mentions her approach of “stretching historical
documents, bending time, and imagining alternative realities.” Several times it seems that the author is
guilty of over-reach in trying to make a connection. For instance, there is a 30-page discussion
of clothing and only at the end is there a direct reference to the sack: “Rose may have hoped to capture some of this
spirit when she put a dress in the sack for Ashley.”
There is a great deal
of information in the book, though I found little that was new about the
difficult lives of unfree women. For
instance, the reader will learn about slavery in the Barbados, the settlement
of South Carolina, and even the cultivation of pecans. The 66 pages of annotated endnotes attest to
the amount of research Miles did.
Unfortunately, what I wanted – more about Rose and Ashley – isn’t
there.
What bothered me is
that so much of the book is speculation.
Many sentences begin with qualifiers like ”it was likely” and “perhaps”
and “maybe.” At one point the author
admits “We might or might not be in keeping with Ruth’s intentions in our haul
of subterranean meanings.” This admission
doesn’t stop the endless speculation which becomes increasingly irksome. The book is not fiction, but it is not
exactly history either because of the speculation and the many examples of
exaggerated symbolism. At one point,
Miles asks, “Is it too far a stretch to see Ashley as a grafter, too, attaching
the shoots of her new forced life onto the strong roots of memory that kept her
mother close?” My answer is Yes. Later, she asks, “Would it be too far a
stretch for us to consider that Ruth cast her own spell, in a sense, when she
metamorphized a tattered sack into a writing surface?” Yikes!
There were times when
this book reminded me of an essay written by a student who argues that every
action and object in a novel is a symbol.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes there is no deeper message
or meaning to things. Miles thinks the
cotton sack could be a protective spirit bag.
Maybe it’s just a convenient vessel for carrying things? The
section discussing the importance of hair is interesting, but then Miles concludes
that “Hair is a tether between persons . . . and also a genetic tie to the
past, as we now know. The symbolism of
both meanings converge in Rose’s decision to pack her hair. In bestowing a braid upon Ashley, Rose passed
on a piece of herself while transmitting a cosmic continuity that slavery could
not sunder. Her gift might remind Ashley
that she belonged – to a Black family that persevered through racial animus and
a human family that had once not known it.”
Would an enslaved person whose main concern would undoubtedly have been her
and her daughter’s survival be thinking about the symbolism of what she
packed?
Miles muses on the
significance of Rose’s packing a tattered dress. Perhaps this is all that she could gift her
daughter because this is all she had?!
The author goes on to write that “unfree people sought material
pleasures” and “Black men and women often dreamed of obtaining new clothing and
footwear. Soft clothes and well-fitting
shoes that honored their bodies . . . [and] signaled their essential worth.” Maybe they wanted some comfort and to be
adequately clothed? Sometimes the
symbolism changes: for white women,
hoopskirts “symbolized femininity and luxurious excess” but for enslaved women
they were “a symbolic shield for their bodies”?
Some of the symbolism
suggests the author is really stretching her argument. Ruth used different colours of embroidery
thread so Miles writes, “The brown thread of the opening lines gives way to
green thread by the close, mimicking the loose form of an inverted family tree,
with roots reaching back into the past and shoots fanning out into the future.” Ruth’s red thread “signifies at once the pain
of slavery and the vibrancy of the beating heart.” Even the chain stitch used to sew the sack is
“symbolic of the forced-labor ethos of the era.” Some of the author’s observations are such
that even she admits to not noticing them:
“A visit to the History Department at the University of Georgia . . .
showered me with insights . . . and allowed me to see . . . that the shape of Ruth’s
embroidered text may loosely resemble a heart.”
The use of “may loosely” suggests a lack of conviction.
There is a lot of
romanticizing. After describing the
domestication of pecan trees, Miles concludes, “We can surmise . . . that Black
people also felt a fondness for pecans as trees. They may have recognized the tree’s toughness
in the face of assault, its adaptability to a range of habitats, and its
tenacious ability to put down roots, no matter the quality of the soil. They may have looked to the wild pecan tree
as an example of how to live long with steadfastness and dignity, even in
inhospitable circumstances.”
Many of us cherish a
hand-crafted heirloom; I have a couple of quilts my grandmother and mother made. My grandmother’s patchwork quilt was made of
pieces of fabric from worn clothing belonging to family members. Using materials at hand, she made the quilt
to provide warmth for the family she loved.
I admire its artistry and the amount of work that went into its creation,
and certain patches make me think of my now-deceased relatives. I do not, however, speculate on what was in
my grandmother’s mind as she worked on that quilt. She used a skill she had to create something
functional for people whom she undoubtedly cared about.
Many readers will have
their understanding of enslaved women deepened and that is wonderful. I wouldn’t be surprised if the book were not
allowed in some American schools because of its discussion of slavery. Whites do not emerge as heroes, and the
author takes pains to point out that economic prosperity was the result of the
work of enslaved Blacks. What bothered
me is that much of the book is conjecture and guesswork with broad generalities
and a lot of assumptions. Speculating
about a person’s intent and emotions is risky, and weighting almost everything
with symbolism is a form of romanticization that seems as unacceptable as using
the word planter instead of slaveholder to “blur or romanticize
historical roles . . . and [erase] the active violence of those who bought,
sold, and legally possessed others.”
This book is classified
as history but to me seems neither fiction nor non-fiction. I would have much preferred to read a
historical novel imagining the lives of these women with the historical
research giving the narrative authenticity.
This seems more honest than using the imagination to write what is
classified as history.