Strong Enough to Fight: Harriet Tubman vs. The Myth of the Lost Cause
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I really like this piece and recommend it for publication. The article explores the important role children's literature plays in developing historical consciousness as it relates to the questions of racial equality, freedom, and equality. The author has chosen to explore these questions by comparing children's stories about Harriet Tubman with children's books about the lost cause and the Civil War. I found the piece engaging, thoughtful, and essential reading for K-12 educators and the people who train them. The article provides a road map for previewing and analyzing children's books and determining which books to include and exclude from the curriculum.
In terms of specific details and feedback, I would make a handful of suggestions and observations:
- In lines 46-48, the text suggests Augusta Bird's 1921 sketch of Tubman in the Brownies Book is part of the Harlem Renaissance. Most scholars identify 1924-1926 as the beginning of the movement. I would encourage the writer to double-check the dates and scholarship around the Brownies Book and see how it has been described and if it fits within the rubric of the HR.
- The sentence from lines 58-62 ends strangely. Perhaps, white supremacy needs to be more clearly defined earlier and then it will be clearer what the sentence means by "the needs of White supremacy."
- Not sure if it exists, but is there any evidence of how Lawson's books were incorporated into classrooms? That would further support the claims made here. (This question popped up in my mind around lines 69-75)
- I found this sentence to be wordy and not direct in where I think the piece is going: "Lawson's texts thus foster radicalization of a different and profoundly dangerous sort: instead of liberating a young reader's imagination, his work controls and limits it." (74-76). In this context, it seems like the argument is that Lawson's text supports, invites, and endorses white supremacist thinking. The discussion of liberating imaginations and controlling them seems too broad, almost like the piece is "pulling its punch."
- I wasn't fully persuaded by the piece's discussion of why this debate (Lawson vs Lawrence and Petry) happened in 1940 during the early stages of WWII. My sense is that the country was fighting for democracy during the War and these books tried to explain the origin and history of democracy and freedom. I was less persuaded that these books were a response to the nascent civil rights movement.
- I loved the careful reading and analysis of Lawson's works. Same with the careful reading of Jacob Lawrence's work!
- You might want to look at the handful of recent reviews on amazon (or maybe GoodReads) to Lawson's works as evidence of how people continue to read him. They might be an interesting footnote.
- It seems like the piece might need to define patriotism and how that concept relates to white supremacy. Lawson's corpus, with books on Franklin, Revere, and Columbus, clearly sought to promote US Nationalism and patriotism. At times, it seemed like the piece argued white supremacy was indistinguishable from patriotism. It might be good to explain that or distinguish the ideas. (see page 7 and in other places)
- You might want to consider children's literature as a form of "anchor bias," in the sense that the first story a person hears tends to create the picture they have. Once the anchor has been set, it is very difficult to move that anchor. This would help explain why we need to intervene in children's literature for white supremacy!
- Not sure if it quite fits, but it might be useful to talk about the recent effort to publish "right" children's books, like the Brave Book series or Otto Tales. They seem to be conscious efforts to produce a more conservative view of history and culture. They seem like the contemporary inheritors of Lawson's project.
- Given all the recent bills to prohibit divisive topics in the classroom, I was wondering if any books about Tubman had been banned (see either the Pen American's list or the ALA. I also wonder if districts have banned the film Harriet).
- I was surprised there was no mention of the 1776 project as a response to the 1619 project and the other book and concept bans. This seemed linked to me and seems important in section 4.
Let me reiterate that I really like this piece and believe it is should be be published.
The writing is generally fine. My only suggestion is "be direct." Sometimes the writing gets wordy. Don't hesitate in your words. Don't bury the main idea in dependent clauses or overfill the sentence with prepositional phrases. The article makes a strong case. Just make it!
Author Response
Please see the attached cover letter.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
An excellent discussion of how stories are social and cultural stepping stones that can be weaponized to shape social reality. In terms of the research and arguments, this is a very strong article that casts a shadow well-beyond discussions of Harriet Tubman's portrayal in American literature.
The article makes clear and strong connections between historical moments of white anxiety and retellings of history that can obfuscate or erase the historical realities - not as easy as it may seem and done very well here. It also emphasizes the power and anger of limiting or standardizing children's literature and the implications for the promotion of genuine social justice. A very timely and much needed discussion.
The constant vigilance necessary for sustaining white supremacy is also clearly illuminated here - the personification of King Cotton in Lawrence is used here to demonstrate how something that is usually viewed as benign (the romanticization of lost "southern culture") is in fact an intentional misdirection that does real damage to non-white communities.
The article also does a superb job of arguing that literary criticism carries its own social responsibilities. The habit of avoiding tough conversations about race in critiques and reviews is clearly show here to be tacit support of sustained white supremacy. Likewise, the analysis of Lost Cause standards - from claiming victimhood and the strength of surviving oppression to the complex interweave of history and white fantasy - is very clearly laid out in line 240.
There are some minor points that caught my eye that may strengthen the article's arguments:
This may seem very minor, but in an article that asserts the value of historical accuracy, I think it's worth mentioning. The Mason-Dixon line reference in line 218 doesn't work for me. The Mason-Dixon line was a colonial demarcation of the borders defining Pennsylvania & Deleware vs Maryland and Virginia. A century after it was defined, the line was referenced as teh border between slave and free states. The MD Line only extends to western Pennsylvania and is not the same as the 36 30 parallel defined in the Missouri Compromise as the border between slave and free territory (with Missouri as the sole exception). Using "the 36 30 parallel" or "the Ohio River" to make this point won't resonate with the same power to evoke the general division between North and South as the the phrase "Mason-Dixon line," but either of the former phrases are more historically accurate representations of the border between slave and free states.
There are several places, especially in the discussion of Lawson, where a summation of white supremacist views could include the paternalistic idea that it was the responsibility of white men to interpret history for everyone else - this also makes Tubman - a black matriarch - a clear foil to white supremacy.
I also see several opportunities to discuss the thread of economic implications of white supremacist viewpoints that is only explicit in line 560. Line 305, for example, mentions marketing but then moves on immediately. The point that downplaying racism can sell books is made, as is the point that refusing to confront racism in literary criticism is complicity in white supremacy, but these points could be more explicit. There is a strong thread throughout the article that links white supremacy and capitalism historically, but the continued links between white supremacy and a certain brand of capitalism are not brought to light, despite being an inherent part of the discussion. That thread in this article sounds like a distant, quiet voice that's saying "supporting or ignoring racism is more economically viable than resisting it." That statement was true in 1830 and it is often still true today. This article points to that reality in literary criticism but does not make it explicitly.
In discussing Lost Cause symbolism, there's a missed opportunity to broaden critique of D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation around line 328. The original poster for Birth of a Nation included a man in a white robe and hood on the back of a rearing white horse - it is no accident. The film almost single-handedly revitalized the KKK as a civic organization that adopted the ceremony and dress from events portrayed in the film. This was a new direction for the KKK and during the decade after the film's release, Klan membership increased by over 1000%. The film equated responsible citizenship with white supremacy, shored up white supremacy as a core value of many white evangelical church organizations, and emboldened nascent white supremacists to come out of the woodwork in a violent and loud way. Mayors, governors, senators, congressman, police officers, and politicians across the US began to parrot KKK rhetoric and win elections (Iowa had the largest KKK membership in the 1920s). This is the American parallel to Nazism in Germany and there's growing evidence that there were extensive, direct connections between Klan members and Nazis.
There is also a point in the article (beginning with line 358) that mentions how Lawson's grandfather went from fighting Indians to fighting evil. For one thing, fighting Indians was not seen as anything different than fighting evil, but I understand this is from Lawson's narrative. This detail from They Were Strong and Good lays out another obscured historical reality: the dispossession of Native Americans, the expansion of plantation slavery economics, and the advance of King Cotton and white supremacy are all pieces of the same white supremacy puzzle. The same NY bankers who funded Indian Removal in the 1830s were profiting from enslaved labor andKing Cotton economics. I know the article is focused on literary criticism and story telling as sites of resistance, but to gloss over the close relationship between Native dispossession and antebellum slavery does the same disservice to American history as Lost Cause narratives. If we are fighting toward liberty and justice for all, this point needs to be explicitly made even if just mentioned. Some native Americans adopted slavery as a means of resisting dispossession and removal by white Americans, while other Native communities openly adopted runaway slaves. either way, Native Americans had their own ways of resisting white supremacy (sometimes with brands of Native American supremacy, sometimes with inclusion of non-Native POC. I understand there's no real space for this discussion, but there are points where the direct relationship between dispossession and slavery could be briefly pointed out.
Author Response
Please see the attached cover letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a significant article on several fronts: the examination of Lawson's "Lost Cause" allegiance in his children's books; the representation of Harriet Tubman by Petry and Lawrence in children's books; the recent film. The article is forceful and interesting sentence by sentence and it is supported by sound references and interpretations of the works and contexts. I nevertheless recommend publication with revisions. The sections discussing Lawson's works need more explicit interconnection with the texts that portray Tubman. They seem to be contrasted as far as their ideological allegiances but what about their form and audience? Not all the Tubman materials are aimed at the same audience, child readers. Are all the materials in the article biographical/autobiographical as well as nation-building or community-leading in some way? Does the medium of film mean that Tubman must be portrayed as a beautiful action figure (leaving out any historical accuracy)? Is a biopic in some ways comparable to a non-fiction based children's book?
My suggestions follow: Your introduction and some passages show a tendency to pile on good points without enough guidance to focus an argument; alignments and contrasts without clear enough comparisons. At times, there isn't enough transition between sentences.
Around l. 50: Though a good point re retelling, stories of famous figures in struggles for rights and representation (e.g. in postcolonial contexts) are recurrently told, even across centuries: it isn't particular to the condition of US White supremacy. If a social system changed, there would still be new versions of the lives that suggest best qualities or admirable resistance.
Children's literature is often the context for heroic biographies of revolutionary figures, but adults also read "great men" or "famous African Americans" kinds of books. You could connect Lawson's books more clearly to a widespread phenomenon--even he feels he's defending the common people (presumed White) and the South (presumed victim). Pride for his identity group. We can object to that being presented as normative as if there are no other identity groups. There is no defense for the national collusion in Jim Crow and historic erasure of slavery. We might also see that versions of Tubman are dedicated to different kinds of myth-making.
Critique of Lawson is cogent, but at times reductive (to be clear, I am not defending him): around ll. 212-15 re King Cotton, there is truth in his picture of the subjection of all to commerce, the asphyxiation of (White or immigrant) mill workers in the North. I just wouldn't overlook some of Lawson's populism (which may have looked liberal at the time) along with his racism. It's all the more important, influential, and interesting because it has passed for not bigoted.
The article succeeds in tracing the reception of the Lawson books; to some extent the other works as well. This is an important kind of history; indications indeed of why children's literature matters for inscribing national culture and social difference.
Author Response
Please see the attached cover letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This is an excellent topic for an essay. The author has done a decent but incomplete job discussing contemporary YA narratives about Harriet Tubman.
However, this essay must be majorly revised before it can be published because it is focused on the wrong thing, namely Robert Lawson and his old books, and not the right thing, which is new narratives about Harriet Tubman.
The essay’s strengths are the potential relevance of its intervention and the author’s familiarity with their primary texts about Tubman. However, the author undercuts their argument and destroys all the force of their intervention by spending far too much time discussing an old and irrelevant White writer as a single counter-example, giving him far too central a place in their argument, and not giving the proper place or enough space to the Black creators they claim to be championing.
Far more time is spent discussing Lawson and the lost cause in this essay than any of the texts about Tubman, which is not an appropriate balance for an essay about the importance of Tubman narratives. Furthermore, the author’s claims that that Lawson’s 70 year old ouvre is representative of a whole tradition of lost cause white racist narrative that remains strong today are never proven. Sure, representations of slavery remain a site of struggle in American culture today, but Lawson is not your man to show what they look like now, and I remain unconvinced that the lost cause narrative in particular remains the master narrative it once was a lifetime ago.
If the author wants to keep Lawson and the lost cause as the focus of their argument, they need to show how they relate to the late 20th and 21st century. They need to prove that this myth is alive and well today beyond Lawson (the fact that they had to dig back 70 years to find a text structed by this myth itself is telling….) Maybe this can be done, but it feels like a wholly separate argument—and one that does not need to be made in this essay, or at all. Why pick a fight with 70 year old texts when there are many different present-day hateful narratives to shine a critical light on—and far better ones to celebrate.
The author makes the reader wait until the middle of their essay before they get to the texts that matter: the texts about Tubman. It is far too long a wait.
If the author chooses to revise this essay, they need to do some major cutting and developing. They need to focus on Tubman YA literature and discuss everything these texts are and do. It is enough to point out that Tubman has become a common subject for a new era of YA literature and then show how that is so. That alone is a great point and what I am most interested in.
If the author wants to make their essay more political and identify specific targets of these text’s implicit critique (and that already sounds like an overly complicated project for a short essay) they need to identify a similar amount of specific contemporary, relevant narratives their Tubman texts critique. Lawson is not your man for this job.
I would much prefer to read a celebration of the Tubman Renaissance, which by this author’s account is truly a transmedia phenomenon now. Tubman has become a megatext in her own right, which is fascinating. If you want a theoretical framework for your essay, I recommend placing it in the context of Jenkins’s transmedia thesis, which needs to be updated anyway. This essay could update Jenkins’s (uncritical) ideas about transmedia by showing how the media networks he describes are now used by Black creators to forge a Tubman megatext that turns transmedia into a force for social justice. That may be an interesting argument to make, although, again, it is more than needs to be done here.
I recommend paring down section 1 to focus only on Black creators and cutting section 2 entirely, including all references to Lawson and the anachronistic lost cause narrative. I mean, seriously, the guy isn’t even in your title but you devote over half your essay to him? Right now this is an essay about Lawson with some other Black creators stuck on to it. Lawson’s got to go. Start the essay with section 3, and develop section 4 so that it fills half the essay (right now it feels thin and tacked on). Don’t leave the good stuff until the end. Start with it and stick with it.
It's fine
Author Response
Please see the attached cover letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The essay has been adequately revised and developed to address earlier concerns.
