Publisher Pulls George Washington Kids Book for Upbeat Portrayal of Slavery

[Tanaqui]

Gotta admit, I'm kinda wondering how this book got published nowadays. Of course, then I remember the furor over A Fine Dessert and... well, at this point, I'm at a loss to explain anything, so I give up.

[Farrar]

I've been following these (probably not a surprise). It's interesting. My fear is that this is going to put publishers off doing any books about slavery. But we need there to be books about slavery... I appreciate that it's hard to get this right. We know that slaves had moments of happiness and individual identities, that they did take pride in their work and could be real artisans. Showing those truths alongside the truth that slavery was always horrible, violent and oppressive in a picture book for kindergarteners is really, really hard. Because it's for young kids, I get that people want to show those happy moments. But then when all the books show only the triumphant and positive stories (and, really, they do lean this way, which is surprising and disturbing) then you end up with kids who are getting the message that slavery wasn't "so" bad.

[SKL]

I didn't see the book, but I think it is not a terrible idea to include slaves as being contributors to good things in history.  Slaves (not just AA) in history have made significant contributions.  We should be careful not to censor that part of history.

Edited January 19, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

I have posted on this before, but I think that at young ages, focusing on the bad stuff may have the effect of actually justifying it in kids' minds.

 

I agree that this is a tough but important topic.  I wonder how many AA individuals worked on this book project.

[Tanaqui]

SKL, apparently there were two people of African descent working on this project, one of whom is African-American iirc.

 

However, the story of Hercules making a cake for Washington's birthday with his young daughter is probably false. He fled on Washington's birthday, leaving his daughter behind. She was asked when she was six how she felt about it, and her response was that she was glad her father was free. So, you know, I don't think he was that devoted to the cakes.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Tanaqui

[Farrar]

A Fine Dessert was written and illustrated by white authors. A Birthday Cake was illustrated by an African American illustrator. The author was... Indian American I think?

[Farrar]

I think the idea that you should only tell children "the good stuff" when they're young potentially makes African Americans nearly invisible for a large chunk of history. It makes slavery invisible. I don't feel like that's okay.

 

[Mimm]

I think slaves deserve to have their stories told, the good and the bad. You can talk about slaves who had good relationships with their owners and had happy times while still hopefully communicating that the concept of a person being owned by another person is horrible. I think the fact that people are capable of moments of joy in the midst of trials, generosity in poverty, and goodness when there is so much badness in their lives is one of the best things about human beings and if we don't tell these stories, we rob slaves of some of what they accomplished. It has nothing to do with making slavery sound "not so bad" but acknowledging the humanity and resilience of people who were enslaved. 

 

My daughter is taking an online American History class right now and one of the books they assigned was a Tomas Jefferson book that was aimed at much younger kids than 8th graders. They did that with several books because they had so many books to read over the course of the year. I didn't have a problem with the easiness of some of the books but this particular book completely ignored slavery. Slaves were mentioned, some by actual name (people who lived in real life and were slaves) but they were called "servants" or "men who worked in the fields" or things like that. It was ridiculous and I'm very disappointed that this book was assigned and I asked my daughter if the teacher addressed this issue during lectures and she said no. Before my daughter decided to attend public school next year, we had already decided that she would not be taking history classes through this school anymore.

[poppy]

I think the idea that you should only tell children "the good stuff" when they're young potentially makes African Americans nearly invisible for a large chunk of history. It makes slavery invisible. I don't feel like that's okay.

 

So much of history about ordinary people who were slaves is lost because we get history from written records, and there's not much of that. That silence  is very powerful, really, and that's what we need to teach.  If you forbid literacy, you are stealing not only freedom of expression and communication. You are stealing the legacy of a people.  

 

But it's also true that that almost all stories told from the 18th-19th centuries about African Americans do come from people who were slaves, or were fugitives /escaped slaves .. Harriet Tubman,  Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Sally Hemmings, Toussaint Louverture, Dred Scott, Phyllis Wheatley.  Plus a couple dozen other slave narratives and published works. It's a short list, but it's the record we have.

[Bluegoat]

I think it's hard when you are trying to direct something to a group of young kids, because their experiences and development are all over the place.  Some are scared or upset more easily, some have experiences that will put it in a different light, and so on.  The real answer to that problem is I think that it may not be a great classroom activity to deal with the more difficult parts - it might be the kind of thing that is a one on one activity for smaller kids.  Then the adult can gauge the kids reaction, note any misconceptions, and so on. So - I can see why something intended for groups might be very careful about what they say.

 

I am, overall, not inclined to be very graphic about the concrete horrors of slavery with kids that age, be it slavery in the US or any other place or time.  I think kids that age tend to respond with the right kind of attitude to the idea that people bought and sold other people - they think it is wrong - even if the people are treated well.  I think at 5, that is not a bad place to start, along with ideas like being separated from family or not allowed an education.  As they get older, they can learn more details, and I think once they are to the point where they are teens I'd like my kids at least to be able to think a little more broadly about things like slavery and what it means to be free.  I think its ok that these things will take time.

 

 

 

[SKL]

I think slaves deserve to have their stories told, the good and the bad. You can talk about slaves who had good relationships with their owners and had happy times while still hopefully communicating that the concept of a person being owned by another person is horrible. I think the fact that people are capable of moments of joy in the midst of trials, generosity in poverty, and goodness when there is so much badness in their lives is one of the best things about human beings and if we don't tell these stories, we rob slaves of some of what they accomplished. It has nothing to do with making slavery sound "not so bad" but acknowledging the humanity and resilience of people who were enslaved. 

 

My daughter is taking an online American History class right now and one of the books they assigned was a Tomas Jefferson book that was aimed at much younger kids than 8th graders. They did that with several books because they had so many books to read over the course of the year. I didn't have a problem with the easiness of some of the books but this particular book completely ignored slavery. Slaves were mentioned, some by actual name (people who lived in real life and were slaves) but they were called "servants" or "men who worked in the fields" or things like that. It was ridiculous and I'm very disappointed that this book was assigned and I asked my daughter if the teacher addressed this issue during lectures and she said no. Before my daughter decided to attend public school next year, we had already decided that she would not be taking history classes through this school anymore.

 

The use of the word "servant" is understandable if those people were actually called "servants" by the people they worked for.  I don't think the word "slave" was the universal label then, even though it is now.  I would footnote the word "servant" by explaining that in this case, the person doesn't have the right to leave and seek other employment.

 

The author might also have been trying to avoid giving young kids the idea that black people *are* or *should be* slaves.

[Farrar]

So much is about the context of how we talk about slavery. I think this book would be less problematic if it was entering into a world where we were more clear with kids that slavery was an outrage. If you could assume that kids were getting that overall message, then a book that says, sometimes slaves found ways to be proud of their work and moments of happiness, could be a book that fit into a greater picture. I think part of the problem is that smiling slaves, slaves who escaped, and slaves who did have the opportunity to become skilled artisans are the narratives that dominate the story landscape for children. Thus, when people look at this book, they say, ugh, not again!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The use of the word "servant" is understandable if those people were actually called "servants" by the people they worked for. I don't think the word "slave" was the universal label then, even though it is now. I would footnote the word "servant" by explaining that in this case, the person doesn't have the right to leave and seek other employment.

 

The author might also have been trying to avoid giving young kids the idea that black people *are* or *should be* slaves.

They were legally slaves, and yes, "slave" had a very clear legal and social definition.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think it's sugarcoating to give people their trade and skills as if they really belonged to them.  I find the way sometimes that slaves (at least in the US) are treated as a class rather than individual people is actually pretty demeaning. 

 

It's like the fact of their social status means that their work doesn't count.  Kind of the ultimate removal of individuals from their labour.  I think this is not just a theoretical question - I've even heard people talk about destroying slave produced things because they come from exploitation, which it seems to me is a way of rubbing out the value they created.

 

We don't seem to do this so much with other historical instances of slavery.  We're happy to recognize someone like Aesop, who did his work as a slave, as having been really responsible for his creation, as much as anyone ever is. 

 

So perhaps the goal was to portray people as people, with their own intersts and values and skills, rather than as some sort of class designation. 

 

 

 

[Mimm]

The use of the word "servant" is understandable if those people were actually called "servants" by the people they worked for.  I don't think the word "slave" was the universal label then, even though it is now.  I would footnote the word "servant" by explaining that in this case, the person doesn't have the right to leave and seek other employment.

 

The author might also have been trying to avoid giving young kids the idea that black people *are* or *should be* slaves.

 

Servant and slave have and had two very different connotations. Calling someone a servant implies they are employed as a servant, being paid in some capacity with at least some freedom over their lives. Slaves are in an entirely different situation.

[Mimm]

I don't think it's sugarcoating to give people their trade and skills as if they really belonged to them.  I find the way sometimes that slaves (at least in the US) are treated as a class rather than individual people is actually pretty demeaning. 

 

It's like the fact of their social status means that their work doesn't count.  Kind of the ultimate removal of individuals from their labour.  I think this is not just a theoretical question - I've even heard people talk about destroying slave produced things because they come from exploitation, which it seems to me is a way of rubbing out the value they created.

 

This makes me so sad. I can just imagine what the person might think, having their work destroyed like that. :( Destroying something created by a slave doesn't make that person any more free or less exploited during their life. If you want to lessen misery, focus on exploited people in the here and now who create almost everything we buy, and not because they are skilled craftsman but because they work in some miserable factory creating cheap goods instead of items of quality.

[Farrar]

I agree, Bluegoat. I don't think the story is sugarcoated, at least from the excerpts. My understanding is that this man was honored as a chef and that his cooking was seen as that level of skilled. That's true, not sugarcoated.

 

What's sugarcoated is when you cherry pick stories like his to become all or nearly all the stories of slavery you tell children. It's like if you asked what life was like in medieval Europe and you got to only hear stories of the richest lords. Or what was life like in the US during the Great Depression? It's only the stories of Getty and, I don't know, the Asters or something... it was so hard, so very hard... to have to let go of a few servants. It presents truth, but not enough of the truth that feels full and right.

[Farrar]

Though I have to say that using "servant" and "slave" seemingly interchangeably did bother me.

 

It is interesting though... there are books that I suspect would get pulled through the ringer now that were praised at another point. How might, say, Sweet Clara and the Freedom Quilt do today? It was featured on Reading Rainbow and became a library classic when it was published 25 years ago.

[SKL]

I agree, Bluegoat. I don't think the story is sugarcoated, at least from the excerpts. My understanding is that this man was honored as a chef and that his cooking was seen as that level of skilled. That's true, not sugarcoated.

 

What's sugarcoated is when you cherry pick stories like his to become all or nearly all the stories of slavery you tell children. It's like if you asked what life was like in medieval Europe and you got to only hear stories of the richest lords. Or what was life like in the US during the Great Depression? It's only the stories of Getty and, I don't know, the Asters or something... it was so hard, so very hard... to have to let go of a few servants. It presents truth, but not enough of the truth that feels full and right.

 

All of society is sugarcoated in kiddy stories, though.  I mean, have you seen any kiddy books lately about women who forced to marry people they didn't love and were then raped?  Or any woman who was raped, which unfortunately happened in many contexts throughout history.  Or a girl who was abused or killed for trying to get an education, or locked up because she liked a boy that wasn't chosen by her parents?  Or women who died in childbirth?  Or laborers (including children) who died in factories?  How about children bombed or starved during wars?  Or whole families publicly executed because one of them was a dissident, or because revolutionaries decided to overthrow their parents' reign?  Or public hangings of thieves?  How about the conditions that used to exist in mental asylums and prisons?  We generally don't show young children all these brutal truths.  Should we?  They are important parts of history, after all.

[SKL]

I'm guessing the term slave was more prevalent than servant. I'm also guessing there's another term that was used even more, but no need to write it.

 

I really don't know for sure.  But keep in mind that local differences mattered a lot more then.  There were big differences in how slaves were treated and viewed in different parts of the country, and local cultures didn't mix nearly as much before quick modes of transportation were introduced.

 

[MistyMountain]

I have read kid books that dealt with hard topics or periods in history in a way that was truthful but did not go into too many details. I have covered wars and how innocent people die, books about the Great Depression and books that mention bad conditions in factories or how kids had to work in them among other topics. I rather save topics for later then do them in a way that sugarcoats a period of history. Some kids are sensitive so you can wait until they are older to bring those things up. I would not read my kids history only from the view of the oppressors to make it look better or omit things because they were bad.

 

I was wondering what would be controversial about Sweet Clara and the Freedom quilt so I looked it up and saw they are not sure if it really happen. I personally am more ok with a story like that then one that does not make slavery look bad but I guess you can have a conversation about either book. It was a fiction story.

Edited January 19, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Haiku]

 

 

Everyone is buzzing about the president's birthday! Especially George Washington's servants, who scurry around the kitchen preparing to make this the best celebration ever. Oh, how George Washington loves his cake! And, oh, how he depends on Hercules, his head chef, to make it for him. Hercules, a slave, takes great pride in baking the president's cake. But this year there is one problem—they are out of sugar.

 

No, the only problem we have here is that Hercules and his daughter are slaves. Who gives a crap about whether George Washington has any sugar?? How completely back-assward!

[SKL]

I think it would be interesting to hear what the author's intent was.  Someone said s/he was Indian-American?  Would anyone have a link to the author's statement?  I rather doubt that the author's intent was to suggest that slavery was a good or neutral thing.

[SKL]

The author comments.  http://www.cbcdiversity.com/post/137284630773/the-first-bite-slicing-through-a-birthday-cake-to 

[Pam in CT]

re: sugarcoating, ignoring, or finding developmentally appropriate path to teach difficult aspects of history:

I have read kid books that dealt with hard topics or periods in history in a way that was truthful but did not go into too many details. I have covered wars and how innocent people die, books about the Great Depression and books that mention bad conditions in factories or how kids had to work in them among other topics. I rather save topics for later then do them in a way that sugarcoats a period of history. Some kids are sensitive so you can wait until they are older to bring those things up. I would not read my kids history only from the view of the oppressors to make it look better or omit things because they were bad.

I was wondering what would be controversial about Sweet Clara and the Freedom quilt so I looked it up and saw they are not sure if it really happen. I personally am more ok with a story like that then one that does not make slavery look bad but I guess you can have a conversation about either book. It was a fiction story.

 

We had Sweet Clara when the kids were young.  Its premise is that Clara overhears whispers about slavecatchers chasing a runaway, and how having a map would help.  She listens and listens and listens, picking up cues from traveling drivers coming from ever farther afield, and constructs her quilted map.  As news of the map spreads, slaves come to look at it before they go off.  She herself runs away in the end.  

 

I didn't recall it as sugarcoating.  I just went into our shelves to see (my youngest is 12 now, but we're, um, a bit slow in clearing out the shelves).  I didn't find it (which could mean just about anything -- some kid squirreled it away because it was so well-loved, I gave it away at some rare purging moment, it fell behind the bookcase...) but I did find:

 

Harriet and the Promised Land - Jacob Lawrence (mostly his paintings, with a spare poem outlining the bones of her biography.  Visually gorgeous, scary bloundhounds that might set off a visually senstive child, redemptive ending)

 

Barefoot: Escape on the Underground Railroad - Pamela Edwards (traces the first night of a runaway, only every called Barefoot, from the perspective of the wild animals along the way -- very simple allusive text, dark brooding paintings, he ends up at an UR stop which has a pre-arranged signal of a quilt hanging)

 

Minty: A Story of Young Harriet Tubman - Alan Schroeder & Jerry Pinkney - biography of Tubman's childhood.  It is not sugarcoated -- in one scene her mistress hurls her beloved rag doll into the fire for no real reason other than spite; and later she is stripped and whipped.  These events are presented as forging her determination to run; later scenes focus on Old Ben (her father figure -- not wholly clear if he is her biological father) teaching her the skills she will need to make it.

 

Almost to Freedom - Vaunda Micheaux Nelson - Narrated from the perspective of a rag doll.  Starts quite painfully, with the father of the doll's "best friend"/little girl getting caught trying to run away and thereafter sold down the river.  The girl herself has no parents present but lives under the care of an older woman who has taken her under her wing.  Over the course of the book the girl grows a bit and, along with another slave, escapes (leaving her caretaker behind).  The story ends as they too are taken into an UR station.  This one has the most words / greatest detail / is the most stark / is aimed at older kids.  Still IMO developmentally appropriate.

 

From Slave Ship to Freedom Road - Julius Lester - this is non-fiction, sort of in the style of those  If you traveled west in a covered wagon series, except Lester (who also wrote To be a Slave, highly recommended for older kids) speaks in the first person, as in "My slave ancestors were house servants..." and periodically steps off the straight relay of information to invite readers into "imagination exercises," to step into the shoes of the slaves whose circumstances he is describing.  Very powerful; for older kids.  There is one painting of the Middle Passage -- stacks of slaves chained lying down -- that would trouble many younger kids.

 

 

All of these navigate a line, which of course will vary by family and the sensitivities of particular children at different ages, between presenting a difficult subject with integrity and being Too Much.  Jewish families seek to do the same thing in teaching about the Holocaust.  The resources are out there.

 

 

(And, my own kids have outgrown these particular books, so if any of y'all can use them, send me a PM.)

Edited January 20, 2016 by Pam in CT

[JonesinIndiana]

Who Owns the Sun is a thought provoking book on slavery.

[Lb20inblue]

My kids are five, so we are reading Climbing Linclon's Steps by Suzanne Slade. I like this book because it give a gentle introduction to slavery and the civil rights movement through the election of Pres. Obama. It also reinforces the message that change happens one step at a time. I think for young kids, especially black kids, we need to be careful to not just present the truth of the past but also the truth of the present; otherwise, kids might be confused about how this relates to them. I remember thinking as a kid, teachers were telling me that I was a slave? But I think the connection to the present and past was missing.

[Corraleno]

The author comments.  http://www.cbcdiversity.com/post/137284630773/the-first-bite-slicing-through-a-birthday-cake-to 

 

Justifying this book on the grounds that it's a "historical fact" that some slaves were sometimes happy is ridiculous. It's even more egregious considering that this book is about a real person who clearly was NOT a happy-go-lucky slave who was oh so excited to make his white massa happy.

 

It was Hercules' son Richmond who worked in the kitchen with him, not Delia. When Richmond was accused of stealing money so that he and Hercules could escape, Hercules was removed from the presidential household in Philadelphia and set to work as a laborer at Mount Vernon — "to pulverize stone, dig brick clay, and grub out honeysuckle." So much for being treated with respect and dignity for his amazing culinary skills. He escaped from Mount Vernon on Washington's 65th birthday, which was a holiday on the plantation. When asked if she was sad she'd never see her father again, Hercules' youngest daughter (presumed to be Delia) reportedly replied "Oh! Sir, I am very glad, because he is free now."

 

For Ganeshram to claim that her book accurately represents historical reality, and that those who object to it are unable to deal with the "uncomfortable truth" that sometimes slaves were happy, is absurd and insulting. 

[Haiku]

The author comments.  http://www.cbcdiversity.com/post/137284630773/the-first-bite-slicing-through-a-birthday-cake-to 

 

What a condescending piece of drivel.

[Haiku]

I can't even begin to imagine how an author who admits she spent four years researching the (real life) subject of her book can in good conscience write such a cheerful book about an incident in the life of a man who was so desperate be free that he risked his life and left behind his children to escape. How can you even begin to justify this?

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I don't know - I think she's right that people are complicated, and their relationships are complicated, and their emotions are complicated.  And often, contradictory.  As well as shaped by social structures that generally are not under the control of the people involved, and people see that, and can in many cases overcome it.  Women were in many places for a long time either directly the property of husbands or fathers, or having fewer rights than men.  In a few cases the rights of fathers and husbands were absolute enough to include the power of life and death.

 

And yet many women still had husbands who really loved and respected them, and vice versa, and their ideas about their social structures weren't always negative.

 

There are plenty of examples in the history of slavery of good relationships of many kinds between people who were slaves and those who were their owners.  I think we do tend to want to reduce these questions to one particular narrative.

 

I don't think literary attempts to talk about this are generally all that well done in books about the American experience - they are generally much more complex and varied in literature about places more exotic, or even imaginary societies.  People seem less sensitive talking about those kinds of things in settings that are further removed.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I can't even begin to imagine how an author who admits she spent four years researching the (real life) subject of her book can in good conscience write such a cheerful book about an incident in the life of a man who was so desperate be free that he risked his life and left behind his children to escape. How can you even begin to justify this?

How? Mix in a bit of stupidity with a dash of arrogance.

[Haiku]

There are plenty of examples in the history of slavery of good relationships of many kinds between people who were slaves and those who were their owners.  I think we do tend to want to reduce these questions to one particular narrative.

 

I agree with the former, but I don't think the latter is the root of the issue. The problem is not that children might learn that some enslaved people were satisfied, or even happy, with their lives. The problem is that the author has deleted a significant portion of historical truth in the service of her chosen historical narrative, and she has done it at the expense of young people who likely don't have the experience or sophistication to understand what is missing from the story (both the particular story of Hercules and his daughter and the larger story of the realities of slavery).

 

The author accomplishes, in her book, exactly what she accuses her critics of doing.

[Bluegoat]

I agree with the former, but I don't think the latter is the root of the issue. The problem is not that children might learn that some enslaved people were satisfied, or even happy, with their lives. The problem is that the author has deleted a significant portion of historical truth in the service of her chosen historical narrative, and she has done it at the expense of young people who likely don't have the experience or sophistication to understand what is missing from the story (both the particular story of Hercules and his daughter and the larger story of the realities of slavery).

 

The author accomplishes, in her book, exactly what she accuses her critics of doing.

 

I don't really have any comment on whether they way she chose to present that particular story was reasonable or not.  Retellings in kids books do often take liberties, so I would not, at least, say that it is unusual in that.

 

But as for the latter issue, I don't think it is to be expected, or that it is possible, that every book give the sense of the whole situation.  Even in adult novels and history books stories are often told from one or a few perspectives which leave out many other realities - the author focuses on some aspects.  There are lots of kids books that talk about other aspects of slavery in America - they are probably far more common than a story that just tells about a person and his work, who happens to be a slave.  In fact I can't think of any kids books about people who were slaves that don't make that the focus of the story.

[Bluegoat]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/19/slavery-childrens-books-literature-george-washington-birthday-cake

 

Even if we accept the truth about slavery is complex, isn't that cart before the horse thinking when it comes to picture books for children ?

 

With difficult topics and younger children, I want to introduce just one thing - that this awful thing happened to people who are just like us. Awareness and empathy.

 

If an author wishes to show that slaves had moments of happiness,(despite their imprisonment, exploitation and servitude) in the service of just like us, those moments should be shown in context. It can be gentle context, if one is writing for children, but context is deserved, nonetheless. 

 

Because context establishes a basis of understanding, in the service of this awful thing happened.

 

That's enough for picture book readers to be grappling with. 

 

"Complexities", contestable as they are, belong to a different kind of text, imo.

 

Wouldn't it depend though on whether you planned to read just that one book?  Most people read many books over their childhood, and that is what builds a picture for them.

 

Also - is any book about a person who was a slave going to be about slavery?

[SKL]

Sadie's link seems to be based on the assumption that this Birthday Cake book is intended as a first introduction to slavery.  I would have assumed that a person reading that book with a child would do so after the child already had some very basic knowledge of what slavery was.  I remember explaining this (very basically) to my kids when they were 4 and 5.  So if I was then going to read with them a happy book about some slaves, I would put it in context - these folks were slaves, they didn't have the right to decide whether to bake this cake or go work somewhere else, but it is human nature to try to make the best of things when we can't change them.

 

I'm not sure I would buy a book like this, but I can understand why some people of color think there is a place for such a book in kids' libraries.

[Slojo]

SKL, apparently there were two people of African descent working on this project, one of whom is African-American iirc.

 

However, the story of Hercules making a cake for Washington's birthday with his young daughter is probably false. He fled on Washington's birthday, leaving his daughter behind. She was asked when she was six how she felt about it, and her response was that she was glad her father was free. So, you know, I don't think he was that devoted to the cakes.

 

I think the idea that you should only tell children "the good stuff" when they're young potentially makes African Americans nearly invisible for a large chunk of history. It makes slavery invisible. I don't feel like that's okay.

 

So much is about the context of how we talk about slavery. I think this book would be less problematic if it was entering into a world where we were more clear with kids that slavery was an outrage. If you could assume that kids were getting that overall message, then a book that says, sometimes slaves found ways to be proud of their work and moments of happiness, could be a book that fit into a greater picture. I think part of the problem is that smiling slaves, slaves who escaped, and slaves who did have the opportunity to become skilled artisans are the narratives that dominate the story landscape for children. Thus, when people look at this book, they say, ugh, not again!

Exactly, I really don't get why and how an author that spent (did I hear) years researching couldn't have ended the story as one in which the cake-baking slave escaped in the end -- isn't that the real "celebration?" I get that picture books take liberties and that we spare kids the most difficult of details, but the book could have focused on the fact that. "Now many folks are buzzing about Mr. Washington's birthday... let them buzz!...All the cake in the world wouldn't have tasted as good as freedom..."  See, not so hard... I am being tongue in cheek, but really, THAT couldn't be the upbeat focus?   

 

I'm really done with the "happy slaves" apologists. 

 

Someone should have read Henry's Freedom Box. It doesn't take a genius to figure out a way to respectfully write children's storybooks.

Exactly. There are models out there. Not many - but there are models.

 

I can't even begin to imagine how an author who admits she spent four years researching the (real life) subject of her book can in good conscience write such a cheerful book about an incident in the life of a man who was so desperate be free that he risked his life and left behind his children to escape. How can you even begin to justify this?

Four years? Really? I'd be embarrassed... I don't think there is anything wrong with attempting to tell stories about slaves to children, but then why not make the story more multi-faceted. Fine, he was an artisan, but clearly, as one poster said, he just wasn't that into the cake. Why pretend he was "excited" for Mr. Washington's birthday. Why could he not be excited that finally his skills would provide a cover for his escape? That would have been an interesting story. But feigning that he had personal excitement over a cake that, had he failed, would have resulted in a severe punishment? I.don't.get.it. 

 

Let the book be the "fail" that it was, and try again. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by Slojo

[Pam in CT]

re: book set in the time of slavery, vs. being "about" slavery"

 

 

Wouldn't it depend though on whether you planned to read just that one book?  Most people read many books over their childhood, and that is what builds a picture for them.

 

Also - is any book about a person who was a slave going to be about slavery?

 

Interesting question about setting vs. theme.

 

I'm thinking over our too-huge collection of picture books... and there are plenty of books set in, say, India and Andean South America and Africa that are not "about" those places; and books set in Puritan and Victorian times that are not "about" those eras.  The stories just play out; any passing information about the setting is just incidental.

 

That said I think certain settings intrinsically do require more complex treatment.  Otherwise, to not comment at all re: Big Picture, has the effect of ratifying/normalizing the Big Picture, which is another way to think of "sugarcoating."

 

I realized last night that every single one of the picture books we had that addressed slavery, addressed slavery in the context of Running Away from it.  I never planned that, but it makes sense as resolutions to the setting v. theme tension, and also toward the "sensitive treatment" vs. integrity tension.  If the characters long / plan/ take great risk and sacrifice to Run Away, then clearly they deem their situation to be unacceptable.  The author need not spell out every detail to make the larger point.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

I'm really done with the "happy slaves" apologists.

 

This. It's a wonder that no one then or now has volunteered to enslave themselves with so much happiness and familial joy around. Edited January 20, 2016 by Sneezyone

[ErinE]

 

I realized last night that every single one of the picture books we had that addressed slavery, addressed slavery in the context of Running Away from it. I never planned that, but it makes sense as resolutions to the setting v. theme tension, and also toward the "sensitive treatment" vs. integrity tension. If the characters long / plan/ take great risk and sacrifice to Run Away, then clearly they deem their situation to be unacceptable. The author need not spell out every detail to make the larger point.

This is a book about a real person, who did run away. The author tried to address a tricky topic, a slave receiving acclaim and taking great pride in his work, without adding the context that he obviously wasn't happy.

[Carrie12345]

Wouldn't it depend though on whether you planned to read just that one book?  Most people read many books over their childhood, and that is what builds a picture for them.

 

Also - is any book about a person who was a slave going to be about slavery?

 

I, personally, can't see how a book about a slave could/would/should be anything other than a book about slavery.  How would one write a story about a kidnapping victim that wasn't about the kidnapping?  It is the very basis of their life story, limiting every choice during captivity and impacting every decision after, when applicable.

 

A brave face, optimism, and determination need to be recognized and appreciated, but how can they be either when pulled so far out of context?  When we hear about, say, Elizabeth Smart and her personal and professional achievements, we seem them differently than Jane Doe's personal and professional achievements because we recognize the enormity of her trauma and marvel at her strength to be able to work toward healing and live a life beyond kidnapping.  She's not "just" another wife/mother/advocate.  Hercules was not "just" another father/baker.  Whether you take the perspective of "because of" or "in spite of", imprisonment cannot be removed from their story if the rest is to make any *true sense.

[Tanaqui]

Wouldn't it depend though on whether you planned to read just that one book?  Most people read many books over their childhood, and that is what builds a picture for them.

 

How many picture books about slavery do you intend to read to your child? How many chapter books on the subject do you anticipate reading to your child or seeing her read?

 

[Bluegoat]

I, personally, can't see how a book about a slave could/would/should be anything other than a book about slavery.  How would one write a story about a kidnapping victim that wasn't about the kidnapping?  It is the very basis of their life story, limiting every choice during captivity and impacting every decision after, when applicable.

 

A brave face, optimism, and determination need to be recognized and appreciated, but how can they be either when pulled so far out of context?  When we hear about, say, Elizabeth Smart and her personal and professional achievements, we seem them differently than Jane Doe's personal and professional achievements because we recognize the enormity of her trauma and marvel at her strength to be able to work toward healing and live a life beyond kidnapping.  She's not "just" another wife/mother/advocate.  Hercules was not "just" another father/baker.  Whether you take the perspective of "because of" or "in spite of", imprisonment cannot be removed from their story if the rest is to make any *true sense.

 

I wonder though whether Elizabeth Smart would want to think that nothing else she did had any meaning outside the context of that one experience, one which was really in no way created by her.

 

To me this idea simply reduces people to objects in a different way.  Before they were objects to be owned for work, now they are objects for us to tell the story we want to hear.

[Bluegoat]

How many picture books about slavery do you intend to read to your child? How many chapter books on the subject do you anticipate reading to your child or seeing her read?

 

I expect my kids to read many many books over many many years, as well as study history in school.  I also expect them to watch movies and television and plays, and to talk to people.

 

No one has to, or can, build a picture of the world all at once. 

 

I think in building a picture, lots of different kinds of stories are likely to do the job more effectivly than one kind of story told the same way again and again. 

[Carrie12345]

I wonder though whether Elizabeth Smart would want to think that nothing else she did had any meaning outside the context of that one experience, one which was really in no way created by her.

 

To me this idea simply reduces people to objects in a different way.  Before they were objects to be owned for work, now they are objects for us to tell the story we want to hear.

 

That's actually the exact opposite of what I'm saying.  

[Pam in CT]

This is a book about a real person, who did run away. The author tried to address a tricky topic, a slave receiving acclaim and taking great pride in his work, without adding the context that he obviously wasn't happy.

Right.  I haven't personally read the GW cake book, and so am a little hesitant to address it specifically.  

 

That said, based on the linked reviews and author apologia, it sounds as though a different ending, that addressed the real biographical fact of Hercules ultimately running away, leaving Delia behind, would have gone a long way towards "balancing" the presentation of Hercules and Delia as "happy."

 

 

re: stories' "setting" vs. what the stories are "about"

I, personally, can't see how a book about a slave could/would/should be anything other than a book about slavery.  How would one write a story about a kidnapping victim that wasn't about the kidnapping?  It is the very basis of their life story, limiting every choice during captivity and impacting every decision after, when applicable.

 

A brave face, optimism, and determination need to be recognized and appreciated, but how can they be either when pulled so far out of context?  When we hear about, say, Elizabeth Smart and her personal and professional achievements, we seem them differently than Jane Doe's personal and professional achievements because we recognize the enormity of her trauma and marvel at her strength to be able to work toward healing and live a life beyond kidnapping.  She's not "just" another wife/mother/advocate.  Hercules was not "just" another father/baker.  Whether you take the perspective of "because of" or "in spite of", imprisonment cannot be removed from their story if the rest is to make any *true sense.

Yes, this is what I wasn't articulating very well earlier.  Some settings are incidental; the story can easily be "about" something else.  Slavery isn't one of those settings.

[ErinE]

I wonder though whether Elizabeth Smart would want to think that nothing else she did had any meaning outside the context of that one experience, one which was really in no way created by her.

 

To me this idea simply reduces people to objects in a different way. Before they were objects to be owned for work, now they are objects for us to tell the story we want to hear.

Why write a story about Hercules, unless it's in the context of his slavery? Do we have a story about Lincoln's chef? No, because the chef was a free man, doing a free man's job. The author found the story compelling because the man was Washington's slave AND he was a celebrated chef. She made it appear that he was happy with his situation, when his escape indicates he wasn't.

[Haiku]

She made it appear that he was happy with his situation, when his escape indicates he wasn't.

 

In fact, her story comes across as a flat-out lie: Look at this enslaved man, who is so happy and proud to do his work for his massa, and is so well-treated and almost-free ... until he runs away and is really free, and oh, look! He wasn't actually all that happy with his life after all!

 

She just tells a big, fat lie.

 

If she wanted to write a story about a happy slave (and I don't really know why she would, but let's suppose she did), maybe she should have found one who was, ya know, happy?

[Bluegoat]

That's actually the exact opposite of what I'm saying.  

 

Could you expand then?  I took you to be saying that, for example, we could not understand her accomplishments as a professional, without also talking about her as a victim. .

[Bluegoat]

Why write a story about Hercules, unless it's in the context of his slavery? Do we have a story about Lincoln's chef? No, because the chef was a free man, doing a free man's job. The author found the story compelling because the man was Washington's slave AND he was a celebrated chef. She made it appear that he was happy with his situation, when his escape indicates he wasn't.

 

Perhaps we don't have stories about Lincoln's chef because we don't have much respect for workers.  We write stories about people in history either because we think they had a significant effect in a grand sense , or in this case I think because it is meant to represent a more typical but significant kind of story that belongs to many. 

 

Isn't that what it comes down to in most of the stories about slaves - we have no interest in them as people with skills or who contributed materially to the community, only in relation to their oppression.

 

To say - I want to tell a story about a person who is a slave that is about his personhood - doesn't seem that odd to me.  In a child's book, to do so by focusing on a moment when the individual used his skills to produce something beautiful makes sense, and to show that as a moment of pride in skill and accomplishment doesn't seem odd either.

 

I don't see that as particularly contradictory to being unhappy at other moments  with the particular situation or the whole system.

 

Oppressed workers of all kinds have been the people that in the end accomplish the things that build us a society.  Slaves of different kinds, tenants on great estates, itinerant labourers with no rights, indentured servants, miners in hoc endlessly to the company store.  And yet often they do find satisfaction and pride in their work, especially when they are given the scope to really do something with their skills. 

 

Those are facts about social structure we need to keep in mind, not just because they were factors in the past, but because we are still tied up in those kinds of power dynamics today.  In fact we are all limited and determined in a real sense by the social hierarchies we are born into, they make us who we are.

 

But the other side of that coin is that none of those people, none of us, exist solely as members of a class, solely as the product, solely in relation to our social structure.  Even in looking for social justice, we can easily forget that and begin to treat people only in relation to their class designation. 

 

I think one way to overcome that it, on occasion, find another, more personal way to connect with those people.  I don't know that this particular story is a great one - the writing I think is so-so.  But it seems to me that is its goal.  It does mention that he was a slave, it just doesn't make that the part of him it focuses on.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Bluegoat