Reviews for Brazilian Narrative Traditions in a Comparative Text

The average rating for Brazilian Narrative Traditions in a Comparative Text based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2011-03-20 00:00:00 Timothy Sneed Palmettos, Planters, and Patriots---a detailed history Sometimes it happens that you read a book for a different reason from the one which made the author write it. In that case, when writing a critique, you must be very careful not to fault the author for not "living up to" your requirements. That is the case here. For many years, I have been intrigued by the question, "Why are states like South Carolina so different from my own state of Massachusetts when they were settled largely by people from the same country at around the same time?" I never did much about finding the answer, but some time ago I did buy this book. I have only just read it. OK, so it wasn't such a burning question ! But that is what impelled me to undertake to read COLONIAL SOUTH CAROLINA and I'm glad I did. Weir's clearly-written history provides a detailed look at the colony, which began to emerge in the 1630s under the rule of proprietors who brought in colonists. He gives background on Spanish and French incursions and battles over the area, as well as on the various Indian peoples, who might not have been as numerous as those to the south or west. Weir's main interest, however, is political and legal---in the growth of laws, political institutions, and people in government---and how these led eventually to rebellion against Britain. For an amateur, these sections get rather detailed. I was interested in almost everything else---the relationship with the Indians, the economy (naval stores, rice, indigo), slavery, social classes, and their standards of living. Because of his focus, he begins with political developments instead of with economics and the society, which I feel is a mistake. In his way, amateurs like me can hardly grasp the motives or the players in the political game until we reach subsequent chapters. If I have not found my answer (and maybe there is no definite answer), I got a lot of valuable things to think about. Though South Carolina was founded more for economic interests than as a refuge for a persecuted minority (like Massachusetts), both Huguenots and English dissenters played a major role in the state. There is not a clear difference there. Perhaps the tenor of life differed. Weir notes, "Not everyone in South Carolina during the early years was a scoundrel though some...suspected that was the case." (p.61) There was, however, a large contingent of adventurers, connections to pirates, and some mighty loose living. South Carolina did not develop towns with self-governing traditions, nor was there much government at the county level. Instead, large tracts were granted to individuals, and words like "barony" and "seignory" were mentioned in laws. A more feudal atmosphere then, culminating in the "Margravate of Azilia" a feudal style buffer state that was nearly founded in the wild territory between South Carolina and Spanish Florida (now mostly Georgia). Unlike New England, South Carolina suffered constant raids by the Spanish and French, a war with pirates, wars with powerful Indian tribes several times in the 18th century, hurricanes, a huge fire in the capital, and yellow fever. Despite all this, secret ballot and religious freedom flourished, the colonial government---once the proprietary relationship ended in 1719---was not less progressive than others. However, what distinguished the two regions most of all was the extent of slavery. For most of its colonial history, blacks were a majority in South Carolina. The fear of uprisings and the terror used to control the slaves set the tone of life in this, the richest of the 13 colonies. Any disunity among whites could have been fatal, thus an inordinately large amount of central control. Weir also discusses the sectional division between lowland planters and upland small farmers; the composition of white society; and questions of social stability. All these things aided me immensely in trying to answer my question. In addition, readers will find a great amount of fascinating information in this book---how to make tar and pitch, South Carolina style---the use of indigo as currency during the Revolution---the importation of the original rice seeds from Madagascar (was it the pirate connection ?)---the development of black cowboys whose work patterns appeared over a century later in the oft-glorified West and a lot more. COLONIAL SOUTH CAROLINA is indispensable for anyone who wants an overall picture of this colony, whose history is often ignored in favor of Virginia, New York or Massachusetts. I also read Judith Carney's "Black Rice" (2001) and hoped to read Michael Stephen Hindus' "Prison and Plantation" (1980) for a more complete answer to my own question.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-03-11 00:00:00 Marvin Applegate This history of colonial South Carolina has serious problems. Here are the three most egregious: 1) To fully understand the author one must have specialized historical knowledge he fails to provide. 2) The author makes many broad, general statements without providing any evidence or even citations. There is no way the reader can know if the statements are accurate. The author seems to want his generalizations accepted on authority. 3) Too many sentences have hedge words. The author even qualifies his specific statements. Here is a typical example paragraph to illustrate what proliferates throughout the book, page 55-56: "Political power and legal authority followed ownership of land. Eight administrative courts or councils, each headed by one of the proprietors, was to supervise government business. At the top was the palatine court composed of the proprietors themselves and named for their senior member. The proprietors and the other members of the subordinate courts were to constitute the Grand Council. Probably modeled in part on the English Privy Council, it was to function both as a court of appeals and a collective executive. Parliament -- like the Irish parliament which after 1494 could not consider legislation without the prior approval of the Privy Council -- could only debate matters that the Grand Council had previously approved. Composed of the proprietors (or their deputies), the nobility, and elected representatives of the freeholders, parliament was unicameral. Votes in it and (explicitly by later revisions of the Fundamental Constitutions) elections to it were to be by secret ballot. Elected members needed 500 acres to qualify for a seat; voters, merely fifty to exercise the franchise. Laws were to be enforced by an elaborate legal system which included manorial courts. To prevent packing, juries (according to another revision of the document) were to be composed of individuals meeting requisite property qualifications whose names had been placed in a box and drawn by a child under the age of ten. It being a "base and vile thing to Plead for money," the Constitution forbade fees for such legal services. Similarly, no one was to write commentaries on the laws, which were themselves to terminate automatically every sixty years." Is that all clear enough? I hope so, because there is little to no further explanation offered for the seemingly random descriptive sentences found in this one lone paragraph that attempts to reveal the power structure and how the legal system worked. The next two paragraphs simply attempt to explain why it was thought wise to have laws expire every sixty years, followed by a description of the degree of religious toleration to be found in the colony, followed by other unrelated topics. Every sentence raises questions never addressed. They look like topic sentences for paragraphs that need their own chapter! For example, "Eight administrative courts or councils, each headed by one of the proprietors, was to supervise government business." I presume the number was eight because that was the number of proprietors. So what was the specific name of one of the courts? Was there a Yeamans court? Were all the courts equal in power or jurisdiction? Were they divided by geographical location, types of cases they presided over, or how? What types of matters did they preside over? What does it mean to "supervise government business"? Did these collect taxes, appoint a police force, pass laws, deed property, run militias for defense against natives, incarcerate religious dissenters or the insane, run medical clinics, collect garbage, bury the dead, control liquor distribution? Going on to the following sentences, one would assume the Grand Council had been mentioned before, give the preceding definite article, but this is the only mention of it I could readily find. Who are the deputies? What is their role and power? Was jury packing a problem? Why? What cases were tried by jury? What are manorial courts, and so on? No obvious question gets adequate coverage, and this paragraph is fairly typical of the entire book! There is a bibliography at the end of the book for each chapter, but no in-line citations in any of the text. We are given no idea where the "base and vile thing" quote comes from, for example. Which source Weir uses as evidence for any of his statements is impossible to trace or account for. A history of colonial South Carolina can be successfully written. A helpful history provides the broad strokes. This book instead is an odd mixture of overly specific facts randomly mixed in with only tangentially related generalizations. It therefore isn't even all that helpful as a reference, much less a book one can read straight through as a narrative. It performs neither function adequately.