Thursday, December 17, 2009

André Zucca

André Zucca was a French photographer who worked for the German photomag, Signal, in occupied Paris during World War II. Most accounts say he wasn't a collaborationist but took the job to earn his living and, not incidentally, gain access to photo equipment and films that would otherwise not be available. His images show Parisians enjoying their lives under sunny skies with few hints of the deprivations, injustices, and barbarities that were being inflicted by the Nazis.

He showed German servicemen behaving as privileged tourists rather than brutal occupiers. He showed the populace at ease in their beloved Paris, queuing patiently at shops and stylishly making do with wooden-soled shoes when leather could not be had, but otherwise seeming unaffected by the austerities of war. The two images of his that show Jews wearing the yellow Star of David do not appear to be making a statement about either their supposed viciousness nor their innocent victimization. Only one photo shows overt symbols of dominance, Nazi flags on a broad boulevard by a park. The Paris he shows, of both the ordinary and well-to-do, is surprisingly, some would say disgustingly, content and free of anxiety.

Zucca's Parisians do not, perhaps will not see the roundup, arrests, and deportations that are taking place in their midst. In her Journal, Hélène Berr wrote time and again of her Catholic friends, co-workers, and acquaintances who would not believe that innocent people were being dumped into concentration camps, that families were being split up — men from wives, children from parents, that hospitalized Jews were being deported, or that children were being packed into cattle cars for transport to the Polish camps. At one point she justly declares herself to be a better Christian than those who professed the religion.*

It's also true that the Nazi policy of genocide was repeatedly blocked by French officials who were willing to arrest and deport foreign Jews but, seeing the Jews of France as French first and Jewish second, took steps to limit the impact of the holocaust on their fellow citizens.**


{André Zucca; source: NYR blog}


Here are some of Zucca's wartime Paris photos:


{Parisian street scene, ca. 1943}


{Rue de Belleville in 1944}


{Street corner}


{A subway entrance in central Paris}


{A vegetable market}


{German officers with a stylish woman; note the ornamental daggers}


{Three ladies with sunglasses taken in the Luxembourg Garden, May 1942; I put this photo in an earlier blog post because it was taken within a few weeks of a diary entry by Hélène Berr expressing her experience perfect joy during a stroll through this garden }


{This is one of the two shots which Zucca took showing the Star of David}


{This is the other one; its somber tone is unlike Zucca's other photos}


{Exposition: Le Juif et la France}



{Newsstand of the photomag for which Zucca did his work}


These following shots come from a web site called 65 Years Ago, Paris:











These shots are from a photo essay in the Times of London:















These two appeared in an essay that appeared in the New York Review of Books:





I've given these images believing them to be in the public domain and will remove any that may be protected by copyright.

----------------

See also:

L’Occupation tranquille, which says: "the photos are disturbing to the modern viewer precisely because of their peculiar air of normality, the sense of life going on while atrocities were happening, as it were, around the corner."

Occupied Paris: The Sweet and the Cruel

A beatitude collabo: André Zucca

German occupation photo exhibit causes scandal

Zucca et le choc des mémoires

Les parisiens sous l’occupation

D'Atget à Zucca, ou comment naissent les légendes

An Uncomfortable Truth, or Wartime Propaganda?

Polémique autour d'une exposition sur Paris occupé

André Zucca

Andre Zucca's photographs of gay Paris at war paint an uneasy portrait of city collaboration

65 Years Ago, Paris

----------------

Notes:

* See my posts on Berr's Journal: a silence that rustles with memories and les rides qui étaient pleines de joie.

** On this topic see The Destruction of the Jews of France by Chris Webb of the Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

les rides qui étaient pleines de joie

Hélène Berr was determined to live her life authentically. She wished to be true to herself, her family, her friends, and her colleagues at work. She believed that life should be much more than bare existence, than simple consciousness, than mere pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. Her Journal shows us a woman committed to a life possessing meaning; she cares about life and its purposes, she believes in a Judeo-Christian God as a source of ethical percepts and believes that this God takes existence from people as a natural ending of their lives. She also believes that men can and have perverted this natural way of being and that such un-Godly men are unnatural in the extreme. Her attitude is much like Heidegger's, though her life could not have been much less like his than it was and though she thought most Germans to be incapable of fully appreciating the beauties of life or of experiencing a state that she unselfconsciously identified as joie de vivre.

These beliefs show in the Journal's celebration of a "great blue shimmering sky" over Paris on a glorious Spring day, of "water sparkling under [this] sun, its lapping and light ripples full of joy;" and — on the "dancing water," — "the graceful arcs cut by breeze-blown toy sailboats," with a cheerful mass of children and grownups all around. Here, on this day, she rejected a cynical and appallingly insensitive statement by an acquaintance that "the Germans will win the war," and, after all, "nothing will change." In her Journal she struggles to come to terms with "the fact of such beauty," which seems to reduce to "utter nothingness" all arguments about the war and its outcome, and she concludes that the experience of joy that she feels is not independent of her ordinary existence in the world. She tells her blithe friend that if the Germans win, the evil of Nazism will crush his, hers, and everyone's freedom to experience this beauty of light and water.

For Hélène Berr, living life fully was an act of resistance, not capitulation. Despite the horrors perpetrated by Germans and French collaborators which she observed and despite the indignities which the occupation caused her to personally suffer, she proudly continued her studies, continued her work as part-time librarian, continued to develop her skills as a classical violinist, and continued to seek and find joy in her Parisian life.

Here's the French of her expression of joy: she writes that she was fascinated by "l’étincellement de l’eau sous le soleil, le clapotis léger et les rides qui étaient pleines de joie – la courbe gracieuse des petits voiliers sous le vent, et par-dessus tout, le grand ciel bleu frissonnant." -- Journal entry for Thursday, April 16, 1942, in Luxembourg Garden, Paris


{Luxembourg Garden; source: annmah.net}


{This photo was taken in Luxembourg Garden just a few weeks after Berr wrote her Journal entry; source: photo by André Zucca from an exhibit in Bibliotheque Historique de la Ville de Paris }


{Hélène Berr in the summer of 1942 at her family's country place with a fellow student at the Sorbonne with whom she would later fall in love; source: atlas shrugs blog}

Monday, December 14, 2009

a silence that rustles with memories

Sunday, October 10, 1943

I am resuming this diary tonight, after a year's interruption. Why?

Today, on my way home from Georges and Robert's apartment, I was abruptly assailed by the feeling that I had to describe reality. Just the walk back from rue Margueritte was a whole world of facts and thoughts, images and reflections. Enough for a book. And suddenly I understood how banal a book is, basically. I mean: what else is there in a book but reality? What people need in order to write is an observant spirit and a broad mind. Otherwise everyone could write books; I recall, or rather, I looked up this evening a quotation from the beginning of Keats's Fall of Hyperion:
Since every man whose soul is not a clod
Hath visions, and would speak, if he had loved
And been well nurtured in his mother tongue
Yet there are a thousand reasons stopping me from writing and which tear me apart even now, and will trip me up again tomorrow and thereafter.

First, a kind of laziness that will be hard to overcome. Writing, writing the way I want to — that's to say with complete sincerity and never thinking that others will read me, so as not to affect my attitude — to write all the reality and the tragic things we are living through, giving them all their naked gravity without letting words distort them, is a very difficult task and requires constant effort.

Then there is the considerable repugnance I feel at thinking of myself as "someone who writes," because for me, perhaps mistakenly, writing implies a split personality, probably a loss of spontaneity, and an abdication (but maybe these are prejudices).

And then there is pride. I do not want any part of it. The idea that you can write for other people, so as to be praised by them. horrifies me.

Maybe there is also the feeling that "other people" won't understand you completely, that they make you dirty and mutilate you, and that you let yourself be cheapened like mere merchandise.

Uselessness?

At times too the sense of the uselessness of it all paralyzes me. Sometimes I have doubts and tell myself that this feeling of uselessness is just a form of inertia and laziness, because set against it is a significant reason that, if I convince myself that it is valid, will prove decisive: I have a duty to write because other people must know. Every hour of every day there is another painful realization that other folk do not know, do not even imagine, the suffering of other men, the evil that some of them inflict. And I am still trying to make the painful effort to tell the story. Because it is a duty, it is maybe the only one I can fulfill. There are men who know and who close their eyes, and I'll never manage to convince people of that kind, because they are hard and selfish, and I have no authority. But people who do not know and who might have sufficient heart to understand — on those people I must have an effect.

For how will humanity ever be healed unless all its rottenness is exposed? How will the world be cleansed unless it is made to understand the full extent of the evil it is doing? Everything comes down to understanding. That truth fills me with anguish and torment. War will not avenge the suffering: blood calls for blood, men dig their heels into their own wickedness and blindness. If only you could manage to make bad men understand the evil they are doing, if only you could give them that total and impartial vision which ought to be the glory of humankind! I've argued with people too often about this, with my parents, who certainly have more experience than I do.
-- The Journal of Hélène Berr translated by David Bellos (Random House, Inc., 2008) pp 156-57


{Hélène Berr; source: Mémorial de la Shoah}


{First page of the Journal; source: Mémorial de la Shoah}

Hélène Berr was a young Jewish victim of Nazism who documented her Parisian life in a diary during the early 1940s within occupied France. She began her journal in April 1942 when she was 20, a student of English literature at Sorbonne and a gifted classical violinist, and she was able to carry it on for less than two years.

Often compared with Anne Frank and sometimes also Rutka Laskier, she shared more with intellectuals such as the German Jewish diarist Victor Klemperer and the political philosopher Hannah Arendt.

Like both, she was and educated, talented member of the cultural elite of her time. On October 25, 1943, she described her contemporaries as "the educated type, whose minds are shaped to a great extent by books and heart-to-heart conversations with intelligent companions of their own age."

Like Klemperer she wrote the journal as a private venture, wholly for herself, as a means of bearing witness to the events of her time with the greatest degree of honesty she could muster. On May 27, 1942, he wrote: "I shall go on writing. That is my heroism. I will bear witness, precise witness!" On Saturday, July 18, 1942, she wrote of the suffering she saw all around her: arrests, suicides, deportations, separations of men from their wives, children from their parents, and, like Klemperer, she wrote: "I'm noting the facts, in haste, so as not to forget them, because we must not forget." And on October 10, 1943, thinking of her intention to use the journal as a source for writing a book, she wrote: "I know that many others will have more important lessons to teach, and more terrible facts to reveal. I am thinking of all the deportees, all those in prison, all those who set off on the great adventure of escape. But that should not make me a coward; each of us in our own small sphere can do something. And we can, we must." She, like Klemperer, wrote and preserved her writing at great risk. This was his heroism and hers.

Like Hannah Arendt she was intellectually, culturally, and emotionally alive to the events of her time and like Arendt she tried to tease meaning from the coincidence of ordinary and everyday occurrences amidst the passage of world-changing ones. Like Arendt she would fall into and out of love. She would embrace the emotional turmoil of her relationships with lovers, family, and friends and she would seek to understand herself better by exploring the interface of emotion and observation, aiming to be true to herself and lovingly honest in her dealings with others.

Like Arendt she refused to be overmastered by the brutality of the German occupiers and their French collaborators. She did her best to retain her sense of honor in resisting the overwhelming force with which they imposed their will on French Jews. She sought to observe and report the unfolding horrors of the holocaust. Though she hated Nazis for treating all Jews as one single people, she wore her yellow Star of David with pride, a mark of solidarity rather than one of defeat. She taught herself to self-identify as Jew despite a belief she shared with Arendt that Judaism was simply a religion and the Jewish people not one nationality but many, not a "nation" apart. She hated to be made conspicuous by the Star, to be confronted by non-Jews who (rarely) showed sympathy and (much more often) showed themselves to be ignorant of Jewish sufferings.*

Like Arendt, she had misgivings about Jews with sepratist ideals. She didn't want Jews to see themselves as "the other" but wanted rather to uphold the ideals of the Enlightenment and the principles of the French Revolution in which Jews were citizens in the same way as were members of other religions.

Nonetheless, also like Arendt, she worked with an organization that helped Jewish children, orphaned by the deportation of their parents. Neither woman was a Zionist but both provided direct or indirect support for the work Zionists performed in rescuing children.

Berr's religious beliefs resembled Klemperer's and Arendt's. Her Judaism was part of her family tradition; it was a cultural orientation. She upheld the ethical values of this faith tradition. She believed in the teachings of Christ and criticized French Catholics for going along with the German occupation and the persecution of Jews. On October 11, 1943, she wrote: "it seemed to me [on reading Matthew's gospel] that Christ belongs much more to me than he does to some good Catholics." Although she did not have a strong adherence to Judaism, she was observant. On Friday, September 11, 1942, she wrote: "Went to synagogue for Rosh Hashanah. The service was held in the oratory and the community hall, since the synagogue itself has been destroyed by Doriotistes. It was depressing. Not a single young person. Only old folk." [Deoiotists were French followers of French fascist, Jacques Doriot. A note in the text says that the following year all the participants at Rosh Hashanah observances were rounded up and interned.]

Despite the many similarities with Klemperer's Diaries and Arendt's writings, Berr's Journal is unique.

Berr differed mostly from Klemperer and Arendt in her lyricism. Alongside the Journal's descriptions of monstrous injustices are its abundant expressions of joy. For example, on June 8, 1942, she wrote: "These are the two aspects of contemporary life: the freshness, beauty, la jeunesse de la vie, embodied by the clear morning — the cruelty and evil represented by the yellow star."**

Even in times when she feared most for herself and those she loved and even while mourning the loss of many who had died or been sent off to the concentration camps, she gave herself time to appreciate fully the sensuous joys of life. Just as it was important to her to wear the Star with dignity, she saw it as both honorable and socially valuable to experience and report times of joy. In the early pages of the Journal she wrote of joy sweeping over her, "a joy that confirmed my self-confidence, in complete harmony with the joyful sunlight and the pastel blue of the sky above the puffball clouds." Later in this passage she wrote of pleasure that is "not an outpouring but a kind of underlying joy that got forgotten now and again and then gently resurfaced." And later in this entry she declared herself "so sated with fresh air, bright sunshine, wind, showers, fatigue, and pleasure that I'm not sure where I am." On returning from an outing in the country, she wrote of "the wet grass in the garden, in the rain, and the sudden appearance of a sunny blue sky over the little meadow.... The walk along the plateau road, in full sun, the short, sharp shower.... All that now seems strangely close and strangely distant. I know it's over, that I'm here in my bedroom, and at the same time I can hear the voices, see the faces and the shapes, as if I were surrounded by living ghosts. It's because the day is no longer entirely Present but not yet quite Past. The silence rustles with memories and images."

She had a great love for English literature and particularly the poetry of John Keats. In October 1943, she considered of her own likely death at the hands of the Nazis, saying that if she should be killed, "and if these lines are read, it will be clear that I expected my fate; not that I had accepted it but, because I do not know how my physical and moral resistance will hold up under the weight of reality, that I was expecting it." In this context she quotes these lines from Keats:
This living hand, now warm and capable
Of earnest grasping, would, if it were cold
And in the icy silence of the tomb,
So haunt thy days and chill thy dreaming nights
That thou wouldst wish thine own heart dry of blood
So in my veins red life might stream again,
And thou be conscience — calm’d — see here it is —
I hold it towards you.
-- This Living Hand


{From left: Hélène, her mother Antoinette, sister Denise, boyfriend Jean Morawiecki and brother-in-law's sister, Jacqueline Job, in the summer of 1942 at the Berrs' country home in Aubergenville on the Seine; source: book review in Daily Mail}


{Hélène nursing a scraped knee at Aubergenville, 1942; same source}

I've written this on reading about half the book. It's not the first time I've written about a book before I'm done with it.

-------------

Note:

* On October 28, 1943, Berr encountered a working-class woman who told her Jews "don't bother French people, do they, and anyway they only arrest people who have done something." Berr wrote that encounters such as this caused her much pain, but "on the other hand, I can't hold it against the woman; she did not know."

**"Il fait un temps radieux, très frais – un matin comme celui de Paul Valéry. Le premier jour aussi où je vais porter l’étoile jaune. Ce sont les deux aspects de la vie actuelle: la fraîcheur, la beauté, la jeunesse de la vie, incarnée par cette matinée limpide — la barbarie et le mal représentés par cette étoile jaune."

Sunday, December 13, 2009

meep

Erin McKean has an interesting item in the Boston Globe on a controversial ban at a Massachusetts high school. The principal, Thomas Murray, warned parents and students that he would not tolerate disruptive behavior associated with the word meep. Meep, which has no fixed meaning, is mostly known as an expression used by the Muppet Beaker when things go wrong in his lab. In the Globe piece, Meep! The power of the meaningless, McKean explains the controversy generated by Murray's actions and says, "combine a blank slate like meep and the natural tendency of English to produce new words with suffixes and affixes (and then throw in a little paronomasia, or punning) and you have plenty of scope for meep-related fun.... The very sound of meep is cheering: The long-e sound forces the face into a smile (like saying cheese for a photograph), and research has shown that even a forced smile can result in an improvement in mood."

{As wikipedia has it, "Beaker is the shy long-suffering assistant of Dr. Bunsen Honeydew, and is likewise named for a piece of laboratory equipment, which he resembles in shape." Image source: Salem News}

McKean's source was a local newspaper, The Salem News, which did a good job of covering the story. Its first article focused mainly on the position that the school administration had taken in banning use of the word and quoted the principal's unspecific statements on the disruption he aimed to prevent. He told the reporter that "meep" was not being used to harass or bully, but did not say exactly what students were doing or threatening to do that was causing problems. From what he did say it seems his main fear was that a meep group on facebook would be used to cause trouble. The reporter said the principal told him "the matter should be a wake-up call to parents about how kids are using social networking sites." After the word was banned, the school administration began forwarding to local police the email messages it received from irate parents and students. It also replied to the emails telling senders what it had done. When an entertainment industry lawyer sent a one-word comment to the school ("Meep."), her email was duly forwarded to the police and she was told that it was. The Salem News reported that the lawyer thought "this implied there was something illegal about her meeping." Asked about this concern, local police said (apparently with a straight face) there's no law against using the word in an e-mail message. Before learning that she was safe from arrest, the lawyer used the web to publicize her concern and many others then sent meep messages to the school.

Here's a summary of Salem News coverage:
A trio of interesting side notes:

1. The word meep occurs in a story from a Soviet chidren's magazine of the 1980s: Meep the Baby Martin by Victor Astafyev. It's a naturalistic tale about a baby bird that's orphaned, raised by other adults in the community, and able eventually to survive into an independent adolescence.

2. Danvers, Massachusetts is derisively called oniontown because of its 19th-century success in creating the Danvers Onion. You might think this might prompt The Onion to pursue this story, but it hasn't. Danvers is also known for the Danvers Half-Long Carrot. But the town is best known for its participation in the witch hysteria of the late 17th century and the witch trials in nearby Salem.

3. Language Log did a blog post on the topic when the story first broke in Salem News. It gives a Youtube video and an audio segment analyzing meep's pronunciation and it links to some jokes.

Friday, December 04, 2009

old cars

A book by a heroic sociologist, Arthur Raper, concerns the living conditions of poor farmers in a Georgia county in the early 1930s. Where Dorothea Lange saw social traditions as invaluable supports for a people (black and white alike) whose way of life was being threatened by an indiscriminate modernism, Raper saw technological advances as potential salvation from social and economic backwardness. She showed poor families leading fulfilling lives in a communal and mutually-supportive environment; he envisioned mechanization as a means of economic development, a means for overthrowing the exploitative power of large landowners, and a means by which the standard of living of the poorest citizens could be dramatically raised.

The two attitudes are not incompatible. Lange might well have understood the likelihood that tenant and sharecrop families would disperse to other occupations over the next couple of generations and Raper probably comprehended the valuable cohesiveness of rural give and take. But to her the immediate present — in all its natural beauty and familial contentment — was paramount and to him the destruction of a cherished culture of small-farm agriculture was less important than the elimination of inequitable and ultimately destructive social and political power structures.

To some extent you can see these contrasting nuances in Lange's images of automobiles and Raper's rhapsodic paragraphs on the release from social constraints potentially afforded by them. She showed cars as markers of social condition: cars belonged to town folk and large landowners. Most poor farmers could not afford them and the few who could make the purchase possessed rattle-trap second-hand jalopies.

Focusing his attention on the few farmers who could achieve it, Raper said car ownership brought an increase in social status. Drivers were less constrained by social customs (such as deferential hat doffing) than people on foot or in wagons. The car enabled the poor farmer to buy goods in the larger towns at prices much lower than those of the country stores. It expanded a family's opportunities for communal activities and entertainment (such as simply going to the movies). The automobile was "providing the mechanical means for a greater degree of self-direction and self-expression. . . . The feel of power, even in an old automobile, is most satisfying to a man who owns nothing, directs nothing." Raper said he suspected that "the opportunities afforded by the automobile provide a basis for a new morality for whites as well as Negroes, based upon personal standards rather than upon community mores — upon what the individual wants to do rather than what the community does not want him to do."(Source: Preface to peasantry: a tale of two black belt counties, by Arthur Franklin Raper (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1936) pp. 174-75.)

Lange's photographs show a different reality. These inmages come mostly from the tobacco farming region of North Carolina and mostly from July 1939. They tend to show the poor farm families not benefiting from car ownership but rather accepting a life-style in which cars had little prominence.

1. Lange took this set of three photos of a tenant farm family's dilapidated roadster.* It's one of only a couple occasions in which she showed car ownership by a tenant farmer.


{LC caption: Home of Negro tobacco tenant with addition of improvised garage. Wake County, North Carolina}

2. Lange noted an instance where an automobile accident revealed what appears to have been unequal justice at work.

The field notes that Lange and Hagood** took during this visit record the following information from the mother: 'one of the grandchildren lives with her whose father is in the penitentiary for ten years because a Negro child was killed in an automobile accident he had with a white man. They went to court but the white man (whose fault it was according to the mother) went free, while her son got ten years. "There's no justice; you have to wait on the lord for justice; the Lord has the power." Her son was a good boy — "He is a bible student right."'
in the front row of the white folks' church
On July 6, 1939, Lange and Margaret Jarman Hagood visited a farm being worked by a tenant family in Granville County not far from the small town of Wilton. They arrived around noon on this rainy Thursday and observed the family at work and rest. The family was headed by a man and wife and included plus seven of their own children and several adopted ones. Neither Lange nor Hagood recorded their names.

3. With this photo, Lange showed the difficulties faced by sharecroppers in coming up with cash to use the cars they owned. As the caption says, the owners couldn't afford to operate it.


{LC caption: Car belonging to Negro share tenant family. The mother said they were not running it because they did not have the money to buy tags. "I always say rations and clothes comes before riding. I can stay at home." Near Gordonton, North Carolina}

4. My last post showed this pair of young white men and their touring car. The photos seem to show that Raper's expected opportunities afforded by car ownership were to be unequally distributed. They emphasize the difference between these young wage-earning white men and the cash-poor tenant and sharecrop families who were their neighbors.


{LC caption: Young North Carolinian in old Ford. He does not farm. "Works for wages." At Tuck's filling station. Person County, North Carolina}

5. In Lange's photos, automobiles are common in towns; rare in rural areas. She showed many cars in piedmont towns, but her only shots of cars in a rural setting are of a rural church whose members come from nearby towns. These three images of cars in town come from Siler City, NC.



6. This girl in a modern roadster, sleeker and shinier than the cars shown parked on tenant farms, suggests the material comforts of town life.



7. This photo conveys the emptiness of the rural roads of packed red clay where people walked to their neighbors or the country store or they went by mule-drawn wagon.



8. Lange took one famous shot in which a car becomes an overt symbol of racial dominance; it's a farm country photo but she was not then in the piedmont region of North Carolina.


{LC caption: Plantation owner. Mississippi Delta, near Clarksdale, Mississippi, 1936 June}

About this image Linda Gordon writes:
In one extraordinary image of a plantation owner and his croppers at a country store, Lange succeeded in replicating the power structure visually, both on the picture plane and in the three dimensions it represents. A plantation owner stands next to the porch of a Mississippi general store, dominating the image from just right of center, with one leg set aggressively on the bumper of his car, looking off to his right. Behind him are five black men, probably his share croppers, sitting and standing on the porch, in postures almost exaggeratedly unassuming, withdrawing, small, even frail by contrast with the white man. As the white man makes himself, and is made by Lange, as large as possible, so the black men are shrinking themselves. The photograph lets us see the relations of power and deference on a southern plantation. Some viewers had no trouble understanding this image as subversive. One letter to a newspaper complained that "...indicative of the agency's [FSA's] vivid pink trend...is Miss Lange's cunningly posed portrait of 'The Plantation Owner...'
-- Source: Dorothea Lange: A Life Beyond Limits, by Linda Gordon
Another of Lange's biographers, Melissa A. McEuen, adds to Gordon's information. She identifies the man who is only barely visible at left as Lange's husband, Paul Taylor and she explains how the photo, without Lange's caption, would later appear in two well-meaning but misleading works:
The best-known Lange image that includes Taylor in the frame conducting an interview was one she took near Clarksdale, Mississippi, in 1936. A husky plantation owner, in a cocky stance with one foot propped on his new automobile, converses with Taylor as one black man stands and four others sit quietly in the background. Various editors cropped Taylor out of the picture for their publication purposes, even though the original negative shows him prominently. When Archibald MacLeish used the photo in his 1938 publication, Land of the Free, he further cut the picture, leaving out the African Americans. The plantation owner's image illustrated Macleish's poetry, which included the words "freedom," "American," and "pioneers." The irony of Macleish's verbal message placed beside the original photograph would have been too overwhelming for the Jim Crow South, so MacLeish purposely avoided the potentially explosive combination. Three years later, Richard Wright and Edwin Rosskarn used the photograph in Twelve Million Black Voices as a parallel text on the same page with a definition of the word "Negro," which does not include the word "freedom," Wright exposes the socially constructed weight of the term "Negro" by declaring it "a psychological island" sustained by "a fiat which artificially and arbitrarily defines, regulates, and limits in scope of meaning the vital contours of our lives, and the lives of our children and our children's children." His words more aptly reflect the conditions represented in the original photograph, but the departure from reality documentary texts allowed can be seen in both books. Since Lange's picture belonged to the federal government, which had sole control over its use and distribution, her thorough captions could be changed, deleted, or ignored altogether. But by altering Lange's word stories that accompanied her photographs, one compromised the photographer's original intention, which was to create "documents that were both visual and verbal." As a thirties documentarian, Lange depended upon words and had developed such keen interviewing skills that "her conversations with the people she photographed and her understanding of their way of life were as much a part of the print she achieved as the camera or the film." When she felt that her aesthetic sense was being challenged, Lange fought back.
-- Source: Seeing America: Women Photographers Between the Wars, by Melissa A. McEuen (University Press of Kentucky, 2004) pp. 114-115


--------

Notes:

* All photos come from the Farm Security Administration collection of the Library of Congress Prints and Photos Division. The captions come from Lange's notes. Click to view full size. Most images are low-resolution scans and thus will appear somewhat fuzzy at full size.

** The sociologist, Margaret Jarman Hagood, was assigned to work with Lange during her exploration of the small tobacco farms of North Carolina in July 1939. It's interesting that both Hagood and Raper worked under Howard W. Odum, head of the University of North Carolina's Institute for Research in Social Science, although he preceded her by a decade and their paths may not have crossed.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Sams, Trollope, & Lange

The system of Jim Crow laws and the culture of White Supremacy in the American South flourished from the end of the nineteenth century until well into the middle of the twentieth. Based on a hugely unequal distribution of power, it was a social, political, and economic order designed to deprive an oppressed people of the most elementary human rights.*

Given its high level of violence and overt cruelty, it seems odd that this way of life might bear resemblance to the lives of the great landowners in nineteenth century England, but resemblance there nonetheless is. My source for this insight is my current read, The American Senator, by Anthony Trollope (originally published in London by Chapman and Hall in 1877 - 3v.). Trollope sympathized with landowners and generally stereotyped low-class characters as unprincipled, rude, and generally unpleasant people. However, in this novel he lets an American visitor, a member of the US Senate from the mythical state of Mikewa present a different point of view.

The Senator becomes obsessed with a legal battle between a noble lord and a poor and mean smallholder over the destruction caused by fox hunters and their prey. At one point he writes a long letter to a friend back home giving some details of this conflict. In it he explains that the ruling class is both pleasant and, in its way, honorable and he explains that the class system, as he sees it, is not simply imposed by rule of might upon those whom it exploits but is actively supported and maintained by those whom it victimizes. He writes:
The man who is born a lord and who sees a dozen serfs around him who have been born to be half-starved ploughmen, thinks that God arranged it all and that he is bound to maintain a state of things so comfortable to himself, as being God's vicegerent here on earth. But they do their work as vicegerents with an easy grace, and with sweet pleasant voices and soft movements, which almost make a man doubt whether the Almighty has not in truth intended that such injustice should be permanent. That one man should be rich and another poor is a necessity in the present imperfect state of civilisation; — but that one man should be born to be a legislator, born to have everything, born to be a tyrant, — and should think it all right, is to me miraculous. But the greatest miracle of all is that they who are not so born, who have been born to suffer the reverse side, — should also think it to be all right.
-- Chapter 29, "The Senator's Letter"

In Run with the Horsemen, Ferrol Sams, paints a similar picture. He explains how the rigid social rules of his youth were inviolable but also unspoken. He says the "absolute verity" of these rules "was reinforced by the cooperation of the blacks." And he tells how, in putting African Americans "in their place," well-off white landowners "locked themselves securely in their own place."

The etiquette of master and servant was so deeply ingrained that it was rare for people on either side to violate its strictures or even recall when it was they learned them. It seemed that what was at work was either divine will or natural law. Whites felt themselves to be naturally superior and "a feeling of superiority often breeds also a feeling of responsibility, and most whites instinctively practiced some degree of noblesse oblige. It was a rare individual, however, who learned how to separate compassion from condescension." Not too much unlike aristocratic Englishmen, upper class Southern whites learned to be polite, genteel, and refined, but, Galahad-like, they were also taught to punish any real or supposed violations of the rules and to protect white females of their class from exposure to rude behavior, unjust treatment, or any suggestion of sexual contact with black men. (Run With the Horsemen, pp. 68-70).

As a Northern visitor, Dorothea Lange was a bit like the American Senator in her observation of the tenant and sharecrop farmers in the piedmont region of North Carolina. Like him, she was eager to experience and record what might come her way and like him she was forthright in her willingness to document the bad with the good. More than he, she knew how to use her art to show the raw underside of life as experienced by a powerless and vulnerable people. Surprisingly, although she was certainly able to present the poor farmers of North Carolina as victims, she did not do so. She understood the horrendous burden endured particularly by African American families but, rather than revealing them as uniquely oppressed, she showed them side-by-side with their poor white neighbors, sharing hardships and cooperating to cope with them.

In recent blog posts I've drawn attention to the dignity, forbearance, and even contentment of the poor farm families with whom Lange met and whom she photographed. It's interested me that the photographs appear race neutral: the families seem simply to be poor people, not poor blacks or poor whites.

She could and did show racism, as in her photographs of cotton farming on the Mississippi Delta,** but in the piedmont region of North Carolina she gives us only bare hints of it.

In the following sequence, Lange shows a group of white men palling around and a lone black, seated a bit apart, not participating. The physical separation of the African American and his body language let us conclude that he excludes himself and is excluded.***

Lange's caption for the photos makes no mention of his presence; the viewer has to infer her intent to allude to a passive instance of apartheid.


{Lange's caption: Rural filling station becomes community center and general grounds for loafing. The men in baseball suits are on a local team which will play a game nearby. The team is called the Cedargrove Team. Fourth of July, Near Chapel Hill, North Carolina}

Even less overt is this sequence of photos in which the expressions and body language of the two men might seem to suggest a latent aggression. There's no presence of African Americans and no hint of racism, just an attitude of dominance.


{Lange's caption: Young North Carolinian in old Ford. He does not farm. "Works for wages." At Tuck's filling station. Person County, North Carolina}
-----------

Notes:

**On this subject, see Creating Jim Crow: In-Depth Essay by Ronald L. F. Davis and the wikipedia article on Jim Crow laws.

** See working from can to can't and roughhousing for discussion of the following two photos:

{Lange's caption: A tractor pioneer of the Mississippi Delta. In 1927 he had 160 colored tenant families working his land, in 1936 he won thirty Farmall tractors and employs thirty families on day labor basis. He says, "Now I can make money. Hours are nothing to us. You can't industrialize farming. We in Mississippi know how to treat our niggers"}


{LC caption: Plantation owner. Mississippi Delta, near Clarksdale, Mississippi, 1936 June}
About this image Linda Gordon writes:
In one extraordinary image of a plantation owner and his croppers at a country store, Lange succeeded in replicating the power structure visually, both on the picture plane and in the three dimensions it represents. A plantation owner stands next to the porch of a Mississippi general store, dominating the image from just right of center, with one leg set aggressively on the bumper of his car, looking off to his right. Behind him are five black men, probably his share croppers, sitting and standing on the porch, in postures almost exaggeratedly unassuming, withdrawing, small, even frail by contrast with the white man. As the white man makes himself, and is made by Lange, as large as possible, so the black men are shrinking themselves. The photograph lets us see the relations of power and deference on a southern plantation. Some viewers had no trouble understanding this image as subversive. One letter to a newspaper complained that "...indicative of the agency's [FSA's] vivid pink trend...is Miss Lange's cunningly posed portrait of 'The Plantation Owner...'
-- Source: Dorothea Lange: A Life Beyond Limits, by Linda Gordon

*** Lange took two other photos of this scene, both framed so that the black man did not appear. (The third is a detail.)


Linda Gordon has an anecdote about this framing and subsequent use of the images:
The [Office of War Information's] propaganda operation even used and defanged Lange’s [Farm Security Administration] work. In one case, a 1939 photograph of a typical, run-down North Carolina country store/filling station with a group of young men goofing off on the porch was transformed into a World War II poster by cropping and superimposing a message: ‘This is America…. Where a fellow can start on the home team and wind up in the big league… Where there is always room at the top for the fellow who has it on the ball….This is your America!… Keep it free!’

Lange had made five photographs of the scene, showing about a dozen figures, several in baseball uniforms, preparing to play with a local league; mugging for the camera, they began picking up and swinging one guy by his arms and legs. In the original context, these images signaled the economic backwardness, inactivity and racism of the rural South. At the far end of the porch, distinctly removed from the others, was a black man who did not participate in the roughhousing, but sat tight with a tense smile. In the poster both sides of the image were cropped, and it showed only young white men standing in manly, confident but relaxed postures, ready to play the quintessentially American game.

–- From “Dorothea Lange: A Life Beyond Limits” (2009) by Linda Gordon quoted in: What’s in a frame? (And, um, what isn’t?)

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

a people bound up

Dorothea Lange was quick to recognize the differences between the destitute farm families whom she photographed in the American West and Southwest and those whom she photographed in the South.1 They all worked the land but in the western parts of the country, they were displaced from their homes. In the South most had been born within a few miles of where she found them; they saw themselves as, and in fact were, bound to the land by preference and longstanding tradition. In the piedmont region of North Carolina the farm families she photographed were none of them well off and most had scant hope of improving their lot. Many recognized, as one told her, that more money could be made in other rural counties and the great urban areas of the North, but it wasn't a matter of money.

One Southern farmer told Lange felt comfortable where he was: When you are born in the hills, he said, you're just born in the hills, and you want to stay there. He and his friends thought it was "a pretty good place they were in, don't have to buy much groceries, only salt, sugar, baking soda, coffee. They didn't have much money, but they were getting along and they didn't have to worry about anything being stolen. There wasn't anything to steal."2

The author of a book on the difficulties faced particularly by African American families in this place and time quotes a black head of family as saying: "Nobody had no money. But then, you didn't need a whole lot of money." He said people bartered for what they couldn't grow or make and often heard the statement "folks just helped each other out." A woman in a crop sharing family told him "we gave back and forth." A small landowner told him neighbors would share milk with someone whose cow had gone dry, knowing they too might soon be dependent on community assistance. A white sharecropper stated that "friendship was better than money."3

The first photo shows the tenant farmer who said his family didn't have much money nor need much. The second one shows Caroline Atwater. She and her husband owned a few acres which they farmed. Their very old house had hardwood shingles on its roof and mud-chinked siding; it also boasted the well by which she's standing, a convenience that most tenant and sharecrop farms did not possess. The third photo shows a tobacco plant, source of what cash the piedmont farmers might earn. This one has been left to flower so its seeds can be harvested for next year's planting.4


The following photos show something of the gently rolling piedmont land itself. Both images show the same mostly fallow fields. Lange took the first of them in July 1939 and wrote: "In background is a sweet potato patch with a Negro man chopping. Could hear the sound of the hoe on the small rocks in the soil. Up the hill is the log and frame house the family live in. Steep rocky drive up hill from highway to owner's house and passed it along a single track to Negro house in background." The second photo comes from Anne Whiston Spirn, one of Lange's biographers, who returned to the place in 2007 to see whether she could find people and places from Lange's visit 57 years before.5


Lange understood the rootedness of the piedmont farm families she photographed. Years later, when her son Daniel remarked that in the South she had encountered a social order which exerted a tenacious hold on the people who lived under it, she agreed. The people and their culture were tightly intertwined. She said, "I couldn't pry the two apart .... Earlier, I'd gotten at people through the ways they'd been torn loose, but now I had to get at them through the ways they were bound up."6

Lange's photos and the field notes that she and accompanying researchers made show an admirable people: uncomplaining, hard-working, competent, and conscientious; taking unspoken pleasure in the simplicities of daily existence, sharing hardships with equanimity, imbued with a cooperative spirit, and upholding deeply-felt religious and moral values. The exploitation of some landowners and distain of many town dwellers, brought out resentment but not abasement. The ones whom Lange spoke with were dignified, free of hypocrisy. If Lange encountered the South's "deceit, dissembling, evasion, artifice, fraud, and outright lying" (in Ferrol Sams's words), she did not record it.7

---------------

Notes:

1 Lange took this photo of displaced farmers in Sacramento in November 1936.

{LC caption: Destitute family. American River camp, Sacramento, California. Five children, aged two to seventeen years}

Compare it with this July 1939 photo of the Whitfield family posing at the back of their sharecrop house. Note their chickens and the comforting smoke from the meal being cooked on their stove inside.

{LC caption: Tobacco sharecroppers and family at back of their house. Person County, North Carolina}


Compare also with this contented African American family on the front porch of their tenant house on a Saturday afternoon.

{LC caption: Negro tenant family}

and with this family with its trailing farm dog.

{LC caption: Colored sharecropper and his children about to leave home through the pine woods after their morning work at the tobacco farm stringing and putting up tobacco. Shoofly, Granville County, North Carolina}

2 wasn't anything to steal

3 The Rural Face of White Supremacy; Beyond Jim Crow by Mark Schultz (University of Illinois Press, 2007); see better than money

4 Unless otherwise stated, all photos come from the Farm Security Administration collection of the Library of Congress Prints and Photos Division. Click image to view full size.

5 Spirn's photo comes from her blog: Anne Whiston Spirn. Her biography of Lange is Daring to look: Dorothea Lange's photographs and reports from the field.

6 Daniel Dixon, quoted in Howard M. Levin and Katherine Northrup, eds., Dorothea Lange: Farm Security Administration Photographs, 1935-1939 (Glencoe, Illinois: Text-Fiche Press, 1980), 39.

7 Ferrol Sams, Run With the Horsemen, p. 53. With respect to the wives, Margaret Jarman Hagood, one of the researchers who accompanied Lange in July 1939, concurred with her:
The woes of lower-class life in the rural South were readily apparent, but the tenant women displayed great resilience in confronting them. Hagood's research revealed few "tobacco road"-style degenerates. Instead, the overwhelming majority of those whom she interviewed were competent, conscientious individuals who took pride in their roles as mothers and as co-laborers with their spouses in crop production. Although they unanimously professed allegiance to patriarchal values--including, most notably, the man's right to "tote the pocketbook"--the tenant wives were frequently knowledgeable about the details of family finances and often seemed to exercise equal power in the marriage relationship with their mates. According to Hagood, shared hardships molded a cooperative spirit that markedly reduced "friction and irritability" between the sexes (p. 169). The women's resentments and antagonisms tended to focus, not on husbands or even on local landowners, but instead on snobbish townsfolk and on an economic system that, in the tenants' opinion, favored urban interests at the expense of agriculture. "None of the wives appeared to be neurotic," Hagood reported; "none claimed to be misunderstood" (p. 169).
-- from a review of Hagood's Mothers of the South: Portraiture of the White Tenant Farm Woman (University of North Carolina Press, 1939)

Mark Schultz, author of The Rural Face of White Supremacy; Beyond Jim Crow quotes an African American named Willie Butts who was in his teens during the decade of 1930s. Butts said he would occasionally have enough money to pay admission to the movie theater in a nearby town. Schultz writes: 'He remembered that the 1930s newsreels preceding the main feature sometimes showed clips of city folks lined up with cups in their hands waiting for doughnuts and coffee. Years later he recollected, "I thought we were rich."'