You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.36 AVERAGE
4.36 AVERAGE
Hear me out.
Undeniably Alex Haley's ethnographic research is stupendous, even if the majority of this book is fictionalised history, right? Slightly embellished it may be, but Haley's story is of his own family's history, traced back from the man himself to his ancestor born in 1750 and later kidnapped and sold into slavery and brought to America... right?
In a vacuum this book would have been a five-star read, easily. But there are two major controversies which challenge the novel's historicity: the marketing of the book as factual history (albeit told in a fictionalised format), and plagiarism.
Haley himself called the novel "fiction," and acknowledged that the bulk of the dialogue and specific incidents had been his own invention. He also claimed however that the depiction of Kunta Kinte's circumstances, as well as the portrayal of slaves in Virginia and North Carolina, were factual and confirmed by historical documentation. Neither of those claims is entirely accurate.
In fact, when historians focusing on the West African slave trade dug further, they found that genuine griots in the Gambia could not provide detailed or accurate information prior to the mid-19th century... but everyone had heard the name Kunta Kinte. It was discovered that Haley had told his story to so many people while apparently searching for documentation that his version of history had become assimilated into Gambian oral tradition, i.e., circular reporting.[2]
The next documentary paper Haley used after the 1767 deed reference to Toby was the 1870 census listing for Tom Murray's household, resulting in a gap of over 90 years between the two pieces of evidence. Relying solely on his family's oral tradition to span that near-century, Haley settled on a narrative that did and does not align with actual documented history.
Courlander claimed that Haley had copied 81 distinct passages from his novel. His pre-trial memorandum discussing copyright infringement stated:
//
[1] A griot is a member of a hereditary caste among the peoples of western Africa whose function is to keep an oral history of the tribe or village and to entertain with stories, poems, songs, dances, etc.
[2] Uprooting Kunta Kinte: On the Perils of Relying on Encyclopedic Informants (JSTOR).
[3] Rooting Up Haley's Legacy (WaPo archive).
[4] "Roots and the New 'Faction': A Legitimate Tool for Clio?" (The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography).
[5] The Genealogist's Assessment of Alex Haley's Roots (National Genealogical Society Quarterly).
[6] "Roots: The Saga Continues" (Lakeland Ledger).
Undeniably Alex Haley's ethnographic research is stupendous, even if the majority of this book is fictionalised history, right? Slightly embellished it may be, but Haley's story is of his own family's history, traced back from the man himself to his ancestor born in 1750 and later kidnapped and sold into slavery and brought to America... right?
In a vacuum this book would have been a five-star read, easily. But there are two major controversies which challenge the novel's historicity: the marketing of the book as factual history (albeit told in a fictionalised format), and plagiarism.
NON-NON-FICTIONThe line between fiction and non-fiction when it comes to historiography is a tricky one to walk. Roots was originally described as fiction, yet sold in the non-fiction section of bookstores and continues to be shelved as non-fiction even today. The final chapter details Haley's apparent research into written record which would substantiate his story, primarily through libraries and archives. Haley writes:
To the best of my knowledge and of my effort, every lineage statement within Roots is from either my African or American families' carefully preserved oral history, much of which I have been able conventionally to corroborate with documents. Those documents, along with the myriad textural details of what were contemporary indigenous lifestyles, cultural history, and such that give Roots flesh have come from years of intensive research in fifty-odd libraries, archives, and other repositories on three continents.However, nearly every element of that paragraph has been either outright disproven or repeatedly challenged. Genealogists retracing Haley's footsteps found that his pre-Civil War genealogy is not (despite his claims) substantiated by public record, and is in fact contradicted. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the book covers events occurring from 1750 to 1865, this is a significant issue.
Haley himself called the novel "fiction," and acknowledged that the bulk of the dialogue and specific incidents had been his own invention. He also claimed however that the depiction of Kunta Kinte's circumstances, as well as the portrayal of slaves in Virginia and North Carolina, were factual and confirmed by historical documentation. Neither of those claims is entirely accurate.
GRIOT OR NOT?According to Haley, the family's history had been traced back to Kunta Kinte, a man born in 1750 in the village of Juffure in what is now known as the Gambia. Haley stated that Kunta Kinte had been kidnapped by slave traders as a young adult and brought on a ship to America, where he was then sold into slavery. However, Haley's only source for this family history was Kebba Kanga Fofana, a griot[1] in the village of Juffure. Haley claimed that Fofana had told him,
About the time the king's soldiers came, the eldest of these four sons, Kunta, went away from this village to chop wood and was never seen again.Fofana's reliability swiftly came into question, and it was revealed that not only did Fofana change important details of the story upon repeated tellings but he also was not a genuine griot, only claiming to be. The head of the Gambian National Archives contacted Haley to express doubt as to Fofana's claims.
In fact, when historians focusing on the West African slave trade dug further, they found that genuine griots in the Gambia could not provide detailed or accurate information prior to the mid-19th century... but everyone had heard the name Kunta Kinte. It was discovered that Haley had told his story to so many people while apparently searching for documentation that his version of history had become assimilated into Gambian oral tradition, i.e., circular reporting.[2]
JUFFUREHaley's story depicted Juffure as an isolated village where the only contact with white (i.e., European) men by 1767, the year Kunta Kinte was allegedly taken, was via rumour or hearsay. The actual Juffure, however, was scarcely two miles' distance from James Island, a major trading outpost established in 1661 by the Royal Africa Company; the King of Barra had allowed the establishment on the condition that none of his subjects (which included residents of Juffure) could be purchased without his permission. Haley later admitted that he had picked the year 1767 ("the time the king's soldiers came") to match up with his American research.[3]
THE WALLER FAMILY PLANTATIONHistorians and genealogists who specialised in African-American and American Southern history followed Haley's research paper trail via census records, deed books, plantation documents, and wills, only to conclude that this material "not only [failed] to document his story" but also "[contradicted] each and every pre-Civil War statement" Haley had made.[4] Toby had already been a slave on the Waller family plantation in 1762, five years before the Lord Ligonier had supposedly docked at Annapolis with Kunta Kinte. Haley had apparently only searched for references to Toby in documents dated after 1767: a clear example of confirmation bias. Toby had also almost certainly died before 1782, eight years before Haley claimed Toby's daughter had been born. The Waller family did not have a cook named Bell. Dr. Waller did not own his own plantation but rather lived on his brother's property. Even if Toby had had a daughter, no records mentioned her, much less that her name was Kizzy; in fact there were no records of anyone named Kizzy at all.[5]
The next documentary paper Haley used after the 1767 deed reference to Toby was the 1870 census listing for Tom Murray's household, resulting in a gap of over 90 years between the two pieces of evidence. Relying solely on his family's oral tradition to span that near-century, Haley settled on a narrative that did and does not align with actual documented history.
TOM LEA, ZOMBIE?Despite Haley's claim that Tom Lea had been born into a poor family, he actually grew up on a wealthy plantation household; regardless, there were no records of a woman named Kizzy or her son George amongst Tom Lea's slaves, nor of a man named George who married a woman named Matilda. Haley claimed that Tom Lea had encountered financial difficulty in the 1850s, but Tom Lea had died sometime during the winter of 1844 or 1845, meaning his financial circumstances must have been dire indeed.
ALSO IT WASN'T LEGAL AT THE TIMEHaley wrote that Tom Lea (alive or undead) had sent George to England on his behalf sometime in the 1850s, but the practice of slavery was not legal in England or Wales, and was unsupported under both statute and common law, as had been established in 1772.[6] The British Slavery Abolition Act had functionally eliminated the practice within British and overseas territories around the year 1833 (with a notable exception of territories controlled by the East India Company, and with a generous amount of leeway for indentured servitude which served fundamentally an identical role). Had George really been sent to England, he would have become a free man (and presumably British citizen).
PLAGIARISM, PART IIn 1977 Haley was charged with plagiarism by Harold Courlander, an anthropologist who claimed that Roots had significantly copied from his 1967 novel [b:The African|1238355|The African|Harold Courlander|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388368326l/1238355._SX50_.jpg|1226998]. Legal proceedings concluded late in 1978, settled out of court with Haley paying $650 000 (equivalent to roughly $2.6 million today) to Courlander. Haley was also required to acknowledge that certain passages within his novel had been copied, at times almost verbatim, from Courlander's.
Courlander claimed that Haley had copied 81 distinct passages from his novel. His pre-trial memorandum discussing copyright infringement stated:
Defendant Haley had access to and substantially copied from The African. Without The African, Roots would have been a very different and less successful novel, and indeed it is doubtful that Mr. Haley could have written Roots without The African. [...] Mr. Haley copied language, thoughts, attitudes, incidents, situations, plot and character.The lawsuit did not actually allege that The African's plot had been copied in its entirety; the two novels differed significantly. Although Haley maintained throughout the trial that he had not even heard of Courlander's novel until the year after his own had been published, selections from The African were found stapled to a manuscript page from Roots. The copying was deemed to be "significant and extensive."
PLAGIARISM, PART IIAround the same time Courlander sued Haley, author Margaret Walker Alexander claimed that Haley had similarly plagiarised from her 1966 novel [b:Jubilee|1649101|Jubilee|Margaret Walker|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1223624354l/1649101._SY75_.jpg|558452]. This case was dismissed as unsubstantiated after the court compared the contents of the two and found "no actionable similarities exist[ed] between the works."
//
[1] A griot is a member of a hereditary caste among the peoples of western Africa whose function is to keep an oral history of the tribe or village and to entertain with stories, poems, songs, dances, etc.
[2] Uprooting Kunta Kinte: On the Perils of Relying on Encyclopedic Informants (JSTOR).
[3] Rooting Up Haley's Legacy (WaPo archive).
[4] "Roots and the New 'Faction': A Legitimate Tool for Clio?" (The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography).
[5] The Genealogist's Assessment of Alex Haley's Roots (National Genealogical Society Quarterly).
[6] "Roots: The Saga Continues" (Lakeland Ledger).
The author originally billed this as a fairly accurate non-fictional family history (though with an embellished narrative), but later research by experts disproved most of the connections he made, people he mentioned, and even some of the locations he wrote about. There was also a lawsuit regarding plagiarism that he settled.
Nonetheless, if you read this as fiction, it gives a good account of the experiences of slaves in colonial mid-Atlantic America through the Civil War. There are some issues with pacing - there's a very long and in depth exploration of Kunta Kinte, but once it moves on from him, things feel much more rushed and the writing suffers. I also felt like it glossed over many of the worst atrocities slaves experienced both before and after the Civil War. The slave owners in the story were, with only a few exceptions, pretty reasonable people, and the book only gives a few small glimpses into the physical and sexual abuse people experienced, the separation of families, and the life of slaves working in the fields on cotton and tobacco plantations (the field hands directly discussed in the book were not described as having the hellish lives you hear about from the deep south plantation slaves, and the only 'overseer' mentioned in depth was actually a very nice young white guy who was happy to work alongside the field slaves on a friendly owner's small farm). After the end of the Civil War, the descendants of Kunta Kinte moved along pretty quickly into decent lives, with no major descriptions of the hatred for black Americans that followed the war, the challenges faced when people tried to live even the most quiet of lives, let alone own businesses or aspire to be contributing members of a community. I think the author realized how long the book already was, and felt as though he needed to wrap it up quickly, thus skipping over many of the major issues that the later generations would have faced. It made the structure of the book very strange, after so much time spent on the day to day experiences of Kunta Kinte and the challenges he faced. Even successive generation became less interesting and much more of a quick sketch.
This is still an interesting fictional story and I enjoyed the audiobook version as the narrator, Avery Brooks, does a fantastic job.
Nonetheless, if you read this as fiction, it gives a good account of the experiences of slaves in colonial mid-Atlantic America through the Civil War. There are some issues with pacing - there's a very long and in depth exploration of Kunta Kinte, but once it moves on from him, things feel much more rushed and the writing suffers. I also felt like it glossed over many of the worst atrocities slaves experienced both before and after the Civil War. The slave owners in the story were, with only a few exceptions, pretty reasonable people, and the book only gives a few small glimpses into the physical and sexual abuse people experienced, the separation of families, and the life of slaves working in the fields on cotton and tobacco plantations (the field hands directly discussed in the book were not described as having the hellish lives you hear about from the deep south plantation slaves, and the only 'overseer' mentioned in depth was actually a very nice young white guy who was happy to work alongside the field slaves on a friendly owner's small farm). After the end of the Civil War, the descendants of Kunta Kinte moved along pretty quickly into decent lives, with no major descriptions of the hatred for black Americans that followed the war, the challenges faced when people tried to live even the most quiet of lives, let alone own businesses or aspire to be contributing members of a community. I think the author realized how long the book already was, and felt as though he needed to wrap it up quickly, thus skipping over many of the major issues that the later generations would have faced. It made the structure of the book very strange, after so much time spent on the day to day experiences of Kunta Kinte and the challenges he faced. Even successive generation became less interesting and much more of a quick sketch.
This is still an interesting fictional story and I enjoyed the audiobook version as the narrator, Avery Brooks, does a fantastic job.
On my shelf forever, this quasi-historical book, based on Haley's deep research into his family's history, simply couldn't be any better. An incredible look into America's past, and back into the Africa from which so many of its black citizens are descended, all tied together by the terrific story-telling ability of Haley. If you loved the mini-series and never read the book, put it on your short list - as usual, the book is even better!
challenging
emotional
hopeful
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
I tried but after 90 pages, I give up. I was so excited to read this for the first time, but unless I want to die of boredom, I need to stop.
Why do I need to know about every blade of grass? Why is everything single day described in minutes detail? I'm on page 90 and Kunta is about to underground his manhood training. At least, I think he is, but after reading about ten pages describing what its like to sit alone somewhere with a hood on doing nothing, I just don't care anymore.
Why do I need to know about every blade of grass? Why is everything single day described in minutes detail? I'm on page 90 and Kunta is about to underground his manhood training. At least, I think he is, but after reading about ten pages describing what its like to sit alone somewhere with a hood on doing nothing, I just don't care anymore.
3/5. The story wouldn't have been as gripping if it was not an interesting historical fiction. While the ancestry may be real, as well as historical milestones, certainly the day-to-day events and conversations are not. Interesting, but not white-knuckle 'gripping' sort of story. Amalgams, in the authors words, and historical, but fictionalized. Interesting that even though a lineage is described, Alex Haley uses the words "much of what I have been able conventionally to corroborate with documents." This guy spent years research and over a half a million miles, he says, but still does not have hard proof of this lineage, but presents it as such. Still strong and evocative. I found the last 20 pages, of the search and meeting of the griot to be the most emotional.
One thing I find interesting, alluded to here, but yet unexplored in any slave drama I read, is the alignment of abolitionists to side with religious sects. I am unsure how true it is that Quakers and Protestants and Methodists would be abolitionists; and competing sects of Christianity of (assuming, but unmentioned in this book) Baptists and ?maybe? Catholics would be pro-slavery. How true is that alignment of creed to slavery? or even, was there an alignment? I'd venture to say that Islam was not a factor for American slave owners or abolitionists (in Mauritania, slavery was abolished 3 times, in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007).
Please read ebookwormy1's review on the factuality of _Roots_ and possible plagiarism, and calls to question those last 20 pages that are so moving. To me, one of the more questionable parts of the book was the part about West Africans being Muslim. While I am no expert, I thought the Muslims were, at the time of slavers, more Mediterranean, and north and east of the Sahara, while the West Coast Africa religions were still tribally voodoo/vudon - each tribe had their own variation, like the multitude of languages. Whereas if they all embraced Islam and read from the Koran, they would all share the same language; this is not the case. Whether this is a facet of reality or imagination of the author, who also wrote Malcolm X's auto-biography (how can it be an autobiography if someone else writes it?) with it's unequivocal embracement of Islam... I cannot say, but it seems, well, just too 'forced' to me.
Reading this book written by an educated Black man, the proud history of an ancestral family, which has worked its way to overcome overwhelming hardships, many families and siblings successful despite everything ... how do we arrive at the situation of 2020, where the picture painted by the media is nobody makes it and everyone lives in abject poverty? Where the oral traditions of black ancestors talk of (some of) those white folks, even slave owners, helping the black folks (not setting them free, but allowing them to live, in some case, better than "the po' crackers from South Car'liny") to todays' talk broad brush strokes that nobody ever helped Anyone and it was nothing but DAILY brutal back-tearing whippings and abuse and starvation that white folks never experienced. I am sure it ran the gamut, but you don't hear that from today's media.
There is a good story in here, but you kinda gotta sift through to find it. I feel some parts of the fictionalized story seem to have an 'agenda' (Islam, for exmaple, as mentioned above). In any historical work of fiction, some it is true. I am sure some is overstated. I am sure some of it is understated. I am also sure that each family and ancestral stories would vary more widely; some better, some worse. Surely some in the deep south are much worse, whereas in VA it could very believable to be like this (even Frederick Douglass had a 'good' white woman misses owner for a while [she still owned a person, hence the good in quotes], but most only remember the truly mean, and evil folk and think that was the same for everybody). It would be unfair to paint the entire past as better (as some believe the "white man's history" tell us) or to paint it all as worse (as some believe is the 1619 project). The truth lies somewhere in between, probably like what is presented here - where some is bad, some truly horrid, some better, but none of it great - all depending on time, place and owner.
One thing I find interesting, alluded to here, but yet unexplored in any slave drama I read, is the alignment of abolitionists to side with religious sects. I am unsure how true it is that Quakers and Protestants and Methodists would be abolitionists; and competing sects of Christianity of (assuming, but unmentioned in this book) Baptists and ?maybe? Catholics would be pro-slavery. How true is that alignment of creed to slavery? or even, was there an alignment? I'd venture to say that Islam was not a factor for American slave owners or abolitionists (in Mauritania, slavery was abolished 3 times, in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007).
Please read ebookwormy1's review on the factuality of _Roots_ and possible plagiarism, and calls to question those last 20 pages that are so moving. To me, one of the more questionable parts of the book was the part about West Africans being Muslim. While I am no expert, I thought the Muslims were, at the time of slavers, more Mediterranean, and north and east of the Sahara, while the West Coast Africa religions were still tribally voodoo/vudon - each tribe had their own variation, like the multitude of languages. Whereas if they all embraced Islam and read from the Koran, they would all share the same language; this is not the case. Whether this is a facet of reality or imagination of the author, who also wrote Malcolm X's auto-biography (how can it be an autobiography if someone else writes it?) with it's unequivocal embracement of Islam... I cannot say, but it seems, well, just too 'forced' to me.
Reading this book written by an educated Black man, the proud history of an ancestral family, which has worked its way to overcome overwhelming hardships, many families and siblings successful despite everything ... how do we arrive at the situation of 2020, where the picture painted by the media is nobody makes it and everyone lives in abject poverty? Where the oral traditions of black ancestors talk of (some of) those white folks, even slave owners, helping the black folks (not setting them free, but allowing them to live, in some case, better than "the po' crackers from South Car'liny") to todays' talk broad brush strokes that nobody ever helped Anyone and it was nothing but DAILY brutal back-tearing whippings and abuse and starvation that white folks never experienced. I am sure it ran the gamut, but you don't hear that from today's media.
There is a good story in here, but you kinda gotta sift through to find it. I feel some parts of the fictionalized story seem to have an 'agenda' (Islam, for exmaple, as mentioned above). In any historical work of fiction, some it is true. I am sure some is overstated. I am sure some of it is understated. I am also sure that each family and ancestral stories would vary more widely; some better, some worse. Surely some in the deep south are much worse, whereas in VA it could very believable to be like this (even Frederick Douglass had a 'good' white woman misses owner for a while [she still owned a person, hence the good in quotes], but most only remember the truly mean, and evil folk and think that was the same for everybody). It would be unfair to paint the entire past as better (as some believe the "white man's history" tell us) or to paint it all as worse (as some believe is the 1619 project). The truth lies somewhere in between, probably like what is presented here - where some is bad, some truly horrid, some better, but none of it great - all depending on time, place and owner.
challenging
dark
informative
sad
slow-paced
While I think this ought to be read by all Americans because of it's historical value, it isn't a great read.
Oh this is absolutely the best generational fiction (nonfiction???) I've ever read.
challenging
dark
hopeful
sad
medium-paced