Scan barcode
A review by ryner
Benjamin Banneker and Us: Eleven Generations of an American Family by Rachel Jamison Webster
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.0
Born into a family of freemen (and women!) in 1731, at a time when the majority of people of African descent in America were enslaved, Benjamin Banneker became a highly respected autodidact in a number of fields, including astronomy, mathematics, mechanics and nature. He was also the creator of a popular series of almanacs in the late 1700s and one of the original surveyors of Washington, D.C. When Rachel Jamison Webster learned that one of her ancestors was Banneker's sibling Jemima, she became immersed in her family history, connecting with distant cousins on long-forgotten branches of her family tree — but there was one detail that complicated Webster's connection to the past: her side of the family was white. At one significant point in time, one of her ancestors had made a choice to "pass," which undoubtedly opened additional doors of opportunity, but which also would have fatefully cut them off from their own families and subsequently obscured their history for their descendants.
As a genealogy and history buff, I am entranced by stories of family research, discovery and secrets. From that angle, Webster's story was fascinating. I empathized strongly with Webster's desire to reconnect to a part of her heritage previously unknown to her, but I also could feel the awkwardness in being the white person whose ancestors essentially abandoned and denied their own family members. It isn't at all surprising that some of her newfound kin would be suspicious of her motives, despite her having no less of a genetic claim to Banneker than they. From this reader's perspective, she seems to have treated the Banneker saga with appropriate sensitivity and respect, but I can only hope the rest of the family feels the same.
Having said the above, I really struggle with nonfiction books that blur the lines between known facts and the author's fanciful imaginings. Webster refers to her writing as "creative nonfiction," but even the best examples of this genre (of which I am fond) wisely steer clear of completely fabricated dialogue and invented scenes, or purporting to know the characters' innermost thoughts and feelings. The weakest parts of this work are when Webster begins a passage with "I imagine that [character] would have..." but then a few sentences later forgets she is merely surmising, and dives right into making confident assertions that are in fact entirely speculative. The reader can only guess whether any given passage is based on actual primary sources. This grated on me more and more as the story went on and, as interesting as I thought the book was, I cannot forgive Webster just making things up to fill pages — that's called fiction.
I received this ARC via LibraryThing's Early Reviewers program.
As a genealogy and history buff, I am entranced by stories of family research, discovery and secrets. From that angle, Webster's story was fascinating. I empathized strongly with Webster's desire to reconnect to a part of her heritage previously unknown to her, but I also could feel the awkwardness in being the white person whose ancestors essentially abandoned and denied their own family members. It isn't at all surprising that some of her newfound kin would be suspicious of her motives, despite her having no less of a genetic claim to Banneker than they. From this reader's perspective, she seems to have treated the Banneker saga with appropriate sensitivity and respect, but I can only hope the rest of the family feels the same.
Having said the above, I really struggle with nonfiction books that blur the lines between known facts and the author's fanciful imaginings. Webster refers to her writing as "creative nonfiction," but even the best examples of this genre (of which I am fond) wisely steer clear of completely fabricated dialogue and invented scenes, or purporting to know the characters' innermost thoughts and feelings. The weakest parts of this work are when Webster begins a passage with "I imagine that [character] would have..." but then a few sentences later forgets she is merely surmising, and dives right into making confident assertions that are in fact entirely speculative. The reader can only guess whether any given passage is based on actual primary sources. This grated on me more and more as the story went on and, as interesting as I thought the book was, I cannot forgive Webster just making things up to fill pages — that's called fiction.
I received this ARC via LibraryThing's Early Reviewers program.