<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.1/JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article dtd-version="1.1" article-type="book-review"
    xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
    <front>
        <journal-meta>
            <journal-id>JFRR</journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                <journal-title>Journal of Folklore Research Reviews</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
            <issn pub-type="epub">2832-8132</issn>
            <publisher>
                <publisher-name>IU ScholarWorks</publisher-name>
            </publisher>
        </journal-meta>
        <article-meta>
            <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">39497</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>Jacob Hardesty - Review of Malinda Maynor Lowery, Lumbee Indians in the Jim Crow South</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Jacob Hardesty</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                    <aff></aff>
                    <address>
                        <email></email>
                    </address>
                </contrib>
            </contrib-group>
            <pub-date publication-format="epub" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2021">
                <year>2010</year>
            </pub-date>
            <product product-type="book">
                <person-group>
                    <name>
                        <surname>Malinda Maynor Lowery</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                </person-group>
                <source>Lumbee Indians in the Jim Crow South
                </source>
                <series></series>
                <year iso-8601-date="2021">2010</year>
                <publisher-loc>Chapel Hill</publisher-loc>
                <publisher-name>University of North Carolina Press</publisher-name>
                <page-range>376 pages</page-range>
                <price></price>
                <isbn>978-0807871119 (soft cover)</isbn>
            </product>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Reviewers retain copyright and grant JFRR the right of first publication with the review simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share or redistribute reviews with an acknowledgment of the review's original authorship and initial publication JFRR.</copyright-statement>
            </permissions>
        </article-meta>
    </front>
    <body>
        <p>In <italic>Lumbee Indians in the Jim Crow South</italic>, Malinda Maynor Lowery (herself
            a Lumbee) examines how Indians who define and organize themselves by kin relations—not
            blood—must negotiate their relative autonomy in the Jim Crow South. Hers is a story
            localized largely to Robeson County, North Carolina, in which Indians adopt a variety of
            terms to please many white state and federal government officials. Only complicating
            matters, Lumbee identity was far from homogeneous. Examples include class issues wrapped
            up in living locations (“town,” “progressive,” and “swamp” Indians) and differing views
            of whites as adversaries or accomodationists. Indeed, Lowery’s narrative shifts
            frequently between notions of collective Lumbee identity and intra-group divisions. Such
            changes may initially seem problematic. But, more accurately, they serve to articulate
            the shifting parameters of identity that Indians had to negotiate. As she writes, Lowery
            questions how Lumbees “can divide and yet remain intact” (253).</p>
        <p>Though Lowery’s focus remains Robeson County’s Indians (and the variety of titles they
            appropriate, mostly “Lumbee”), she does not ignore the ideas and ideals of powerful
            whites. Indeed, the role of whites is to set the parameters around which Lumbees
            respond. Lumbees employ tactics to retain their institutions and rights, according to
            the “markers that Whites . . . thought were important,” (117). Certainly, Lumbee notions
            of “self” become increasingly reliant on whites and their values in the twentieth
            century. This is perhaps most evident in the changing titles Indians lobby for beginning
            in the 1910s. Indians’ rationale becomes less a semantic or historical than a practical
            response to conditions they faced.</p>
        <p>Lowery divides the book into seven chapters, along with an introduction and conclusion.
            The chapters are roughly laid out chronologically from the post-Reconstruction to the
            Indian New Deal. Lowery does give herself some license to jump around temporally when
            necessary. Such leaps inform her writing, and do not distract from the larger direction
            of her narrative. The book is thoroughly researched and draws on a variety of sources
            from archival to oral to visual. Lowery is careful to distinguish between them in the
            text and gives verbal cues to indicate when she relies on oral sources. She begins each
            chapter with a picture, then proceeds to contemplate the conditions that surround it.
            That is, she uses these figures as a means to begin each chapter’s topical discussion.
            The appendix also contains five genealogical charts of some of the book’s major
            characters. The thoroughly documented footnotes indicate she drew on primary sources
            such as the newspaper <italic>The Robesonian</italic>, personal correspondence, and
            historical censuses. Indeed, given Lowery’s topic and sources, hers is an ethnohistory
            in the classic sense of the word. [1]</p>
        <p>One theme that surfaces frequently, though often briefly, throughout the book is the
            different conditions of Indians and blacks. Certainly, we do encounter instances where
            Indians faced discrimination similar to that of blacks. Two examples are the
            modern/premodern dichotomy whites used to define themselves to each group, and labor
            occupations like sharecropping. But the available and realized responses to such
            conditions often distinguish blacks from Indians. Schools are a prominent example of
            difference here. Whereas blacks at this time were just beginning to think about
            integration, Indians wanted to maintain separate schools. For Lumbees, maintaining an
            educative space separate from Whites was an important means of maintaining identity.
            Even the grossly inequitable distribution of financial resources did not dampen this
            need for separate schools. Ultimately, we see how the goals and the options available to
            both Indians and blacks worked differently in same region of the country.</p>
        <p>Despite its focus on Robeson County, Lowery’s book opens up various topics for wider
            discussion. Certainly, this is a valuable contribution to Native American history. The
            depth of Lowery’s research allows divisions within the Indian community to show through.
            She skillfully deconstructs what it meant to be “Indian,” the rigidity and flexibility
            often simultaneously associated with that term. But her book also contributes
            significantly to historical literature on Southern and even African-American studies.
            The book is an all-too-rare foray into contemplated and acted-on responses to
            segregation. Ultimately, <italic>Lumbee Indians in the Jim Crow South</italic> succeeds
            by refining—if not complicating—our views of segregation in the South. White supremacy
            (a term she frequently employs) comes across here in a more nuanced manner than when
            focusing just on white/black relations. We begin to see the rights whites were willing
            to allow to Indians, and those they fought to restrict. In this regard, the book
            deserves a spot on the bookshelves of not only Native American scholars but also
            African-American scholars and those interested in the dynamics of race in the Jim Crow
            South. Highly recommended.</p>
        <p>WORK CITED</p>
        <p>Trigger, Bruce. “Ethnohistory: Problems and Perspectives.” <italic>Ethnohistory</italic>
            29 (1982): 1–19.</p>
        
        <p>--------</p>
        <p>[Review length: 782 words • Review posted on August 13, 2010]</p>
        
        
    </body>
</article>