Headline: Knowing Natchez by It’s Dead

I chose to read Knowing Natchez by It’s Dead because I was interested in reading more about Mississippi. I am not from Mississippi, but have lived close enough to it all of my life to hear about it. My family grew up in Mississippi and I would listen to their stories. Mississippi to me was putting up a good image and looking nice and making sure that no one “aired their dirty laundry.” But Mississippi to other people isn’t always the same. To my friend from Missouri thought Mississippi was hick and redneck and old fashioned. I’ve come to realize that neither are completely accurate or inaccurate. Thompson touched on this in his article, but there is a duality of the place that is also mentioned in this article. The article looks at Natchez, Mississippi and looks at all the reasons why it breaks the stereotype of Mississippi. 

I think that what works the most in this article is the fact that Richard Rubin uses a cemetery to show why that is true. He breaks down the foundational argument for many of the “backwards” things that Mississippi is known for. A lot of people hold onto things like the flag because they are history or tradition. Rubin shows that real history and tradition, at least in Natchez, Mississippi, isn’t as clear as that. He breaks down these stereotypes by pointing out a couple of things. The first thing he points out is the fact that ‘Economic historians will tell you that Natchez was the richest town per capita in the United States from about 1820 to 1860.’ The second thing he points out is that ‘Natchez voted against slavery.’ These two statements seem to break down the argument that Mississippi is historically poor and racist. Yet he doesn’t say that Mississippi isn’t racist either. He states that they simply knew that ‘secession was bad for business.’ I think the thing that works so well here is the fact that he doesn’t ever say what Mississippi is or isn’t. He works to simply complicate the narrative and let the reader come to their own conclusions. 

I think one of the other things that he does really well is show the complicated parts of Natchez through glimpses into the life of people that died. Rubin features five grave stones in the cemetery in Natchez. The first was the secretary to the last Spanish governor of Natchez. The second was a black man who was emancipated by his slave owner, owned plantations, a barber shop and slaves. He was killed in a land dispute. The third was a 7-year-old girl who was the casualty of union shelling after a group of old confederates provoked them. The forth was a prostitute, and the fifth was a dog. By showing just these glimpses into the complicated culmination of people in one city, Rubin shows that there is more than one whitewashed state. I think he does a great job of saying things without expressly stating them. By using examples instead of by making claims, he gives his argument a compelling source of evidence. 

I think that the only thing that bothered me about the article was the ending. I thought that it was relevant, but I also thought that it shifted quite quickly. Rubin goes from talking about dogs in graveyards to the 2016 legislature about LGBT members. I think that they are both relevant pieces to the story, but I wish their had been a smoother transition at that moment.