Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} The Silencing of Ruby McCollum Race Class and Gender in the South by Tammy Evans Reviews The Silencing of Ruby McCollum. Ruby McCollum, a black woman, was tried for murdering a white doctor who she claimed mentally and physically abused her. Evans uses the trial--which was covered by novelist Zora Neale Hurston--to examine the institutionalized silence that surrounded black women in the 1950s South. --MS Magazine. A superb study that those interested in history, literature, gender and race studies, and the politics of oppression will find invaluable in understanding the ongoing complexities of race relations informed by gender and class in the United States. --Journal of Southern History. An interesting book about the rhetoric of silence. Evans cleverly shows how fear, race, class, gender, power, and silence all contributed to the crafting of a public Ruby McCollum and in doing so gives McCollum a voice. --The Historian. Evans presents an intriguing and compelling study of the race, gender, and class dynamics of segregated small-town Florida at mid-century. -- Tampa Bay History. Reveals the powerful memory work accomplished by southerners’ reticence or refusal to speak. . . . [and] demonstrates the rhetorical value of muteness and the scholarly value of looking at public memory as a product not only of stuff but also of absence. --H-Net Reviews. A tour de force that locates the unique forms of control and persuasion enacted by southern culture, and their meaning for the writing of history and historical memory alike. . . . A tremendously successful and engaging book. --Florida Historical Quarterly. The Silencing of Ruby McCollum : Race, Class, and Gender in the South. Available. Expected delivery to the Russian Federation in 11-23 business days. Description. The Silencing of Ruby McCollum refutes the carefully constructed public memory of one of the most famous-and under-examined-biracial murders in American history. On August 3, 1952, African American housewife Ruby McCollum drove to the office of Dr. C. LeRoy Adams, beloved white physician in the segregated small town of Live Oak, Florida. With her two young children in tow, McCollum calmly gunned down the doctor during (according to public sentiment) "an argument over a medical bill." Soon, a very different motive emerged, with McCollum alleging horrific mental and physical abuse at Adams's hand. In reaction to these allegations and an increasingly intrusive media presence, the town quickly cobbled together what would become the public facade of Adams's murder-a more "acceptable" motive for McCollum's actions. To ensure this would become the official version of events, McCollum's trial prosecutors voiced multiple objections during her testimony to limit what she was allowed to say. Employing multiple methodologies to achieve her voice-historical research, feminist theory, African American literary criticism, African American history, and investigative journalism-Evans analyzes the texts surrounding the affair to suggest that an imposed code of silence demands not only the construction of an official story but also the transformation of a community's citizens into agents who will reproduce and perpetuate this version of events, improbable and unlikely though they may be. show more. You Belong to Me. "My name is Dr. Tammy Evans, and I wrote a book, "The Silencing of Ruby McCollum: Race, Class and Gender in the South." I grew up in Live Oak. i was born in Live Oak, and the Ruby McCollum case is a case that has always puzzled and also fascinated me, which is the reason that I chose to research and write the book. I remember hearing about Ruby McCollum actually when I was a very young child. And, I had heard the name, and I asked my parents at the dinner table, I said, "Who was Ruby McCollum?" And my parents told me that I was not to talk about that." “ Live Oak to me as a little girl was idyllic. It was Old South at its best. Women were beautiful, and men were kind. And they called me sugar and protected me and made sure that nothing bad ever happened to me.” “ When I was growing up in Live Oak, I knew instinctively, not because anybody ever said it, but because I saw it, that segregation was not only evident, and existed in Live Oak, but it was almost organic in its nature. It was something that just was. I never questioned it, and it's, it's funny to think about, because my parents always and my friend's parents, everybody that I knew, the watchwords were, you had to be nice to everybody. Had to be very nice, and polite. That's the way I was raised.” “And, it's ironic that those tenets were taught by adults that had domestic workers that were not allowed to use the plates and spoons in the kitchen, and brought their own cup from home to drink from. But, as far as who taught me and everybody else in Live Oak about racism, nobody did. It didn't need to be taught, because it was acted. And we learned from observation.” "Dr. Adams was an enigma wrapped in a mystery. Dr. Adams was a multifaceted individual. On the one side of the prism, he was beloved, because he would treat individuals that were ill and not charge them, because he was a good man. A very good man. On the other side of the prism, there was a man that was profoundly cruel. He was said to not care about the people that he treated, the only reason that he did medical treatment for free was because he wanted votes." “Whatever was missing in the Democrat's coverage, The Pittsburgh Courier made every effort to attempt to report. Uh, so they contacted Zora Neale Hurston, and sent her to Live Oak to get the true story, the real story. Zora Neale was not successful in doing that. Mostly what she did was attempt to talk to people, but by that time, and I believe from day one, minute one, the story had already been established and written, Ruby shot Dr. Adams over a medical bill, nothing more. So Zora Neale was not very successful. She talked to several people, but as is common in Live Oak, people can talk but they don't say anything. And, that's what Zora Neale experienced in Live Oak. People were unwilling to talk to her about the case, even though she was an African American, they would not talk. “Perhaps they were frightened, perhaps they had been told not to talk, perhaps they did not want to risk losing their jobs, their homes, or having a cross burned in their yard, we don't know. But, Zora Neale and The Pittsburgh Courier had a huge role in popularizing the Dr. Adams story, and their coverage was a little bit of blue journalism. They needed to sell newspapers, and they needed to make a profit, and so they reported what would make an exciting, salacious story.” “In Live Oak in the '50s, black women did not shoot white men. It had never happened before, it was a crime that was unheard of, unspeakable, which made it all the more, unbelievable. Yet, it was real, and it was true, and Live Oak knew that it was real, and that it had happened, because the newspapers nationwide would not let them believe otherwise.” “ Because anything else did not fit into the reality that Live Oak knew. Black women did not shoot white men. And yet, it had happened. And it's almost as if the Democrat's voice, by ignoring the possible motive for that shooting, hoped that it would make it not exist. That they could cover it, spackle it with what they wanted to be the truth. And it's not, it's not that the Democrat was false in its reporting, it just omitted that that was unpleasant, that which could cause discord in the community, that which could have outsiders question the way things worked in Live Oak. Which for many years had been a very peaceful, calm reality where everyone knew their place, and everyone knew what side of the city they lived on, and why they did.” “It must have been very difficult for Ruby. Before the murder, she had been someone. She had been someone special. She had had wealth and husband and family and a place. And then suddenly after the murder, she becomes a non-entity. And she struggles mightily to rebuild and reclaim and to have a voice, and she does testify at the trial, but she is silenced on so much that she wants to say, and she attempts to say, but is not allowed to say.” “The voice that she does have comes through in the letters that she writes from jail, uh, to William Bradford Huie and to others. They are so heart- wrenching, both in their content but also in the literal handwriting, you can see it deteriorate over the years. She is frantic to talk. She is frantic to tell her side of the story. Uh, she says that to William Bradford Huie in one of the notes, she says, I want you to come so that I can tell my story.” “And I think that it's, it's wonderfully consistent the way the word story keeps coming up in this entire case. Entire event. Because when you hear the word story, you think fiction. And this was not a story. This was something very real. “And, you keep hearing, I want to tell my story, when all Ruby really wanted to do was to tell her version of the truth, which, again, we'll never know what happened that day. We'll never know for a fact.” “ But, she wasn't allowed to speak. And, as far as what story came out, the story evolved exactly the way the community of Live Oak wanted it to. That was the way it went. The issue of the medical bill is an interesting one, because witnesses recall Ruby and Dr. Adams arguing about something. And, what was said was something to the effect of, You will pay. And, the medical bill was never introduced.” “It was never shown. And, I think that currency in this trial plays a huge role. Who is going to pay for what? And I think that the price of Ruby's testimony, it's interesting that it is an absent bill. Uh, we will never know what the bill said. We will never even know if there was a bill. But it's very symbolic, I think, that an absent bill for payment is the key that cannot be produced and is not discussed.” “ The Ruby McCollum story is for us now in retrospect a story that can teach us a great deal. However, what is going to be taught is certainly not about Ruby McCollum. As much as different sources would like to say they have the answers to all of the questions that were raised during the Ruby McCollum trial, during the Ruby McCollum event and the years afterwards, when it continued to be something that was not discussed, what the case really does when we look back at Ruby McCollum, is it teaches us an awful lot about ourselves and our culture in the South and the perspective that we bring with us from that place.” “And the perspective of 1952 is different from the perspective today. But I think that looking back on the events of 1952, out of that horrible tragedy that destroyed so many lives and hurt so many people, that some good can come from that today.” “There are people that would say that all of the Ruby McCollum tragedy happened years ago, that we just need to forget it and move on. It destroyed so many people and hurt so many people, and it continues to have a ripple effect. But, the thing that we can take away from this, is that in the, in the larger sense, the story of our nation and the story of us as a nation of individuals, both black and white, is not answers to what happened during the murder.” "What is important today is that we continue to ask the big questions that were not either voiced loud enough to prevent tragedy and hurt back then, but that today, if we ask them, at least we can prevent perhaps and take one small step forward in addressing issues of inequity.” “How do we define ourselves as a nation? Do we continue to define ourselves as a divided nation of North and South, with differing views and differing values? Do we continue to sweep under the rug unpleasant, difficult questions of race and class? Or do we finally address them? Not that we can fix anything, but at least we can talk about it. And that's what didn't happen during Ruby's ordeal. There was just silence. And an established story that had been perpetuated. And, as an American, as a writer, as a woman, I don't want to perpetuate anything. I want us as a nation to not be afraid of change.” “And not be afraid of the positive change that can happen from examining difficult very, very undefineable events. Because we can't get to answers, but we at least now can define the questions that need to be asked. And that's what I hoped to do in my book. I never believed, once I had finished with the manuscript, that I had answered anything. All I had done was become one more voice in the telling of this story. And the language that I used and focused on in my telling of the story was not language or words at all, it was what was unsaid. And oftentimes, the most evil that can happen in the world is not from actions, it's from inaction. And I had hoped that my book would in some very small way be a catalyst for positive change, and if not positive change, then at least an awareness that was just perhaps a little bit different and a little bit deeper.” Noted Author Urges Caution in Considering Ruby McCollum Screenplays. Noted author, C. Arthur Ellis, Jr., PhD, grew up with the Ruby McCollum story in his hometown of Live Oak and knew all of the characters. In light of a number of recently submitted screenplays, he shares his concerns about screenplays that potentially violate intellectual property rights and offers his advice to screenwriters, agents, producers, as well as attorneys and bonding agencies. Tampa, FL (PRWEB) July 22, 2013. More than a dozen screenplays on the Ruby McCollum story, relating the 1952 murder trial of a wealthy African-American housewife who shot her white, senator-elect lover, Dr. Leroy Adams, have circulated in Hollywood over the decades. Recently, several additional screenplays have surfaced, and attorneys have been asked to "clear" the material for any possible copyright violations. Several of the screenplays are legitimate, being based upon copyrighted work where permission was given, but most claim to be based upon “public domain” materials. The fact is that very little of the Ruby McCollum story is in the public domain. Newspaper accounts of the time, especially in Florida, were circumspect, reluctant to delve into the sordid underworld that set the scene for the murder. And there were no "rags" in the 1950s to report on the case. Unlike the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., there were no cameras that filmed the event, no TV crews on location during the trial, and no government investigations to enter the public domain. Even telephones were operated by switchboard operators, so long distance calls were rare and expensive. Because it was a time when communication was primitive by current standards, writers who are attracted to the salacious drug, rape and gambling aspects of the story, including scenes with Ruby McCollum, Dr. Adams, Sam McCollum and others, are relying either on primary copyrighted materials, or upon derivative works that are based upon copyrighted materials. Without the copyrighted materials, there is no story line for a screenplay. Many of these derivative works that are so tantalizing to screenwriters do not carry copyrights and have not be challenged by the owners of the copyrights because they are considered “fair use,” in that their use is to relate the Ruby McCollum story for educational reasons, and not for monetary gain. Other works rely on interviews or documentaries with people telling the Ruby McCollum story, not realizing that these people are themselves relying on “false memories” created by reading copyrighted works that tell the story. Most of those interviewed are not old enough to have actual memories of events that climaxed with the murder in 1952. Some writers seem to think that “innocent infringement” is a defense against copyright violation. But this plea only releases the infringer from suit if the work is abandoned—it does not allow the infringer to profit from his or her derivative work, and may still result in damage claims by the copyright holder. Finally, many writers have had their scripts “cleared” by attorneys, only to find that the attorneys are not familiar enough with the details of the story to be able to make an accurate determination. Such “cleared” scripts are still subject to suit, and the inevitable process of discovery will demand proof of public domain material for each and every scene in the screenplay. The material can, in turn, be traced back to the work of the copyright holder, who is much more familiar with their intellectual rights than any outside attorney. One such example is a documentary that was “cleared,” but contained a floor plan of Dr. Adams office, which was copyrighted material that appeared in State of Florida vs. Ruby McCollum, Defendant, published by C. Arthur Ellis, Jr. The documentary producer assumed that this was public domain material, but it was not, as is much of the “transcript” that was liberally reconstructed, annotated and supplemented by the author of that work failing the existence of any extant complete copy of the transcript of the trial. In any event, authors should be aware of the following copyrighted sources for this story before they invest their time in writing screenplays and attempting to sell them. They can then seek permission to base their screenplay on the copyrighted work. Primary works on Ruby McCollum, reported from first-hand experience and under copyright protection: Zora Neale Hurston: 1. “The Life Story of Ruby McCollum” series in the Pittsburgh Courier (copyrights 1952 to 1953). Rights are claimed by the New Pittsburgh Courier, but some rights may be claimed by Hurston estate because Hurston was not fully compensated per her agreement with the paper. Hurston estate also maintains letters and notes on the story that are copyrighted but unpublished. Hurston estate is administered by Lucy Hurston, Hurston’s niece, and archives are maintained in New York offices of attorney for estate. William Bradford Huie: 1. Ruby McCollum: Woman in the Suwannee Jail and republished as The Crime of Ruby McCollum (copyrights 1956 and 1957) 2. “The Strange Case of Ruby McCollum,” by Huie in Ebony Magazine (1954). Promotion for forthcoming book. 3. Screenplay on the Ruby McCollum story commissioned by Huie and now in the Huie archives. Huie Archive also maintains copyrighted and unpublished material on the story. Huie estate is controlled by Huie’s second wife, who was not married to him when he covered the story. Currently, the rights for a screenplay are held by Ms. Jude Hagin of Ocala, Florida, formerly with the Florida Film Commission. Several screenplays previously held rights that have now expired. C. Arthur Ellis, Jr, PhD: 1. RUBY, a screenplay (copyright 2000) 2. The Trial of Ruby McCollum (copyright 2003) 3. Zora Hurston and the Strange Case of Ruby McCollum (copyright 2009) 4. State of Florida vs. Ruby McCollum, Defendant (copyright 2007) 5. CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO GUNS, a screenplay (copyright 2012) 6. Numerous images, including digital reconstruction of Suwannee Democrat headline of murder and illustrations in books, are copyrighted. Ellis also maintains copyrighted, unpublished interviews and tapes, including taped interview with Ruby McCollum’s cell mate at Lowell penitentiary. C. Arthur Ellis, Jr. holds all rights to his work. “Ruby Talks.” Interview with Ruby McCollum in Chattahoochee State Mental Hospital (copyright 1958). Ocala Star Banner: Al Lee, reporter, published several articles in the 1990s as well as an interview with Ruby McCollum at retirement home in Ocala, Florida. She stated that she did not remember the murder. Aspects of the Ruby McCollum story covered in primary, copyrighted works: The work of Hurston covers the first trial of Ruby McCollum, as well as some background investigative work on the life of Ruby McCollum and the talk around Live Oak regarding the murder. The work of Huie covers the appeal of Ruby McCollum’s verdict and the second trial, along with intense investigative work on the background of Ruby McCollum and Dr. Adams. It also covers the failed lawsuit to gain permission for the press to speak with Ruby McCollum. The work of Ellis reconstructs the trial transcript in The Trial of Ruby McCollum, and is published separately and annotated in State of Florida vs. Ruby McCollum, Defendant. The transcript is NOT in the public domain since it was assembled from various partial sources and portions filled in where the transcript were not complete, based upon the author’s interpretation of the flow of the trial testimony. No complete transcript of the trial exists. Also, supplementary material, such as the floor plan of Adams’ office, were never in evidence in the trial and were drawn by the author from memory. Ellis also wrote two books and two screenplays on the story, with scenes unavailable from any other source since Huie's and Hurston's works were investigative reporting and not narrative in nature. Ellis is the only living historian of the Ruby McCollum story who knew all of the characters, and has been an invited guest speaker at the Miami Book Fair International, The Florida Historical Society, the Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Society and had numerous TV and radio interviews, including LA Theatre Works, NPR stations and local television stations. He is currently participating in a student-produced film short on the Ruby McCollum story, for which he will consult on the script and perform voice overs from a first person perspective. The Jet Magazine and Ocala Star Banner articles are the only known first person interviews with the living Ruby McCollum. Huie, Ellis and Hurston never interviewed Ruby McCollum. Derivative Works With Copyright Permission: Everybody’s Ruby, a stage play by Thulani Davis with permission from the Hurston estate (copyright 2000). Ruby McCollum, an audio play by LA Theatre Works with permission from the Huie estate (copyright 1997). Also, 2011 production interviewing C. Arthur Ellis, Jr. regarding his take on the play and his recollections of the story. The Silencing of Ruby McCollum: Race, Class and Gender in the South, published from the doctoral work of Tammy Evans and containing information supplied with permission by Ellis, and the Hurston and Huie estates (copyright 2006). The Other Side of Silence: The Untold Story of Ruby McCollum, a film documentary by Claudia Johnson, Ph.D. with interviews of people who recall town gossip and who have read the work of Ellis, Huie and Hurton (copyright 2010). Film contains floor plan of Adams’ office with copyright permission from Ellis. Film carries an excellent interview with A.K. Black, the prosecuting attorney in the trial. It is the only known extant footage, but Dr. Johnson has thus far declined granting permission to use this footage. Jude Hagin and partners are currently in production of a documentary, with screenplay rights to the story for a future film given by the Huie estate. Derivative Works Without Copyright Permission: Innumerable articles and chapters in newspapers, magazines and books, based upon the works of Hurston and Huie. Web articles and postings, based upon the works of Ellis, Huie and Hurston. Documentaries, based upon the primary works of Ellis, Huie and Hurston and the accounts of living persons who have read these works. These are not primary sources, and most of these contain “false memories” of people who read the works of Ellis, Huie and Hurston. Also, most of those interviewed are not old enough to have actual firsthand memories of events happening prior to or shortly after the murder in 1952. Ellis, the Hurston estate and the Huie estate have not pursued intellectual rights against any of the above since many are considered fair use to the extent that they have not been works for hire, nor have they been sold for a profit. Several works have been taken out of publication since they were intended for sale, contained copyrighted material and were legally challenged. This includes the first edition of Bolita Sam, with the second edition still under consideration for legal action. Pitfalls for writers, producers, attorneys and bonding agencies intending to write, clear, insure or produce a screenplay include the following: 1. Failing to understand that derivative works in the public domain are not free from the copyright protections held by the original authors from which they were derived. 2. Failing to understand that “first hand” current accounts are based upon “false memories” of people who read copyrighted material. 3. Failing to understand that writers who have heard or read the primary copyrighted materials tend to internalize characters, scenes and events and re-write scenarios based upon these materials. 4. Failing to understand that all of the details of the Ruby McCollum story are in material copyrighted by the afore-mentioned sources, including the published trial transcript. In short, anyone interested in creating a screenplay on the Ruby McCollum story should pursue the safe path of contacting the copyright holders of these materials to clear their work. Finally, relying on the advice of attorneys is no guarantee that the script is free of copyright violations and is not a legal defense. Remember, it is not the attorney who will be sued, it is the people who hired him to clear the script. The Silencing of Ruby Mccollum : Race, Class, and Gender in the South by Tammy D. Evans (2016, Trade Paperback) С самой низкой ценой, совершенно новый, неиспользованный, неоткрытый, неповрежденный товар в оригинальной упаковке (если товар поставляется в упаковке). Упаковка должна быть такой же, как упаковка этого товара в розничных магазинах, за исключением тех случаев, когда товар является изделием ручной работы или был упакован производителем в упаковку не для розничной продажи, например в коробку без маркировки или в пластиковый пакет. См. подробные сведения с дополнительным описанием товара.