3005WSP09

Branching off on the discussion of whether Stowe's novel is a "good" book, I would have to say that I think it is, based on the fact that it is highly emotional. In my opinion, emotions are what drives any story, even stories written by men. Douglass was going for anger and disgust which disguises its emotional appeal because those emotions aren't as cliche as weepy and sad ones, like in Stowe's story. However, I think that the fact that Stowe incorporated those emotions in her novel and was able to make people feel them (thus generating their critique of her) shows how great of a writer she was. I think it's sometimes difficult to generate accute emotions because it requires knowledge of language of how to word phrases and knowledge of what kinds of ideas and events are going to stir those up in people. I think that because her novel was emotional, it was better than if it hadn't stirred peoples' hearts at all.

Posted by besaw004 at 8:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found it extremely interesting and rather surprising that she started off her story with Eliza's tale of escape. Eliza's owner was quite humane and seemed to care for his slaves. After reading the introduction for Stowe's writing, I expected it to be filled with horror stories of life as a slave. Instead we see her owner as a kindly man who does not wish to separate a mother from her son. While he does end up doing this, it's something he truly wishes he did not have to do. I expected more like what we get from George's story and the horrors he has experienced. Since Stowe's purpose of her writing is to get across the message that slavery is a horrible practice, I felt it would be better accomplished if she never said a kind word about anyone involved in slavery. She even says that Eliza was happier before she was on the run and wishes she hadn't had to leave her master's house. The message I got from Stowe's writing was that slavery can be okay if only people would treat their slaves humanely, instead of her intended message of all slavery being bad.

Posted by kurzx004 at 2:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am still fascinated with Douglass’s text, and I feel that more could be said regarding his narrative style. We’ve discussed the scene where Douglass saw his Aunt Hester being whipped, but I think it merits more discussion. In this scene, Douglass wants the reader to feel horrified about the “bloody transaction,” and he narrates the scene in very physical terms. He positions himself like the reader, as an observer from a distance (he is in the closet). But there is a rift in this text: Douglass can actually see the red blood dripping, he can feel the warmth of the blood; the reader can only read and imagine this scene. Douglass is aware of the potential disconnect and attempts to rectify this by using physical language (“warmth,” “dripping,” &c.). Douglass meticulously describes how his aunt was tied up, and later narrates in gory detail the demise of Demby as “His mangled body sank out of sight, and blood and brains marked the water where he had stood.”
The use of physical language can possibly help answer the question we had about why he “expected it would be [his] turn next.” Douglass was present in this horror, and physically saw slavery and participated in it. The reader, especially the modern reader, only has this text and can’t possibly comprehend slavery and its horrors. Douglass felt something when he saw the “bloody transaction” that the reader may never be able to feel.

Posted by dayxx169 at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Like someone said before I also found the white people in the narratives to be some what obnoxious. But then there is some discomfort around this issue and I think that it starts up in the early years of education. I still remember when I took AP US History in high school and before reading Douglas and Uncle Tom's Cabin along with talking about slavery as a whole the teacher had to give a little speech about what was appropriate to say. The discomfort that can arise from even reading the material, i believe, comes from the way that we were taught to look at it as well.

When I read Jacob's for another class one of the things that we talked about had to do with our perception of the situation. What did we actually think about when reading it? How do we feel regarding her situation? And then a question that most were uncomfortable with was: Does our perspective change when we put someone of similar ethnicity in the spot of Jacobs? A lot of psychologists and sociologist have argued that people do feel more connected to someone or something that happened in the past when they relate to the people on the basis of ethnicity. A reason why a lot of people have said "My people suffered a long time" or something along those lines. When I read Jacobs I could help but feel bad for her due to everything that she had gone through but at the same time I couldn't feel too bad because she did not experience the harshness of slavery compared to other people during her time. Even Douglas saw much more than Jacobs and from a very early age. And I guess that I would feel worse for her if it was someone of my own ethnicity instead of her. Mostly because I come from a Jewish background and there was a lot of suffering on that side already.

(information regarding psychologist and sociologist taken from personality psychology text from previous class)

Posted by feijo002 at 5:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I definitely agree with what Margo has said. As we all come into contact with Americans brought up by different backgrounds we can get an understanding of how differently Americans can communicate. We have seen in the recent slave narratives, white Americans can speak condescendingly toward black Americans and often don't watch what words are used. This has been carried on in all parts of our country, as I have noticed that white Americans, in general, care far less about what they say and whom them may offend, than Americans as a whole.

Now as Americans, we all have different family trees, leading back to another country, countries, or native lands. Many of us have a lineage hard to follow, crossed with so many different ethnicities that we often confuse ourselves with what it means to us to be American. As families move here from far or closely abroad, they strive to have their children be American, and only American. Cultural beliefs, traditions, and religion are passed down from parents to children, with each younger generation trying to hold on to some sense of cultural heritage to make themselves feel unique, while their parents long for their children to see themselves as simply American. Only by looking in the past, can begin to understand what negative traditions we carry on and take that stride towards improving ourselves and the consciousness of our children to come.

Posted by john4892 at 9:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

We were told to think about the corruption that slavery brings upon people involved in it. This was first raised by Douglass and the concern is continued by Jacobs. Their are plenty of people in Jacobs' narrative that act that they are above the institution, but they continually are proven to be flawed just as everyone else in the narrative. From Jacob's grandmother lending money to her mistress, Jacobs' new mistress(the young Mrs. Flint), or even Mrs. Bruce. Even though Mrs. Bruce didn't own any slaves and was bent on helping Jacobs she was effected by the instituion of slavery by the fact that she bought Jacobs back. The reach of slavery was not only contained in practicing states then, but also in states that didn't allow it and it was held up by people who didn't condone it.

Posted by woot0019 at 8:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the things that has struck me the most in the slave narratives we're reading is the condescending manner in which the white people who are the friends or co-workers of the authors treat them.

Frederick Douglass' narrative was set up for me to feel this way. In a book I've previously read, Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison, the narrator satirizes William Lloyd Garrison, making his character completely disregard the ideas and insight of the African American characters, especially about the needs of their own people. So when I read Garrison's introduction to Douglass' book, I was actively looking for details that supported Ellison's portrayal of him. Indeed, when Garrisson talks about getting Douglass to start speaking for the abolition movement, he talks about having to "cajole" Douglass into speaking for the abolitionist movement, when Douglass' biography reveals that he had been well-trained in debate.

In Harriet Ann Jacobs' narrative, the most glaring example is when her old master comes looking for her in the north, and the friend who she was living with BOUGHT her freedom from him, expressly against the wishes of Jacobs. While it might have been the easiest solution, Jacobs talks about how indignant she felt about being treated as a piece of property, especially by a friend. The three hundred dollars might have been better spent sending Ms. Jacobs and her children away from New York, rather than causing her humiliation. But her white friend does not think about anything except the easiest possible solution, the solution where she got to play the saving roll.

So what's up with that? I know not all white people were douches back-in-the-day, because of folks like John Brown (whose marching truth was mostly about achieving freedom by burning everything to the ground) but I still find all this troubling. Perhaps this is one of the causes of discomfort in reading texts like these: even the nice white people are still obnoxious.

Posted by Margo Robmann at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I greatly enjoy Douglass' assessment of Christianity in the Appendix to his Narrative. He says, "between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference" (2097). He argues that they are mutually exclusive--polar opposites--that to accept one is to reject the other. Obviously, in many ways, this has changed. There are no longer slaveowners, for example, who call themselves Christians. But the delineation between the two--the possibility of an American Christianity that is in the most fundamental ways opposed to Christ--is perhaps a lasting fact.

Evangelical Christianity, I think, is a good instantiation of this. Evangelicals the world over are seriously committed to living Christ-like lives of austerity and communion. However, there is a segment of Evangelicals in the United States who preach the Gospel of Prosperity. They congregate in wealthy megachurches and believe that their Earthly riches are given to them by God for confessing faith in Jesus. This is in direct opposition to the overwhelming majority of Christian beliefs throughout the ages. And, as far as I know, this belief is not widely held anywhere but here.

Posted by mleko006 at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There are many topics that Thoreau touches on in Walden. While much of his focus is on the way a person lives his or her life, he also comments quite a bit on the use of time. Walden reminds me of something a technophobic would write. He clearly feels that people should enjoy and embrace what Nature has to offer. There are a few quotes that I came across on page 1882 that allude to the fear of advancing technology, "We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us in our soundest sleep". It is here that Thoreau brings up the idea of "mechanical aids" most likely clocks, as opposed to "natural aids" which would mean the sun and moon. Throwing out the use of clocks and other such mechanical devices that people use to keep track of passing seconds, minutes, hours, days works well with Thoreau's topic of time that plays out in Walden. He shows that people do many things to save time throughout their life, but Walden seems to ask why. What is the use of doing such mundane tasks that will save a person time in the long run? Will the time that is saved be used wisely? Also though a more important question is asked here and that is, why are people even doing such tasks and for what cause? Also along the lies of time, Thoreau makes many comments on awakening and waking up. He is not just speaking on behalf of the literal awakening from sleep, but the intellectual awakening that he sees people must do to better enjoy and understand life, an awakening from the menial tasks that people do in their every day lives and for what reason? One example I see of this in Walden is when Thoreau criticizes the post office, saying that he could do without it because he knows that he has only received one or two letter that was worth the postage. Not only does this attack on the post office have to do with ridding people of institutions and activities that "waste" time, but also has to do with the advancement of communication. Thoreau does not see the need.

Posted by selan004 at 8:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Circumstances, will[...]produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race" (1036). Though Jefferson's analysis of the biology and aesthetics of race are problematic and seem ancient, his foresight is remarkable. His ideas about the separation of Blacks and whites remind me both of racist segregationists and Black Nationalists, but with an eye towards the common good. Hopefully we are making progress towards proving his ultimate assessment wrong. But, as it stands now, race is still one of the deepest and most troubling problems our Nation faces.

Posted by mleko006 at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found Thomas Paine's remarks on the Tories rather troublesome. Instead of using rational arguments to prove his point, he resorts to ad hominem attacks. "Every Tory is a coward," he says (1000). He even wishes to "expel them from the continent" (1001). This sort of commentary makes today's partisanship look downright silly by comparison. Moreover, it weakens his overall argument--that an independent America would be free, peaceful, and good for all persons. Hatred begets hatred and violence begets violence. I suppose Paine's ultimate goal was to beget violence, in order that the American colonies could throw off the chains of the Crown. But his argument would have been better served if he tried to control his anger.

Posted by mleko006 at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After having spent so much time with Puritan literature, I can't help but to look for the role of God in Paine's texts and the revolution in general. According to the editor's introduction, Paine was a diest. Does this change the way he uses religion/God in his writing as compared to a Calvinist text? The areas in which God or religion are mentioned seem to be either out of tradition or as a means to persuade and motivate the reader. Because of religious traditions in the colonies, phrases used by Paine such as "I thank God..." are less literal and more just expressions. The strong religous traditions give God a key role in Paine's persuasion of his audience. Paine claims that, "God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction" (998) and motivates the people to action by quoting the Bible: "show your faith by your works that God may bless you" (1002). To what extent did God/religion effect the success of Common Sense and its role in the American revolution?

Posted by engel340 at 9:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Benjamin Franklin, in each of his assigned works, presents a strong case for the unadulterated liberty of the people. Quotes outside of these works also suggest a similar philosophy. Franklin, who relunctantly accepted the Constitution ("I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults") believed in the course of time that said government "can only end in despotism."

"Early to Bed, and early to rise, makes a Man healthy, wealthy, and wise." -- This quote implies Franklin's view that the means to achieve good health, wealth, wisdom, and knowledge is a self-choice, not the responsibility of the state.

"[I]f you, Gentlemen, must be making Laws, do not turn natural and useful Actions into Crimes, but your Prohibitions." -- Franklin here, in jest, argues against a state that infringes upon the (lawful) activity of its people.

"As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously." - Franklin presents his opposition to a patent, a legal monopoly and obstacle to a free market.

Franklin would be disheartened (and deemed prophetic) if he were to envision his country today. Few actions can be done by the people without influence from the state. In the present, the liberty of the people, which he championed in his lifetime, has eroded to a point where it is legitimate to question its existence at all.

Posted by niem0142 at 4:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)