Lynching, and Mothers

I was absolutely shocked by the Grace Hale reading. I had a tough time reading it. I can’t imagine how people actually viewed this as amusement. What really got me and what I found interesting, but also pathetic at the same time was the fact that there were souvenirs at the lynchings. The fact that people saw this as a business opportunity amazes me. Who does that? I just cannot wrap my head around being able to sit back, and take my family out to a nice day the lynch park , and enjoy myself watching some people be absolutely dehumanized and tortured. The sad thing is that during this time that was the norm. I really did have a tough time reading this because it made me have a sick feeling in my stomach.
I also was really interested in our discussion about stay at home mothers, and working mothers. I think that today, many mothers are fortunate enough to decide whether they want to work or stay at home and raise the children. My view is that it all comes down to be most important and necessary. Some mothers cannot simply choose this. Some mother’s believe that raising the children is more important that earning necessary money; however that is a sacrifice that some people make. Sacrifice is a big key in this. To me I think it is all about personal situations. Every person is different and has different challenges, and categorizing women as either working, or a stay at home mom , isn’t fair to women. They are more than just stay at home moms and working moms. Love you mom.

Comments on Talma Gordon

Hey everyone! As I was reading the different blogs, I noticed the interest in the Talma Gordon story. I want to especially agree with Cathy’s post because I think she is absolutely correct in saying that the "one-drop" issue is ridiculous. What affected me most during the reading was the passage that followed Edward’s (Talma’s lover) discovery of Talma’s drop of Negro blood: “God! Doctor, but this is too much. I could stand the stigma of murder, but add to that the pollution of Negro blood! No man is brave enough to face such a situation” (Hopkins 661). I was shocked when I read this! I knew that having Negro blood was views as “bad” yet I had no idea that it was comparable to murder or in this case, viewed as worse! This frustrated me very much! Also touching on the Talma Gordon story is the issue of sexist societal views. Jenna and I had formulated a question for discussion Wednesday but we ran out of time. Therefore, I thought I could present it here and give you guys a chance to comment on it if you wished. We were wondering how you guys felt about the Father telling Jeanette that he was disappointed at her birth, and also at the birth of Talma. He tells them he wanted a male heir (659-660). How do you think our society is affected (according to Cooper’s view we discussed Wednesday) considering she argues that women are the source of societies? Wish we could have discussed this Wednesday as I feel it ties in really well with the “Womanhood” reading. Paradoxical isn’t it how women “elevate” societies yet many fathers’ are disappointed at the birth of a female for they wanted sons?

Folk Tales

This week during class one topic that caught my attention would have to be the folk tales that were read in the beginning of the week. Folk tales which were stories made up by African Americans to tell to their children, always had a hidden message in between the lines of the words spoken to the child. This week for class we were given the chance to read some of the Brer rabbit tales which were full of trickery and cunning tactics. As i read this i was wondering to my self what was the signifigance of the trials the rabbit had put himself through and what did each animal in this passage represent? To me as I continued to read Brer Rabbit I was able to notice that he represented the African Americans of plantations all over. While the Brer Dog, Wolf, and Fox represented different plantation owners who were trying to capture this one slave. When looking at Brer rabbit from the context of my opinion the reason of the capturing of this rabbit seemed much more realistic.

Response to Grace Hale

I totally agree with everyone who had a hard time reading Grace Hale's " Deadly Amusement." I feel like I have read so much about lynching and it still seems to surprise me every time I read something new. It just amazed and disgusted me how horrible people were and how brutal they could be to another human being. And I understand that this is a different time then it was then, but I cannot fathom finding amusement in watching a person being tortured and burned alive. As I read more and googled these events I was speechless of what people did. I was reading something on wikipedia (I know super reliable right?) that had the same picture of Jesse Washington being burned and lynched that read "This is the barbecue we had last night. My picture is to the left with a cross over it. Your son, Joe." And I think reading that quote and reading that people took "souvenirs" of the lynching, really made me realize that this really was a form of amusement for people, which just made me more angry and disgusted. Another thing that really freaked me out about the reading was when she mentioned Emmet Till. It really scared me because it reminded me that things like this still happen. Although Emmet Till was brutally murdered in 1955 that is still fairly recent and there are still blatant acts of hatred in this country. It obviously is not as prominent as it used to be and I am glad that in that sense our society has progressed a lot.

Southern Chivalry

I thought that Barnett's argument against southern "chivalry" was interesting because it exposes both the historical contradictions behind the term, and the fact that women really had nothing to fear from black men in the south. In deconstructing the southern definition of chivalry, Barnett is able to effectively show the absurdity of lynching in the south. Her argument begins with an examination of Bishop Haygood's explanation of lynching, in which he says "Southern people now and always have been most sensitive concerning the honor of their women" (680). Barnett responds to this argument by saying that those who practice real chivalry should respect the rights of all women regardless of color. Using the "million mulattoes in the South" as proof that white southerners have continuously raped black women, she shows that it is in fact white men who are guilty of rape and do not respect the honor of women. This is a strong argument because it take the logic that white southerners used to justify their racist attacks on blacks, and then turns it around to show that they are in fact the perpetrators of the crime. This seems to show that during reconstruction, white southerners were primarily afraid of losing power. Under the slavery system, white men were able to rape black slaves without fear of reprisal, or punishment. As reconstruction progressed, and black's were given more rights, white men saw that interracial relationships represented a direct threat to their power over both black and white women. By diverting the attention away from their own past crimes against black women, and then creating a fear of black rapist men, white men were able to maintain dominance over southern society. I think that Barnett effectively exposes the injustice behind this logic, and proves that it is actually southern white men who do not respect the honor of women.

I was not amused by Deadly Amusements!

I was horrified by Hale's piece about the lynchings that took place in the South against black men. There were several statements made and facts stated which intrigued me and I would like to bring these up. Firstly, the idea of white men keeping body parts of the black men they kill seems absurd to me. In a time where white men are trying to be segregated from black men, and look down upon black men, why would they want to keep a part of a black man so close to them, especially after they had violently murdered him? Keeping a part of another human being after they pass on seems to be an act that one would do only if they worshipped or loved the human deeply. If I were a white man whose wife had been raped by another man, I don't think I would want to keep his penis, or any other body part, as a keepsake. Secondly, there is a comparison made between sexuality and the spectacle lynchings. I believe it takes a seriously deranged person to think that a photo of a man's mutilated body is 'sexy' or can be cherished. I also can't understand how white men's sexuality is threatened by black men's power politically and economically. However, I do believe that this belief that raping a white woman is lowering the sexual power of white males implies the power that women have in society. Like a previous reading, that stated that a society's worth is based on how their women are treated, I believe this is a similar circumstance. The fact that a women being raped led to a murder of the man by a huge amount of people signified both the importance of women to men, and men's feeling that they need to protect women. Although the protection idea lessens a women's power, it is still evident how white men would feel helpless and worthless without the presence of white women. I guess in an odd sort of way, murdering a man for rape was showing respect to women at the expense of black men, as well as white men, who at no time did I respect while reading this piece.

Deadly Amusements

While reading tomorrows assigned reading, I wasn't quite sure what I was getting myself into, and consequently, I was right...In the past I have read about lynchings, but not in this illustrative and detail driven context. Hale sequenced the accounts in a particular way to drive the meaning and degradation of lynching home. As a result, I found the last story most difficult to read because although it was not a public spectacle, it was more gruesome with more dehumanizing details. Too me, dehumanization has hit a breaking point when a the accused is forced to eat his own penis...Changing the subject, I also found it quite dehumanizing when a lynched man's skin was not only made into a souvenir, but a leather bag!

Another interesting point Hale acknowledges is the white women's role in lynching. I found it quite mortifying that for the most part, women were the instigators of lynching. Through accusing a black man of rape, lynching was habitual and there was no denying a white women's word. I am in no way condoning rape, but it's quite a paradox to say that is okay for white man to rape black woman, whereas a black man raping a white woman is more perverse.

Wednesday's Discussion

Our class discussion on Wednesday was pretty interesting. I thought the discussion questions were really provoking, and they definitely kept my mind turning and twisting in new directions. When people were comparing anecdotes about people they know and their different standard ways of living in a family household, it made me think about my own family and the domesticity involved in running a home and a family altogether. Like what people were saying in class, values seem to be key here, because every family environment and division of roles depend on those particular values; it's subjective. I'm lucky that both my father and my mother have carried out their values in the way that they both have jobs that they aspired to immerse themselves in throughout their lives, and they both share domestic roles. If my mother worked later than my father, he would be the one cooking dinner. Thank God he's a good cook! :) Visa Versa. So I think it's pretty interesting how other people were saying that family or individual values played an important role in these different household environments. It's really evident when you look at families what they feel is important by the way their carry out their individual roles.

Talma Gordon

The story that I thought was really interesting to read was the one about Talma Gordon. This story had so many twists and turns that really made me want to keep reading more. Talma was one of three children and when she was born, her mother died. One thing that I thought was interesting was that her father was going to leave most of his will to his son Johnny instead of his two daughters. Johnny was only a baby at the time and was younger than both Talma and her sister Jeanette. Then mysteriously Johnny was murdered and no one could figure out who killed him. Something that struck me was that a lot of people started to blame Talma for her brother’s murder. This was because they thought that she was mad that he was getting most of the money and then by killing him, that money would all go to her and her sister. This ended up going to trial and they tried to prosecute her for killing her brother with a knife. Fortunately there was not enough evidence and the case was dismissed. Later on, her sister mysteriously died. Then comes the twist in the whole story. The killer was actually Doctor Cameron. He confessed to all of the killings. He said that Mr. Gordon went to find treasure with Doctor Cameron’s father and Mr. Gordon ended up killing him. So Doctor Gordon swore that he would seek revenge. Maybe it is just me, but that story really stood out to me and was very intriguing to read.

It is so interesting to me that society is all worked up about women staying at home or going to work or doing a little bit of both. I guess I don’t really understand why it matters what society thinks—women should do what’s best for their families. I know that if I get married and have children someday I personally plan to stay at home with my kids. But it’s not a rigid formula that needs to apply to every single woman in the United States. That’s just something I value more than money. My mom stayed home to raise my brothers and me until we went to elementary school. We didn’t have the nicest clothes or the newest toys, but I was never aware of it. And I never considered my mom to be any less successful than my dad, or vice versa. I still think they are the kind of successful I hope to one day be, but the definition of success is completely subjective. Just in our class there are probably twenty different ideas of the word success. So if we all judge it differently, why should a person measure their success on anyone else’s scale? Why do we need to compare levels of success? I don’t think we need to—in fact, I think it’s impossible. If a person is successful in his or her own eyes, then that should be enough.

Stay at home parents

During our discussion today the issue of stay at home moms was precedent in our conversations and most of the class thought it was a good thing that women have “evolved” and been given the chance to take a step out of the house and get full time jobs. I know personally I could never do this like many said during class, but I feel as if there is more behind it. I feel as if women worked so hard to try and gain their “freedom” from the household and to now go back and become stay at home moms would go against everything women have fought for in the past. I feel as if the idea that one gender has to be a stay at home parent and the other needs to work is something that is set in our ways and will not change with time, it’s just that now it doesn’t depend on which gender is doing it. With the way our society is moving it seems more likely for women to become the “bread maker” and men to become the stay at home parent because women are doing better in schools nowadays. Even with this fact, men still make more than women but I feel like this is due to change in the upcoming years.

Today's Class

Today's class discussion was very interesting to me. A lot of people brought up great points regarding women and their impact on a society as a whole. Every family has a different dynamic. A main thing that I wanted to talk about was how I feel as though society has lost view on the importance of a strong foundation and how that has impacted the success in today's economy and other aspects of society. Moving away from just the woman's role and more towards the family as a whole, values are learned by the next generation mainly through teachings from someone's parent or guardian. I think that success, as much as it is impossible, should not be focusing on income but more on the happiness and welfare of people. The success that people see comes from those values that people have been taught while growing up and that seems to be lost. Power today for the most part is based on the amount of money someone is making, not necessarily on how strong or responsible a person is. We are growing up in such a fast paced, money hungry country that people have really lost sight of individual welfare. No wonder the U.S. has greatest number of diagnosed depression and anxiety disorders in the world. Family and the values learned are what make people strong and teach them to achieve their goals. Today, at large being seen as "successful" is only if you have a job like a doctor or some other well paid employment - it's not being a good mother, father, or PERSON.

Talma Gordon

The thing that struck me the most about this story is the ridiculousness of the "one-drop" issue. Talma Gordon is described as an intelligent and beautiful young lady. When she was being tried for her father's murder she remains calm and cool. However, when she finds out that she is partially black suddenly she sees herself as worthless. She refuses to marry her lover and is so depressed that she almost dies. How can someone who is so talented and grounded then hate herself so much? It really hit how racist someone could be that it would lead them to hate themselves that much.
However, what really disgusted me was the actions and decisions of Talma's father. This man hated his own children and wife just because they had the slightest amount of "black blood" in their veins. He hates them so much that he basically cuts them out of his will and treats them like dirt. Probably the only reason that he sent Talma to Italy was so that he did not have to deal with her. These actions had even a bigger impact on me because Hopkins chose to set this story in New England. Even though these characters are all fictional, it made me think about all the people that really did (and still do) feel this way.

I Can't Believe I Was So Passive!

So, I went home to my vacation home in Tupper Lake, New York, this past weekend. I had lots of fun and definitely had the chance to catch up with my family. An average day at the lake during the winter is very active; we usually go snowshoeing, cross country skiing, or snowmobiling. This past Saturday was one of those days; it had snowed the night before and it was 20 degrees outside. When my mom, dad, and I chose to go snowshoeing up Mt. Cooney, we got ready and headed out.
While we were snowshoeing it was the perfect opportunity to catch up with the rents. So, I took this chance to mention some of the thoughts we have discussed in our African American Literature class. I began talking Barabara Trepagnier's book, Silent Racism. I told them about the discussion we had about the difference to a white person's definition of racism compared to a black person's definition of racism. I also pointed out the unconscious thoughts, feelings, and actions vs. conscious thoughts, feelings, and actions of racism; this is what I told my family was the most intriguing idea to me during our class discussions thus far.
The purpose of bringing all this up was to discuss an issue that has impacted me this semester more than ever and to show my parents that I am learning, haha. But, I also wanted to see their reaction to a discussion about racism. When we reached the top of the mountain, the discussion came to an end because the amazing views grasp every one's attention. So, as I sat on top of the mountain, waiting to go down, I realized that my parents feel the same way as me. I was quite shocked because even though they felt the same, they had never heard about the theory of "silent racism."
Later on that night, it was cocktail hour and I had long forgotten about the talk my parents and I had had earlier that day. When we all were sitting around the fire sharing stories from our different excursions, one topic led one to another and we were talking about men's clubs. When I mean "men's clubs," I literally mean a golf club or any club of that sort that only allows men to become members. No women are allowed in or anywhere around the clubhouse, the golf course, and the paddle/tennis courts. Now I believe these clubs are outright sexist, but don't even get me started on that! What shocked me the most was what they started to say about members within the club?
As my mother mentioned one specific issue she had at my dad's men's club, it was about the time she went there without knowing the circumstance she was getting herself into. She told a story about a time she went to give my grandfather s ports jacket he had needed. When she arrived at the club she walked in the main lounge and sooner than later she was arm locked by two black men and escorted out the door.
While I listened closely to what she had been saying, I couldn't help but notice that she said, "Two black men." I stayed tuned into the conversation about the club and suddenly learned about the cook they had there. The cook was a German man, and as I was told, he was a true supporter of the Nazi's. This was all a shock to me. Like, why did it matter that the two men to escort my mom out have to described as black, or why did everyone find it okay to be laughing about the cook who supported the Nazi's? This whole conversation got me thinking, does everyone really feel the same way as me when it comes to being racist?
Well, I was lying in bed when I came to the conclusion that no one will really be aware of how racist they might be in situations like the one above unless someone like us can actively approach the situation. What I should have done was ask my mom, "Does it make a different if he was black or white?" And what I should have asked my dad was, "Has the cook being a Jewish hater caused any specific person from joining the club or have you and the guys ever thought about hiring another chef?" When I lied in bed I could only think about these questions I should have asked and wonder if they would have made a difference in the way my family was being unconsciously racist?

Pauline Elizabeth Hopkins

The creative piece by Pauline Elizabeth Hopkins, 'Talma Gordon' is a moving tale, that seems at first just a historical fiction drama with a horrific murder at its core. A young heiress is accused and tried for the murder of half her family based on circumstantial evidence, despite her virtuous nature. Though she escapes conviction, her life after that trial is covered by a dark cloud, and she disappears from the narrators life. As the story's ending draws near, the plot twists with Talma's return. She is believed to be dying by the doctor, and she makes a last confession to her ex-lover as to why she has turned him down so many times. It is confessed that Talma's mother was one sixteenth black (the daughter of a white man and an 'octoroon' mother) , making Talma one thirty-second black. Perhaps the most appalling part of this story was that of Talma's lover's abandonment of her; he could have lived with her as murderess, but not as a woman caring any trace of black blood. Although she is absolved of the murder when a confession is uttered by a man dying at the asylum, her future remains unclear until the narrator (and doctor) calls in his bride- Talma. This brings back the loop of thought on 'intermarriage' brought up in the start of the novel. Talma was not even thought to be black, and was readily assimilated into the 'white world'- her very presence at the gentleman's discussion on intermarriage was proceeded by rumors of how gorgeous a woman she was.

Her tragic loss of a lover and near loss of inheritance due to her family lineage reflect on the hardships faced when the bias against African American heritage rears its head. This past week there was an essay printed in the New York Times reflecting on the issue of 'passing' and the contentious history it has. The author of the piece is Toure, an African American man who has written several successful fiction pieces and has been a presence in journalism for many years. He is currently working on a book about post-blackness and expresses his views on the subject matter of passing. The article includes references to pieces of literature we have covered in Norton; his general argument is that he has no desire to pass as white, even "If a fairy godfather came to me and said I could switch races, I’d open the window and make him use it. I think 99 percent of black people would do the same."(Toure, NYT) I think the essay is worth looking at, and especially his closing question- "From my perspective, it seems many white Americans are entranced by blackness and drool over how exciting and dangerous and sexy blacks seem. So my question is: Why aren’t more white people trying to pass as black?" (Toure, NYT)

Toure's essay @ NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/books/review/Toure-t.html

Frances Harper

I would like to talk about Frances Harper's poetry. You can see a couple of posts down Cathy talks about how much she enjoyed her poetry. We talked about this outside of class and I don't really agree with Cathy. yes Harper's poetry was profound but I think the fact that she was never a slave but she chooses to write about slavery takes away from the strength of the poems. while reading the poems I was struck with the story and all of the emotions that they stirred up but in the back of my head i could not help thinking that this was in fact fiction, that there was no way that Frances Harper experienced this so the writing loses some of its credibility. Cathy compares the writing to that of Sojourner Truth, I agree that the poems are as inspirational as Truth but compared to her "Arn't I a Woman?" speech Harper's poetry lacks a sense of experience.

To assure everyone that Cathy and I don't in fact have these deep conversations on the meaning and tone of poetry we then went on to discuss Victor Sejours reading and we both agreed that the story didn't really remind us of Oedipus Rex.... It reminded us of Star Wars. :D

Standing up against Racism

Hey everyone,
So for today’s blog I want to talk about the Grace Elizabeth Hale reading we had for today, Making Whiteness. The part in particular I want to talk about is the scene in the car when a colored women and her son are forced to sit with convicts, chained to one another, and with vile odors. More than once the author says “It stank insufferably”. This scene really struck me and had me thinking about silent racism. It was later discussed in the reading that the mother and her son were “distinctly refused admission elsewhere (and thus forced to travel in that filthy car), because they were of African blood”. Why did no one stand up and say anything on behalf of the mother and her son?? Would I have? Last Friday in class we were asked to describe a scenario with silent racism. Meggie and I were partner and discussed silent racism in the work environment. Here was our scenario:
A job position is being filled at work and the selection process has narrowed down the applicants to only two people: a white male and a black male. Both applicants remaining are equivalent in intellect and interpersonal skills. The boss then says: “Let’s go with the white guy. Our business involves a lot of interacting, business negotiations and conference meetings and I think it would “look better” if the white guy were representing us.
This is evidently a case of silent racism and one in which it might be “uncomfortable to speak your opinion but you would be reprimanding a superior: your boss. The reading we did for today made me think of this scenario because I fell as though many injustices were committed, such as publicly setting apart colored people, in which no one voiced their opinion due to a fear of reprimanding a superior or standing up against the law. What would you do if you were in the conference meeting discussing with the executive board who should be hired?? Would you stand up to your boss??? Would I??? Would you stand up for the mother and her son?? Would I?? Who’s responsibility is it to do so??

Slaves and their Fathers

This topic of Slaves and their fathers was not really brought up that much in class this week so I would like to take the opportunity to voice my opinion about this matter. In the short story " The Mulatto" by Victor Sejour it discussed the situation a slave who happened to be a mixed race of black and white which would be considered a mulatto grew up not knowing his father who happened to be the father of such slave. As the slave grew he still had this strange bond with his master/ father but was forbidden to know who his father was. The first thought that came to my mind was, what would it feel like knowing a child was yours but not accepting him/her because of its race? I can only speak from opinion when i say wouldn't it be a strange feeling to know your son or daughter as a slave but not accepting them because of that fact. It also made me think of the short story "Clotell" where a white man sells his daughter into slavery because he did not want to be bothered with her mulatto mother anymore. I find that truly ridiculous in both stories although, i am fully aware that this was during the time of slavery.

While continuing on with the story "The Mulatto" the slave who happens to be the son of this white master keeps his bond and doesn't let anything break it. Later on he finds out that his master is to be killed and does everything in his will to protect him. But, his master runs believing that he is the killer until his cowardice emotions are killed by the sounds of shots. One would think that would be the trusting point between this slave and his master but no, Alfred the master decides to rape Georges' (the slave) wife. That was the true breaking point for me. At that point when i think of slave owners as fathers of slave i think of savages people who have no moral standards at all. I mean this slave had saved this unworthy mans wife and how do you repay him... You try to rape his wife. I truly have no respect for them. It seems as if he had no feelings that he was saved and was the father of this man. But when Georges get his revenge and decides to slaughter his family in return for the death of his wife he acknowledges him as his son. That got me the most out of this whole story the fact that he was able to show that he was related when he was going to die. I saw that as a true cowardly emotion. However, I personally would not care if he was the father at that point because he made this mans life a horrible one.

African American Literature and Classical Works

As I mentioned in class, I was extremely interested in the parallels between Victor Sejour's "The Mulatto" and "Oedipus Rex", by Sophocles, the classical Greek playwright. I had read "Oedipus Rex a number of years ago in High school, and I noticed more parallels the longer I considered the work. I think that this mirroring of classical conventions of threatre is akin to Phillis Wheatley making allusions to classical works in her poetry. Both authors made a foray into creative works, venturing beyond the bounds of an autobiographical slave narrative. They had to not only display mastery of language and creativity in their works, but also prove themselves to be educated, fighting against the common notions of racial inferiority that permeated creative circles at the time. Wheatley's seamless use of references to the 'Illiad' and other characters that are recognized as part of Greek mythology showed her mostly white readers that she was in the same league of education as they were. Sejour could have used classical parallels in his fictional work "The Mulatto" for the same end; to put his work in the league of other well educated writers, and not just constricted to the genre of anti-slavery work. The protagonist's seeming inevitable fate to kill his father is akin to the inevitable fulfillment of a prophecy in "Oedipus Rex". While Georges did not know his mother, the thematic elements of a parent-less child who does not know his father is carried in both stories. Oedipus is left by his mother to protect him from fulfilling the prophecy she was told, and Georges mother tries to protect him from falling victim to rage against his father by hiding his identity as well. Both characters unknowingly interact with family later in life, and the plot lines have charged sexual elements. I could easily continue to list parallels; I think that the similarities may be too many for a learned and accomplished writer and playwright like Sejour to have included by chance. Though, like Wheatley, these elements would highlight his degree of education, there is also another reason for Sejour's use of a classical parallel. If these elements were recognized at the time, they could have led additional credence to a work that contained some thematic conflicts that were hard for the mainstream to stomach, as mentioned in the Norton prolougue. If classical Greek works could handle charged subjects and still be widely read, why not Sejour's work which is in the same vein?

Two Offers

Frances Harper keeps me guessing...I enjoyed her poetry, but I found "Two Offers" more intriguing. In the short story we become aware of two women. Laura Lagrange and Janette Alston, Laura is more concerned with becoming married, whereas Janette is content with a life of happiness on her own. Although Laura finds herself happy at first, her life becomes more or less pointless, with a husband who is more concerned with drinking and work. Her life changes with the blessing of a child, but this blessing is short lived with the unexpected death of her child. In the aftermath, Laura sinks into a deep depression and envies her cousin Janette's happiness as a lonely woman. To me it seems ironic for her to envy her lonely cousin, but after analyzing the relationship closer, I realized that Janette has the ability to perceive love, desire, and human nature because of her self control to accept that she must endure life alone. I loved her concluding sentence, which states, "...she learned one of lives most precious lessons, that true happiness consists not so much in the fruitition of our wishes as in the regulation of our desires and the full development and right culture of our whole natures." I wonder if Frances had someone in mind while writing this or just the women population in general....I also ponder her role in this story, would she be Janette or Laura, she was married briefly, but it seems to me that her independence would lead her more towards the character of Janette, what do you think??

Frances Harper's Poetry

I thought that Frances Harper’s “The Slave Mother,” was one of the most powerful statements about the condition of slavery that we have read so far. Throughout the many authors that we’ve already read, the experience of the auction and the separation of families has been a recurring image. We’ve seen this experience expressed in both fictional and non fictional accounts, but I think that is in Harper’s poetic form that is has had the most resonance. Harper describes the pain of a mother not being able to control the fate of her own son when she says, “He is not hers, although she bore/ For him a mother’s pains;/ He is not hers, although her blood/ Is coursing through his vains!” For me, these lines were powerful in the way that they contrasted the physical bonds between mother and son with ownership and property values of slavery. This contrast highlighted the injustices of the system in terms that I had not considered when reading other accounts of slavery. Although I was aware that familial ties were broken under the chattel slavery system, Harper expressed this using imagery that was both evocative and sincere. In doing this, Harper’s poem expresses the injustices of slavery in ways that cannot be done through other literary forms.

Frances Harper

I know we didn't really get a chance to talk about this on Wednesday, but I really liked reading Harper's poems and stories. Even though she never been a slave, she was able to describe how horrible slavery was in a very moving way. I think that she her descriptions of slave mothers would have been very appealing to the white women of the north who were on the fence about slavery. I also loved her poems about the older black women who were willing to work hard to read and be involved in politics after the civil war. I found these to be really inspirational.
Also when I was reading Harper I couldn't help but compare her to Sojourner Truth. I feel like both these women were saying the same thing, but in completely different (and just as effective ways). I feel like Harper would be the result of Phillis Wheatly's talent in poetry merging with Truth's ideas and life experiences.
I also think that Harper's writing applied just as much white women as it did to black woman. In her story The Two Offers, she describes two women. One woman chooses to be in an unhappy marriage and dies young. The other never marries, but does so much good for people around her that she practically can call them family. I think this is a really strong story for women in the 19th century and today.

Victor Sejour

I think "The Mulatto" by Victor Séjour is one of the most interesting stories we have read so far. I thought the relationships between characters was very relevant to ideas that we have talked about in class. In the readings we have seen many types of relationships between slaves their masters; in "Our Nig", although Frado is not a slave, she is still treated like one in some of the relationships she has with her care takers. For example, in this story we see that Frado has formed a close relationship with Mr. Bellmont by her reaction when he died. On the contrary, Frado's relationship with Mrs. Bellmont is clearly more like a "typical" relationship between a slave and their master, where Mrs. Bellmont physically and emotionally abuses Frado. The relationship between Georges and Alfred is similar to Frado and Mr. Bellmonts, because of the close relationship they have. The twisted part of the relationship between Alfred and Georges is that Alfred is actually Georges father, but Georges does not know. I think it is really interesting how because Georges didn't know Alfred was his father he was able to trust and learn to care for him. I think if he had known, he would have hated and resented Alfred for raping and abusing his mother, therefore he would not have had a close loving relationship with Alfred. But I think Sejour uses this relationship to show how dysfunctional the relationships between slaves and their masters could be during that time. Clearly Laïsa, Georges mother, didn't want Georges to know who his father was so that he would be safe from Alfred, but because she refused to tell him it resulted in Alfred's gruesome death.

After reading a lot of these stories about all of these remarkable people, i still go back to the person's story that i find most interesting, Frederick Douglas. Douglas was a man of great character and someone who was determined to be free. Other people like Victor Sejour, Harriet Jacobs, and William Wells Brown also achieved so much in their lives and have made something of themselves, but the story that keeps popping back into my head is the one about Douglas. In his earlier years as a slave, he was not treated well, especially by Mr. Covey. He was constantly beaten even when the tasks he had to do were not that simple. I am currently talking about Frederick Douglas in my FYS and the things we talk about are somewhat on the same lines. The part in his life that we keep bringing up is the fight he had with Mr. Covey. First of all, reading about this fight was very surprising because i did not think that slaves and their masters would get into a physical fight ever. I would have thought if that had happened, the master probably would have killed the slave. Surprising instead, Mr. Covey basically left Douglas alone and never laid a hand on him again. This also is an important part in his life because it is basically the turning point in his life. From this point on, Douglas became a new man. He was more bold and had new goals set in his life. His main goal was to get his freedom. So after that point, Douglas found a way to escape which ended up leading to him giving his speech in Nantucket.

The Bible Christianity and Slavery

The Bible, Christianity, and Slavery
In class we talked a little about slaves and religion. I agree that religion played a significant role in the life of the slave. Religion allowed slaves to keep up the human spirit in their daily lives because however they interpreted the religious experience it gave them a sense of independence from the daily grind of their lives. The stories in the bible were often told amongst the slaves on plantations, and if a slave could read, he or she typically read these stories for the illiterate slaves. Whether or not they believed in Christianity was not as relevant as just understanding the biblical stories and applying them to their lives. Therefore, the bible became a kind of release because they could relate to many of these stories and accept them as part of God’s mission. The slaves could actually share these stories with one another and with their children. It gave the slaves something to talk about. The slaves could actually have something that no one could take away. It gave them a sense of purpose of moving on in life through the next day. To me this is what kept them going through the brutality of slavery and kept their hope for freedom alive.
On the other hand most of the slaves could not actually read the Bible, so these stories that they heard must have inspired some sense of hope and some type of faith that were true. Actually many white masters on the plantations wanted slaves to attend church with them (although they were separated by where they sat) because the whites did not trust what was being said in slave churches or by slave preachers. They were afraid these preachers were inspiring escape and violence as a way to obtain freedom. They even made the slave children attend Sunday schools to keep them believing what they wanted them to believe about the bible and that they should accept their condition and not attempt to run away. Whites believed religion would make slaves better and work harder if they accepted their condition and work against their desires to escape from the plantation.

Also I think that the slaves were not interested in every aspect in the Christian faith but more of the fact that inspired them to fight push through slavery because there is a way out of slavery.

Discussion Q on 'The Mulatto'

I would like to expand on one of the discussion questions on ‘The Mulatto,’ which we briefly discussed in class on Wednesday. The question was whether or not Georges’ actions would have been different if he were aware that Alfred was his father. After our class discussion, I believe that this question was being addressed in two manners. Some of my classmates were thinking of Georges’ actions as a slave to his master such as being loyal and informing his master when he was in danger. Others thought of his ‘actions’ in being the end result when Georges killed Alfred. If Georges’ had known Alfred was his father early on in his life, it is possible that he wouldn’t have been such a loyal slave as he would have despised Alfred for raping his mother, and for disowning him as a son. The evidence that Georges would not have had such a loving relationship with his master is how Georges acted when he heard what Alfred had had planned for his wife, Zelia. If Georges would stand up to his master for the life of his wife, I think he certainly would of done the same for the life of his mother. Even knowing that Alfred was his father, I don’t think Georges would of hesitated to hurt or kill Alfred in honor of both his mother and his wife. Generally, men are very protective of the women in their lives, in particular, their birth mother, and their spouse. Georges had an even stronger feeling of needing to protect his mother with the fact that his father was ‘non-existent’ to them as a family. Having said this, there is one fact that would make one believe that Georges may not have acted on the killing of his father had he known Alfred truly was his father. This is at the end of the story where Georges finds out and screams ‘I’m cursed’. This seems to suggest that he regret his actions and now believes he is going to pay for them.

Sejour

I agree completely with what Meggie is saying. The emotion in this short story is still powerful and prevalent even though it is fictional. Georges relationship with Albert demonstrated the common characteristics that we have seen so far in other stories about the acknowledgment of the superiority of the master and the sense of duty felt by the slaves. However, there is a major difference in this story that is a focal point; the part about Albert being Georges father. Georges unawareness of this I don't think plays a major role in how he obeys and protects his master when the bandits are coming for him. I guess the argument could go both ways because there are valid points for each side. I do agree that there was a sense of a tie between them that seemed slightly stronger than probably most slaves felt to their masters, arguably that most slaves might not run to their masters rescue if they knew they were in harms way. But I don't see the strong connection between Georges role as his son and his lack of knowledge of such a connection to be the reason for their closer relationship.

Victor Sejour

I thought it was interesting today how some people were referring to George's violent battle with his father and master. First of all, this incident in Sejour's framed narrative was provoking, because as the reader, I was affected by how powerful the slave's emotions were. He felt for his mother's death, while he also obeyed his master hand and foot through his respectable duties, not even aware that this man was his father. I was provoked by this, because while some people thought that Georges did all these obedient and generous things through an undeniable, subconscious love for his father, I thought that Georges was only demonstrating the quintessential actions of a slave during his time. Sejour mentions in the text that Georges did these things for his master to protect and serve his master, and I got the impression that slaves felt this way about their superiors. Someone in that type of slavery would have an undeniable feeling of subservience toward his master; Georges didn't even accept his master's offer for his freedom. This suggests that he was under the false consciousness that was typical in the 1800's-- most slaves did not understand that more was out there, freedom was out there, because the system of government strove to maintain that impression that they were born to be subservient to white people. I just thought it was interesting how Sejour demonstrates this relationship between Georges and his father.

Publishers and more

I went and looked up about the publishers of the slave narratives and it seems like many were not actually published as books, but just written originally and word spread. One of my sources stated that there were nearly 6,000 slave narratives but only 65 appeared as books or pamphlets. It also talked about many got theirs out by using the abolitionist periodicals which in a way is what we talked about. The publishers of these periodicals have a “duty by law” to report runaway slaves and by publishing their narratives and acknowledging the fact that they are runaways, as bad as it seems, they are just as guilty as the slaves for running in my opinion. Even now, during the 21^st century, harboring a fugitive is against the law and punishable in the court of law. It also stated that many slaves would go to anti-slavery meetings and try and sell their stories to the masses. I also found nothing on the punishment of these publishers. The source is Publishers Bindings Online and the URL is http://bindings.lib.ua.edu/gallery/slave_narratives.html

I also wanted to quote something I heard last night on the television, and it really fit in to what we were talking about with the Trepegnier book. Some of you may have heard it before:

“White men can’t jump was a great movie, but what if I made a movie black man can’t swim?”

Double Edged Sword

I left class today thinking about what is it that the slaves were holding on to when discussing Christianity. The class roughly mentioned reading from the bible and gospel hymens as the ideas that are keeping the slaves in a mindset of triumph. For most of the slaves that couldn't read, I believe it was mostly the gospels that gave them hope.
When thinking about Christianity it reminds me of another discussion we had about this religion in the "gift" giving sense. Connecting it to the discussion from today's class, their thoughts on Christianity begin to make sense. When the slaves did not know how to read or were not allowed to be taught how to read the gospels were the only form of their religion that they could understand. When the hymens are what brought the slaves together and are what made them stronger, how could they not see Christianity not as a "gift." I definitely think in a case where slaves could not read, the meaning of Christianity became a "double edged sword."
Their inability to learn how to read is what creates the double meaning of Christianity. Its hard to believe that everyone (the whites and the slaves) is happy with the thoughts and feelings about Christianity by the end of the day. The slaves think that Christianity gives them hopes which lets them hold on to their dreams and the whites slave owners feel as if they are teaching and giving them the gift of Christianity. This issue makes me wonder, what are the slaves going to think once they understand and comprehend other parts of the religion, like the other sections in the bible that mention slavery?

Implicit Bias Study

So I found this quiz online again after our discussion in class on "Silent Racism" reminded me. This is a link to the Harvard study on several implicit biases- the link takes you to the main page, choose to take the demo test and then you can choose several options of what sort of test, including race, age, weight, etc. The idea is that it will illiminate biases that the quiz taker may not be aware of ( in the study background, the creators discuss the difference of choosing not to account for a behavior and being genuinely unaware of it). I won't ramble about the background, but I think the method is interesting though I can't speak for everyone. If any one wants to try it out, here's the link:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/

Christianity and Slavery

while discussing the Frederick Douglas reading Wednesday i think it was both Kelsey and Marquis brought up the point that Christianity and Slavery are connected in many different ways. This is something that has always interested me. When the slave trade was started the justification for Slavery was the fact that the Africans they were enslaving were not christian. In the many slave narratives we have now read none of the men and women were actually Christans when they were brought over, they were converted. People would justify slavery with passages from the Bible, like the "curse of Ham" where God curses one of Noah's sons... who I think was darker than the others, justifying the enslavement of Africans (I discussed this in another class so I might not be right).

It was only later that Christianity was used as a "civilizing" tool for slaves. It was used as a tool to show that maybe slaves didn't have it so bad, that they were in fact human and the owners acknowledge that. This brings to mind one of the more striking passages from the Frederick Douglas reading, when he is describing Mr. Covey as believing himself to be a devout man. all of his slaves were allowed to attend services, and they did not work on Sundays. Covey wouldn't even strike Douglas on a Sunday after he had run away. When on any other day of the week Covey would treat Douglas as an animal, on Sunday he would treat him like a human, even making him lead off in singing hymns. the relationship of Christianity and the justification of Slavery has always stuck me as odd.

Frederick Douglass and learning to read

I think that one of the most important aspects of Douglass’s narrative was his description of the inner turmoil that came with learning to read. He explains that with the ability to read he was able to fully understand the injustices and cruelty of slavery. This awakening leads him to recognize the hopelessness of his condition, and to even regret that he had learned to read at all. In explaining his state of mind, Douglass says, “I would at times feel that learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing. It had given me a view of my wretched condition, without remedy...in moments of agony, I envied my fellow–slaves for their stupidity” (413). This quote is important in understanding Douglass’s motivation in the pursuit of his own freedom. In becoming educated, Douglass was introduced to arguments and objections to the institution of slavery that had not occurred him as an uneducated slave. With a greater understanding of his own plight, Douglass fully realized the dehumanizing effects of slavery. The fact that he began to envy the illiterate slaves shows just how hopeless his situation must have appeared to him. I think it is out this realization that Douglass developed his drive for freedom. He knew that after learning to read he would never look at slavery as he had before, and became determined to free himself and his mind from the cruelties of slavery.

Fredrick Douglass

The Fredrick Douglass autobiography that we discussed this week is one of my favorite pieces so far. I found that there was a powerful narrative voice, and the descriptions used in the text were well chosen, and at many times striking. Jenna commented on the choice of words he used to describe his fall into an oppressed state of being 'broken' and the implications that has- being broken as a wild horse is broken. Douglass' descriptive powers were also at full effect when he was describing the devoted great-grandmother who was sent to a hut to die alone; stripped of all of the children she had borne and cared for. The material properties thrown on slave bodies were more highlighted by Douglass' passing comment that with all the children she had and their descendants, she had made the owner part of his fortune. She had given all the work she could do in her life and every child and grandchild and great-grandchild to slavery, but she was still something to be disposed of, some animal to pasture.

When reading Douglass' narrative, I couldn't help but recall how he learned to read and write- every letter was 'stolen' from the mind of a street urchin in a bet. Each letter was a small battle to win, and yet they were all now fluently used in his autobiography and street writing. He had to win every letter, but the white street children were given the letter and basic knowledge, though they lacked the comparable gifts Douglass had. It is sobering to think of how many boundless talents were lost to history by the oppression of millions of minds.

I was also considering the question on ‘Silent Racism’ and what the impact of the author’s race is. Though it may confer a buffer against a white reader feeling attacked, I was considering it to possibly be a drawback to her study. She may suffer from pronounced racial guilt at being the same race as the white oppressors. She is ‘studying’ a small homogenous non-random sample group, that greatly resembles herself, and I think that psychological projection is a distinct concern. Since she is the only analyzer and she guides and leads the conversation, she has the danger of power and manipulating the study group into mirrors of parts of herself and how she sees people. Since this is not a peer reviewed scientific study, her methods are passable, but if this was to be safeguarded against bias, additional steps might need to be taken.

Silent Racism: Chapter 3

I am aware that this book is strictly focused on white women and their conscious or unconscious racism towards blacks; however I find myself constantly thinking about within-race racism as well as across-race racism in today’s society. In other words, racism within one’s own race as well as racism that is unbiased of color, social class, age etc. In Chapter 3, “Passivity in Well-Meaning White People” I couldn’t help but think of how prevalent and impactful passivity can be within one’s own race, and more specifically black people. For example, a racist joke within a black group or mixed group may not be actively opposed or resisted by either race, which in my opinion even further perpetuates silent racism and racial stereotypes (more than just white passivity) since the racial joke and its implications are accepted by “all”, both black and white people. In addition, adopting hateful, racial slurs by an oppressed group from the oppressors could potentially be categorized as passivity and hence contribute to the various forms of racism of today.
Trevor also brought up an interesting point. To end class on Monday, he asked the class “How would you feel about “Silent Racism” if you knew that it was a black author writing about these white women?” It made me really think about how I myself portray white vs. black teachers and/or authors on a topic such as this. Though a black author could provide insight through personal narratives, I may have the tendency to believe that her book as a whole is too emotional because of these narratives, hence skewing the facts of her study. Almost like she is too emotionally invested, therefore her telling may be inaccurate. It does not have to do with color by any means, it more has to do with the oppressed vs. oppressor status. But then again, the narratives of these slaves’ lives we have also been reading along with silent racism have been profound and moving, and the last thing from my mind is that the stories are “too emotional and/or bias” and hence ineffective, skewed, etc.

Frederick Douglas

The reading that i found to be most interesting was the reading about Frederick Douglas. Frederick Douglas was a slave in the south who told his life story all the way up until he was free. Throughout his life he had experienced a lot of bad things, but other things motivated him to make something of his life and escape slavery. One important event that happened in his life was when captain anthony died and his property was now being sold. It was striking to know that Douglas was being treated as property and not being looked at as a human being. Another incident that occurred in his life that i find interesting was the part when his master makes him deal with the oxen. His master told him to go get wood with the oxen, but Douglas was having some trouble controlling them. From his mistake, his master decided to whip him because he could not complete a simple task. The thing that i find most interesting is that these masters think of slaves as animals and people who don't deserve anything, but then expect them to complete somewhat difficult tasks. I just really do no know why that happens, but that is what i think. The turning point in his life i think was the part when he got in a fight with my covey. Throughout his time with mr covey, he was beaten and whipped a lot of treated poorly. After that physical confrontation, mr covey never laid a hand on Douglas again. From this experience, Douglas gained confidence and boldness and was set out to become free.

I think tonight's reading by Harriet E. Wilson brought up a lot of different issues that were very important and prevalent during the time that it was written. I also think that although these issues were important, I also think that they were viewed very differently then. Two of the main things that I felt showed up very strongly in the reading were education and religion. As I read it I thought about it was two separate things but also how they relate to each other. For example, in the third chapter when Mr. Bellmont wanted Frado to go to school but Mrs. Bellmont and Mary don't want her to. It made me think about the idea that knowledge is power. Mrs. Bellmont doesn't want her to go to school because she knows that if she goes to school she will learn to read and write, which would then give her the power to think for herself and try to get out of the house that she is in. Even though she is not a slave and is just an indentured servant she is still treated like it and her "employers" still think of her as one.

They teach her the bible so that she can be a part of christian society and they can relieve some of their guilt, but they, mostly Mrs. Bellmont, don't want her learning too much because then she will be able to use the bible in her favor instead of theirs. I think Mrs. Bellmont is also afraid and would be embarrassed if Frado was able to go to church and be equal with whites, because this meant that in a way she failed to keep Frado oppressed.

The Bellmont family uses education and religion as a way to oppress Frado, with out her knowing it, but at the same time are trying to monitor it to make sure she doesn't learn too much and so that she doesn't begin to create her own beliefs and ideas.

Humans treated as oxen...and then told to drive the oxen.

Wednesday in class we talked a lot about the line that was constantly being crossed between considering slaves as low as animals and then treating them as humans when it was convenient (Several people have also discussed it here). I wanted to delve a little deeper in the oxen excerpt.
I found it very interesting because there is a line on page 423 that says "I was somewhat unmanageable when I first went there, but a few months of this discipline tamed me. Mr. Covey succeed in breaking me. I was broken in body, soul, and spirit....and behold a man transformed into a brute!" I do not think that it is a coincidence that Douglass used words such as "tamed," "breaking," or "brute." These are words typically used when describing an animal, such as an unruly horse or oxen. With this vocab Douglass succeeded in portraying the mindset of slaves having the status of cattle or horses.

It is interesting because, as many people have already pointed out, later on the scene occurs where Douglass is expected to know how to control the oxen. The very thought that slaves should know and thus succeed in controlling other animals disproves the mindset of slaves being the same as animals. I believe that the oxen references are but a small example of how messed up and contradictory the beliefs of many slave-owners and societies at the time.

What it Takes to obtain Freedom

On Wednesday our class discussion truly got me thinking how the thought of freedom empowered slaves to continue on there mission no matter what obstacles they faced on the way. Fredick Douglass truly inspired my thoughts because of everything he did to become the smart African American he is known as today. The fact that shocks me the most is how he obtained all his knowledge. For a slave to trick others into giving him reading and writing lessons is truly skillful in my eyes. Although this also opened my eyes to the fact that slavery was really something brutal in the past for minorities especially African Americans. It is shown through the accounts of Fredrick Douglas how even as a child slaves were put through situations that were truly uncalled for. i recall one intense where he speaks of the slaves getting an allowance every month which would consist of food and clothes . However, children around the ages of 8 and younger who could not work the field would get no type of allowance because they had done no work with that said they would have to go naked and hungry for many parts of the year; even if they had to do it for all for seasons. I truly had a image of that in my head when reading because white slave owners would do anything just to have slaves in that sense they would even breed slaves as if they were savage animals and in many situations rape the slaves so they could bare a child and have more property. If slaves were so important to have why would they treat the children of these slaves so bad as to even not giving them enough clothes or food to survive. This kind of makes you think they were just preparing these children's for the struggles of there soon to be slave lives of labor. The thought of this makes me hate the slavery era even more. Especially when Fredrick Douglas recalls a moment in his past where his brother is killed by a master who all the slaves did not want to be sent to after the death of there former slave owner.

These accounts make me see how difficult everyday of a slaves life was and i truly respect those who ran for there freedom. I also have deep respect for those slaves who would do anything to help others such as Fredrick Douglass before he obtained his freedom he helped slaves learn how to read. This was truly important because after he got his freedom he was able to publish accounts and with the slaves he helped being able to read and learn how to comprehend words, they were able to achieve their freedom as well.

frederick douglas/ silent racism

After reading the Frederick Douglas story and discussing it in class it made me appreciate the things he did even more. When we learn about heroic figures like Frederick Douglas at young ages I feel that we don't appreciate their accomplishments as much. I think its important to share Douglas' story with all races because his legacy represents more than a slave story. Douglas made a difference in the world during the worst time of his life. The fact that he was able to use his past experiences as motivation is amazing. I think if anyone witnessed the beatings he saw they would be scarred for their life. This man was able to write about it and taught other illiterate slaves how to read his work.

I thought the question I asked in class about the book silent racism being written by a black author was an interesting topic to discuss. I personally believe most white people wont feel the same way about this book if a black author wrote this book. One reason is the fact that Trepagnier is focuses on the white race more then any other race while discussing racism. I think white people are more accepting to the comments made in this book because Trepegnier is white herself. If she was black, some whites might not accept this book because they can argue she herself is racist.

Frederick Douglas

The reading that we about Frederick Douglas was really interesting to me. I have always been a huge fan of Frederick Douglas, but I never really knew that much about his life. It really struck me that Douglas needed to have huge strength and bravery to do what he did. First, he taught himself to read, then he stood up to his overseer, then he had the courage and ability to try and run away. After all of this, he was then willing to write about it and flee to Europe so he wouldn't get killed. I am fully aware that many people would not have that kind of personal strength.
It also got me thinking about the other readings that we have done for this class. Every single black writer that we have read from the pre-Civil War era put their lives on the line to tell their stories or share their beliefs. Even the folktales and songs could have been dangerous if the slaves' white masters had heard them and interpreted them correctly. This really shed a whole new light on everything that we have read in class. Even if I do not agree with everything that is said in the readings I have complete respect for these people who were willing to write them.

The Double Blind

During yesterdays class we discussed a double blind argument when talking about a slave's life and impact of Christianity on a slave. In the Fredrick Douglas reading, he mentioned the legal status of chattel vs. the philosophical status of chattel. When Christianity was mistakenly seen as a "gift" from the slaves' master, slaves had to figure out how to survive in order for them to regain their freedom.
I thought it was very interesting how the slaves followed through with the thoughts and traditions of Christianity. Douglas helped me realize what a threat "learning how to read" was to slave owners. The narrative showed Fredrick's strength in teaching other slaves how to read so that slaves could eventually understand the duality of their situation as a slave.
The class discussion helped me understand how important education and reading was to the slaves. After I read the reading, I liked to think that reading gave them more strength to fight for emancipation. The slaves were beginning to see their dual life style; they were kicked and beaten like animals and face criminal charges when they were seen as humans. After the reading and class discussion I now know that reading was seen as a way out of slavery.

Silent Racism

The discussion in class on Monday about Barbara Trepagnier’s claims about silent racism was very interesting. It seems like a lot of us have been harboring strong feelings about the book all along, even through the first few chapters. I know that I personally can’t ignore some of the hypocrisy of Trepagnier’s presentation of her opinions. She accuses white people of generalizing and stereotyping African Americans, and in doing so she lumps all white people into the same boat: generalization.

I also noticed Dylan’s post about the possibility of anti-feminist readers’ responses, and I think that’s a great point to bring up. Trepagnier uses only women in her study, and she herself is a woman. It almost seems like she’s daring readers to discredit her work for that reason. I’m no scientist, but I know that a study of a dozen females from one particular region of the country does not produce data that can represent an entire race of people. So I’m wondering why she decided to set it up this way, because she must have a reason. Maybe she’s trying to prove a point about judgment and subconscious beliefs, since historically the women’s rights and abolitionist movements were often closely linked. Maybe she’s trying to take a stand for women’s rights, while raising awareness of silent racism at the same time. I’m sure some of these questions will be answered as we read further in the book.

Pondering about the Author of Silent Racism

In class on Monday, a very interesting question was brought up regarding the race of the author of ‘Silent Racism’. The question was to do with how ‘Silent Racism’ would be seen differently if the author were a black woman rather than a white woman. This question has invoked another related question that I now am pondering. It was clear that most of the class, including myself, had strong feelings about the way Barbara Trepagnier carried out her study. There were several critics and attacks against her and her ideas about racism. After our quick judgments and vocal responses, the question I now ask is whether we would have responded the same way if the author were a male rather than a female. In my opinion, questioning human response dependent on race is as legitimate as questioning human response to gender. So, I am wondering if knowing that the author is a woman gives readers a greater feeling of superiority or knowledge over her than if the author were a man. I am interested in this question as we have been learning about silent racism and how white people respond to colored people in a certain way without even realizing it. I believe that gender equality is similar in this way. People respond to women differently than they do to men, and whether people believe that women are now created equal to men, they are still not. Just like the way racism still exists. If a male wrote ‘Silent Racism’ would we be as critical?

Wednesday's Discussion

I thought that our class discussion was pretty stimulating today. As we seem to be trying to direct our discussions toward the literature, rather than Silent Racism, currently, I thought a lot of people were insightful about Frederick Douglass' narrative. I agreed with many statements made about the circumstances that Douglass went through and how he still maintained an immense amount of mental strength. Some people mentioned how he did have a certain advantage, as he did not grow up necessarily working in the fields as others did; rather, he was exposed to white people more throughout his childhood, which gave him the incentive to learn as much as they know.

A disturbing aspect of the narrative that I didn't feel I had time to mention was the except about drinking that Charlie referred to toward the end of class. I thought it was most disturbing and cruel how the white masters enticed their slaves to spend their week off for Christmas drinking with them. Because the white masters taunted them and forced them to drink, while gambling the idea of the slaves' liberty, this reverse psychology effect caused the slaves to return to the fields almost happy that they were not discussing their freedom anymore-- the freedom they knew they would never obtain. I thought that was sick in the way that the masters wore out their inferiors mentally, further weakening them.

Frederick Douglass

Our discussion in class was interesting and useful to me at the same time. I found it interesting that most people were apt to talk about the line that is never really clear as to whether a slave was considered a human or not. The line seems fickle and intangible and is more dependent upon the situation one is in. Examples of this are evident in the difference between Douglass' inability to lead oxen and the act of purchasing a female slave for the use of reproduction. Although Douglass may be treated as an animal in a other situations, he is expected to know how to lead oxen. Same with the female slave, who maybe subjected to dehumanization in other situations, but somehow subconsciously is acknowledged as a human for biological purposes.

I also found our class discussion extremely helpful because I have never evaluated Douglass' strife and spirit. In the past, I have learned of his knowledge and thoughts, especially on dehumanization, but never really thought in depth about his morale and ability to overcome adversity, as someone read this morning, "when a slave becomes a man." Overall, I guess it was advantageous for me to put his writing in perspective and be aware of where it came from and from whom it was produced.

Language

The reading from Wednesday and Friday's class made me think about the use of language. I know Joan Dayan wrote about the legal manipulations and their connection to manipulation for the better or for the worse, but it was her theory that allowed me to see a connection to Sojourner Truth. When Gage wrote about the speech given by Sojourner Truth, she wrote in a way that let the reader feel the "natural human" that Dayan writes about.
Truth spoke about her views on anti-slavery. She was a victim of being a "natural human" and not a "civil person" unless committing a crime because she was a slave. The form of language that Gage used as she wrote Truth's speech emphasized the civil disabilities vs. the civil human rights that Truth faced a person. Truth was disabled because of her position in society as a slave and never received civil human rights, unless she was to commit a crime. The speech was Truth's way of showing why slaves should not be victims of legal manipulation. The way Gage wrote Truth's speech, visually showed a difference between white and black language, but the speech also showed that the meaning behind Truth's words are as powerful as any other white person's words.
What I learned from the reading this week is that in every way each African American other is perceived or wanted to be perceived, was in a way that proves to current readers, that the slaves had no right to be treated differently. Truth is a specific example that shows one of the many faces of slavery. After Dayan's reading, I realized that slaves should have been treated as a natural human and a civil person, and not one or the other because a slave has committed a crime.