“The Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave” was published in 1845, well before emancipation; however, Frederick Douglass had already escaped from slavery prior to its publication and upon its release moved to
Douglass was not only an abolitionist, but was also very closely involved in the women’s suffrage movement in the
“In this denial of the right to participate in government, not merely the degradation of woman and the perpetuation of a great injustice happens, but the maiming and repudiation of one-half of the moral and intellectual power of the government of the world.”
I think it is important to note the close relationship between the abolitionist movement and women’s suffrage movement in the 19th century. Also, it is interesting to think about what a progressive thinker Douglass must have been to understand that the advancement of the society as a whole is dependent on the elimination of both racist and sexist policies in government.
And now for your prompt: Please choose ONE of the following questions to write on:
1. Both Frederick Douglass’ narrative and Rousseau’s Confessions are written in a similar auto-biographical/ memoir form. How are these two texts similar and in what important ways do they differ?
2. In Chapter IV Douglass uses language such as “barbarous” or “savage” to describe many of the slave masters. What might be the intended effect of this rhetoric on the reader?
3. What is Douglass’ opinion on the role of religion in maintaining the institution of slavery? Is this a valid position?
The role of religion and Christianity in Douglass' narrative is actually quite interesting. While in slavery, Douglass saw how faith was exploited and manipulated in the worst way possible. It is no surprise, then, that when he writes of "religious" slave owners he knew, it is with a sense of bitterness. Those people he encountered in his life who relied on and supposedly believed in their religion the most were the most cruel. To someone like Douglass, who would become an ordained minister and to whom religion is sacred and holy, the actions of these men was the worst hypocrisy and blasphemy. Although it would be unfair to say Christianity itself had no place in the slave states, certainly how it was abused made Douglass' position valid and his views understandable. Ironically, only the return of true faith, compassion and Christianity would heal the injustices and tragedy Douglass himself experienced.
ReplyDeleteFrederick Douglass’ use of these words to describe the plantation owners may serve as an attempt to reduce the separation of defined classes between plantation owners and slaves. During this time slaves were often seen and treated as if they were worth nothing. Slaves were viewed as less than human and most of the time they were treated like barbaric, savage, animals.
ReplyDeleteBy exemplifying how plantation owners were also savage and barbaric in ways puts them on a more equal level with the slaves. This attempt at equalization allows Frederick Douglass, as well as the slaves, to be seen in more similar terms to the slave owners. This comparison brings the slaves back from being seen as non-humans, to humans through the realization that when put in specific situations, anyone can take on barbaric and savage qualities.
Frederick Douglass uses strong language such as words like “barbarous” and “savage” to get his point across to the reader how harshly slaves were treated by their overseers. When you think of a word such as “barbarous” you think of the utmost cruel and wild treatment used. Douglass wanted to describe his slave owners in this way to show the inequality going on during the 1800s and how slaves were treated in a sense lesser than real people and as of animals. This poor treatment of slaves is unacceptable and unjust because they deserved full human rights. The use of such vivid adjectives to describe the poor treatment of the slaves reminds me of a similar autobiography I read in my Diversity class this semester entitled “The Circuit” by Francisco Jimenez who described in his novel about illegal migrant Mexican farmers being treated as animals by their bosses on the farms. In one scene of the novel, one of Jimenez’s friends is asked to wear a collar around his neck like an animal and go on his knees in order to plow the field. Jimenez’s friend stands up to his boss and his boss fires him and deports the boy back to Mexico where he is stripped of all the money he earned while in the U.S. This is another great example like Douglass’ to show the type of power the slave owner or farm owner had over the minority population and how the treatment of these poor individuals can be described as degrading and disgusting.
ReplyDeleteDouglass uses words like “barbarous” and “savage” to describe the slave masters to really make his opinion known to the reader. He uses these words along with imagery of people beating animals to portray the true nature of the relationship between the slave and the master. This kind of language causes readers to be more sympathetic towards slaves as well. If Douglass were to say simply “he whipped me and I bled” one may not think it was that bad compared to him describing the merciless beatings until the blood flowed down his scarred back. Without the overly descriptive imagery the reader would not care as much.
ReplyDeleteDouglass may also use words such as these because he is coping with the trauma he experienced. He must tell himself that the slave holders were “barbarous” or “savage” in order to help him move on from the experience. He needs to assure himself that these acts were way out of line instead of possibly thinking what he went through was ok, as many people that suffer through abusive relationships do. Some people believe that they deserve the abuse and that is why they remain in abusive relationships. Douglass acknowledges that what he is going through is not ok and fights his way through it.
3. What is Douglass’ opinion on the role of religion in maintaining the institution of slavery? Is this a valid position?
ReplyDeleteDouglass’ opinion of religion in terms of its affect on maintaining slavery is certainly negative, but as far as his narrative is concerned, it seems rightfully so. He makes careful consideration in the appendix to differ between what he feels to be a true honorable interpretation of Christianity from the Christianity of his American slave masters. He speaks of a number of instances in which his masters would construe their religious beliefs to further propagate their horrible treatment of the slaves. He even at one instance states his firm belief that the level of religion is directly correlated with a master’s level of cruelty. This view however is not necessarily surprising; certainly historically we have seen all too many instances where religion has been construed in order to commit heinous crimes. Douglass however seems to have a large degree of religious beliefs especially in the way he often refers to positive events in his life as having some sort of divine providence. He believes in his vision of Christianity and holds to it, he only instead opposes the way he sees Christianity being twisted to support the white’s vision of superiority and divine right to hold slaves. His opinion is valid, but one also has to question whether Douglass’ optimistic view of true religion is actually possible. Is it really possible to have a world where people don’t construe their beliefs for their own selfish gains? Certainly history has attested the opposite thus far. One must wonder if a world at peace needs to have John Lennon’s controversial clause of, “Imagine no religion.” One could also argue that religion was used to support abolitionist causes as well. And in a sense Douglass would probably argue for its positive effects as well. Religion, then, could be argued to just be another factor in a complicated mixture of cause and effect.
Black people in those times were often referred to as savage and barbarians. This was a widely held view among white people, especially southerners, even until today. This racist view is well documented in literature throughout American history. For instance, that view is taken by many people in To Kill A Mockingbird, as well as Native Son. Frederick Douglass was very purposeful in the diction he chose. He chose words that were often used against black people, and he applied them to white people. He showed that the acts of these religious, god fearing men were committing acts of violence that were much worse than anything that "savage" black people have ever done. He is using that language to emphasize the hypocrisy of the antebellum south, especially with the slaveowners.
ReplyDeleteDouglass' narrative and Rousseau's Confessions are very similar in that they both are autobiographical texts that are used to make a point. Douglass' narrative however was written to help out other slaves by telling the true horror of what it's like to be a slave in the United States. At the very start he wants the reader to know that he is just like every single other black slave. His story is basically the same story that every other slave in his position would tell. Granted, Douglass' experiences as a slave were a little unusual because he was given the opportunity to learn how to read and write whereas most slaves were not. Rousseau, on the other hand, makes it very clear that he is absolutely not like anyone else in existence. He makes the claim that he alone knows exactly who he is and has a very clear understanding of his self, and that he is very different from everyone else in existence. Douglass doesn't claim to know himself well at all. In fact, he doesn't even know his own birthday or exact age other than a vague hint at his age that he received from his master.
ReplyDelete