Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Frederick Douglass
The reason I believe Douglass uses such rhetoric as “barbarous” and “savage” is to give readers who have never seen first hand the work of slavery a lasting, terrifying image. He wishes to describe his captors as negatively as possible to inspire readers to join his movement against slavery. If he used less negative descriptions of the slaveholders it wouldn’t create this lasting impression. By giving his readers descriptions which they can relate to it allows his autobiography to have more effect. The readers begin to feel injustice for another human, brought into a world where he has little choice of freedom, and everywhere he turns he must seek the permission of others or be beat savagely like an animal. He describes several instances of punishment brought onto him, fellow slaves, and even family members. These serve the purpose of again showing the brutality of slavery and how slaveholders treat their property worse than that of animals. All of which is to inspire readers to fight against such a terrible practice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Rousseau's and Douglass' works are similar solely in the sense that they are both autobiographical works expressing the cons of the era in which the two separate individuals lived in. Since the two lived in vastly different times and locations their topics differed greatly, but more importantly their format of speech was vastly different.
ReplyDeleteRousseau wrote about the Modern Individual and developed his topics greatly on one's psychoanalysis. He wrote in the Age of Sensibility in which works were often overly emotional and not necessarily the most rational, for example Ann Radcliffe's "The Mysteries of Udolpho". The writing of this era related to the surroundings in a very hyper-sensical way. He also wrote about Urbanization and how social problems naturally emerge as a city grows. He also believed that nature was at its best a natural resource, and how humans were the beings that spoiled its "naturalness". His stories revolved around nature being tamed and controlled, during the Enlightenment during which Romantic Nationalism was prominent, eventually leading into Manifest Destiny. Douglass on the other hand was born into slavery and developed his story on the cons of being a slave and a slave-owner and tried to gain the readers sympathy for the matter.
One of the most prominent differences between the two would definitely be that Rousseau stressed the modern individual as being one of a kind, unique. He stated, "I am not made like any of those I have seen. I venture to believe that I am not made like any of those in existence". On the contrary Douglass proposed a sense of commonality when he showed that ALL the slaves did not know about their origins and backgrounds. Whatever he wrote about, whether it be not having an emotional connection with his mother or not knowing when he was born, it was assumed that this was a common thought amongst all children born into slavery. He never portrayed himself as the only one going through this situation. Although he was not the best representation of the common slave, since he was privileged with some sort of an education and since he lived on large farm, the reader felt that he was a trustworthy narrator, since multiple people were undergoing similar circumstances, while Rousseau came across as very biased, since he was the only one that could possibly be having the thoughts he was having or living in the situation in which he was living in.
Rousseau and Douglass both wrote autobiographies. However, they were quite different. Rousseau knows exactly who he is when he is writing. He thinks that he is special and that no one else is like him. However, Douglass does not have any idea who he is. Douglass does not know his age or really even who his parents were. He shows the commonality among people rather than showing how he is an individual. Douglass’s story is representative of many slaves’ lives, while Rousseau’s autobiography is only representative of his own life. However, both appear to have exaggerated in their stories. Rousseau seems to possibly embellish certain facts and even admits that he may have not told the entire truth in writing his autobiography. However Douglass also appears to have taken some liberties in his writing. In his descriptions of some of the traumatic events that he endured, he seemed to have used some literary techniques in order to emphasize his point. Both authors used language and amplified details in their stories to help get across the point that they were trying to make.
ReplyDelete2.) After reading both Rousseau and Douglass there is both similarities and differences between the two works of literature. One major similarity is that both authors use an autobiographical style of writing to capture what they believe was going on in their time period. They both also use styles of writing that enhances their writing to draw the audience in. Although this is true, the two authors were extremely different in what they wrote about and who they were as individuals.
ReplyDeleteRousseau was a very confident, man who know who he was and what he was writing about when he wrote Confessions. He believed he was a special and unique individual and that no one was quite like him. His autobiography talks about the modern individual and how one must grow and develop into their unique self. While Rousseau has a firm grasp of who he is, Douglass has no idea who he is or where he comes from when he writes his narrative. Within his narrative, he talks about how most slaves do not know their parents and are often by them selves growing up with other slaves. This shows a difference between Rousseau and Douglass. Mentioned earlier, Rousseau talks about the individual. Douglass, on the other hand, describes the slave community as a whole rather than who he is as an individual, like Rousseau does. Everything that he mentions in the narrative, he believes other slaves have gone though and have the same attitudes about life as he does. Douglass is trying to lure the audience into what it is like to be a slave to try and promote the abolition of slavery.
Frederic Douglass uses language to express the trauma inflicted on him both physically by his slave owners and psychologically by the institution of racism. It is no surprise that he uses very derogatory terms when discussing slave masters. Frederic Douglass chose this rhetoric because it is most likely the image that he has in his head and because he truly wished to recreate the event for the reader. Douglass was hoping that, through his memoir, people would begin to understand the horrors of slavery. In Chapter IV, Douglass uses the words “barbarous” and “savage” to describe the slave owners. This language is used to draw parallels between the slave owners and “uncivilized people.” He is subtly asking why slave owners would have to use force unless they were mentally incapable of expressing themselves verbally. Uncivilized, savage and barbarous people must beat each other, not thinking, reasoning members of society that Americans consider themselves to be. Douglass also uses the slave owners as a representation of the whole institution of slavery. His use of rhetoric serves to compare the slave owners to barbarians and say that the practice of slavery is barbaric. Frederick Douglass hopes that if he can convince people that slavery is barbaric and cruel, then he can influence people to put an end to it.
ReplyDeleteFrederick Douglass wrote his autobiography illustrating the severity and brutality of the life of an American slave with the deliberate intent of promoting the abolitionist cause. Use of language such as “barbarous” or “savage” carries connotations of appalling immoral behavior. To imply that the actions of society’s elite are like that of the world’s most primitive and violent cultures would have a profound impact on his audience at that time. Douglass wanted his words to be an honest reflection of the physical and psychological trauma he experienced during his life as a slave, but he also wanted them to influence society’s perception of slavery as an institution. Clearly Douglass wanted to draw as much negative attention to slaveholders as possible, and in so doing would have been aware of their angered and defensive reaction to his words. Ultimately Douglass’ intent was to shock his readers, and hopefully inspire them to act in objection to slavery.
ReplyDeletePROMPT 2: Douglass speaks this way as a means to influence the reader, no matter who they are, but in my opinion, mostly slaveholders themselves. By using words such as “barbarous” or “savage”, he portrays slave masters in the very negative light they deserve. He exposes the evils they perform and through his vocabulary, helps the reader envision just how awful they are. The writing may not have this effect if he used words like “bad” and “mean”. What’s truly interesting is that slaveholders and whites in general viewed their black counterparts as being lesser beings. They were seen as savages, uncivilized and barbarous, fit to be slaves. By writing this way, Douglass is showing that it is actually the opposite. He gives personality and life to the slaves he describes, and makes evident the barbarous and savage behaviors of the slaveholders. He is telling things the way they really are in order to correct false opinions. Also, he hopes to show whites that they are in fact the ones with the traits they judge and despise so much.
ReplyDeleteWords such as "barbarous" and "savage" have blatantly negative connotations. As a reader, words like these make it easy to see how Douglass felt about slavery. By definition, barbarous means, "Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal; primitive; uncivilized" (Oxford American Dictionary). Similarly, savage means, "Fierce, violent, and uncontrolled; cruel and viscous; aggressively hostile; primitive, uncivilized" (Oxford American Dictionary). Although slavery was a widely accepted practice at the time, Douglass used words that implied that it was inhumane and should not be considered acceptable. Personally, I think that such words are rather strong-and rightly so. Using strong adjectives such as these make Douglass' writing more persuasive and effective.
ReplyDeleteMy classmate, Ross Marx, suggested that Douglass was trying to give readers, who hadn't witnessed slavery firsthand, the opportunity to use their imaginations. In addition to what I said earlier, I also agree with Ross. If a reader reads Douglass' narrative and hasn't seen the brutality of slavery, using words like "barbarous" and "savage" gives the reader a clear image of what slave masters were like. Personally, this language makes me think of the slave masters as uncivilized, beastly, men who have no right to own anyone or treat anyone with such brutality. Based on the definitions of these words (barbarous and savage), I suspect that Douglass wanted his readers to have reactions similar to mine.
Frederick Douglass uses language such as “barbarous” or “savage” with the intention of portraying a clear image of the slave masters for the reader. In chapter four he uses these words to describe Mr. Gore. He introduces this man as somewhat of a robot. He shows little or no emotion and sees torturing other human beings as a moral task. Douglass' point reaches it's climax once Mr. Gore shoots a slave after he had run away from being whipped. Douglass wanted to expose the readers to this harsh reality.
ReplyDeleteFrederick Douglass used language such as "barbarous" and "savage" in his autobiography to describe the reality of slavery. I think he chose those terms for a reason, and I also believe that he used them in an effective way to try and illustrate to individuals who were not exposed to the horrible acts that accompanied the life of a slave.
ReplyDeleteThrough the rhetoric Frederick Douglass chose he was able to recreate in the readers mind the evils that were slavery. And the uncivilized barbaric ways of slave owners. For readers in today's day and age where slavery is not around, I think Douglass paints the correct image of slavery. He properly allows readers to recreate in their own minds how harsh the life of a slave would be in a time where there were no rights given to this group of people.
Overall, I think Douglass did an excellent job in his narrative of a slave and I think his work wouldn't have been as successful or accomplished as it is today if it weren't for his use of vivid vocabulary words such as "barbarous" and "savage".
Douglass' and Rousseau's autobiographies are very different. Rousseau's "Confessions" is a very positive view on his life. He writes very positively about his life. He speaks about he never lacked for love and that he had great experiences growing up. Douglass writes about the terrible things of his childhood and the punishments that accompany slavery. Another key different is the messages that each were trying to convey. In "Confessions" Rousseau strives to show that he is an individual and in many ways better than everyone else. Douglass had an opposite message. He was intending to show that he was the same as everyone else in order to help the abolitionist cause.
ReplyDeleteI believe Frederick Douglas used aggressive language because it truly did describe the conditions slaves were forced to endure; it was just written from a former slave’s perspective. The fact that Douglas himself was actually at one point a slave is invaluable in order to solidify his credibility. He and many others were virtually tortured, constantly treated like animals and always worked to the bone. The only other perspectives we could have gotten regarding this situation were either a white biased southerner, whom of course would have used much more delicate, soft language, or we would have heard this memoir from a slave, just as it is with Douglas; choosing to use harsh, dark descriptions, which at least to him described his past reality. The slave owners truly were “barbarous” and “savage” as they whipped and tormented other human beings; they treated the slaves like animals, no better than cattle. It is my opinion that Frederick Douglas wrote this memoir in order to drag his awful slave experience into the mainstream light, and in order to help those who were continuously suffering under cruel slave owner’s hands. The truth is that Douglas simply described what his exact reality entailed; he did this knowing his personal story was exemplary of what so many slaves endured and were still enduring. This must have had an incredible impact in the North and elsewhere, as it dragged the cruelty of slavery into the light.
ReplyDelete