Review of Uncle Tom's Cabin

There were a vast number of incredibly poetic and astute quotations which I could have chosen from Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I decided on the above one because it sums up the hypocrisy many slaveholders employed everyday. The idea of America being a "free" country during this time was laughable, but many masters truly believed that they were born with a right to purchase slaves and treat them in whatever way they saw fit. Obviously, the slaves themselves weren't privileged enough to enjoy this "freedom", but in the eyes of certain masters this did not make America any less free - slaves did not "count" as men in the states in which slavery was permissible.

My recent posts make it clear that at the moment I've been reading a number of slave narratives in preparation for one of my modules I'll be studying as a finalist. This is the only slave narrative out of the four that I've read recently which has not been written from a first hand point of view. I can now see why Uncle Tom's Cabin resulted in such immense popularity when it was published, and believe that it's a fundamental tool in understanding that a number of different approaches to slavery existed.

Unlike many other slave narratives, Uncle Tom's Cabin tracks the progression of the lives of a number of individuals, although Tom's is obviously covered with greater emphasis. Tom initially lived under a kind master and mistress who allowed him to marry a cook named Chloe and live with her and their children in a cottage (or cabin) on their property. Though Tom was technically a slave, he worked as a kind of manager for his master. He was renowned for being one of the most honest and hard working slaves a man could meet. Here, Uncle Tom became acquainted with the bible, and was given his own copy to read from and annotate. Unfortunately, Tom's master got into a great deal of debt. Although Tom and a mother and son called Eliza and Harry were the master and mistresses favourite slaves they were also worth the most. Tom's master was forced to sell the three to cover his debts. Now, I don't want to give too many spoilers about the rest of the novel because the beauty and tragedy of this piece of literature are simply breathtaking. However, I will simply state that Tom suffers and rejoices at the hands of both pleasant Christian masters as well as those who are not so wholesome.

As I've said, this is the first slave narrative I've read that looks at the stories of multiple slaves (it also lets you see where Eliza and Harry end up, and how they get there). It's also the first slave narrative I've read which gives some insight into the different temperaments and thoughts of slave owners. There are several key individuals in this category which are particularly striking. Tom and Eliza's mistress treats Eliza almost as if she is a daughter. She has been educated, clothed well, encouraged in marriage, and instructed in appropriate chores. When Eliza runs away to ensure that her and her son will not be separated, her mistress is glad. She vehemently condemns the sale of Eliza, and would much rather see her own finances plummet than have to give her up to being sold down south. This character alone shows far more empathy for the state of slaves than I've read about in any other slave narrative. Another character which stands out in this light is the foolish but kind-hearted St Clare. He treats his slaves as though they are part of the family, to the extent that the house is a place of (slightly chaotic) sanctuary for the slaves. His daughter Eva is almost the embodiment of Christ in a child. Many of the slaves which they own, especially Tom, see true Christianity in her, which completely contrasts the wild and incorrect notions of Christianity many slave owners used to support their mistreatment of many men, women and children. This idyllic view of the support some slaves receive from their masters is shattered by the tyranny of Marie St Clare and Simon Legree. These two expose the corruption and degradation which many slaveholders insisted upon executing in their household. The contrasting set of characters here highlights a different aspect of slavery which I have never read about in detail. Uncle Tom's Cabin indicates that Christianity is more fundamental to an individual's treatment of slavery than anything else. Although I've previously read about the hypocritical ways in which many masters use Christianity to their advantage, it has never been so clear that one's view of what God is or whether He is real greatly affected one's approach to slave holding.

What did you think?

Steph x

Review of The Life of Josiah Henson

I decided to shorten the title of this book in the title above because it's a bit of a mouthful: The Life of Josiah Henson, formerly a Slave, now an Inhabitant of Canada, as Narrated by Himself. However, the entire title is incredibly important - it highlights the progress Henson made through his bravery and belief in the right of his freedom. Although he did not physically write the book itself (having had that privilege snatched from him by his "masters"), Henson is remembered as a powerful orator and narrated this book to be written word for word from his speech.

The novel begins with Josiah Henson as a child. He was born into slavery and at first sees no other way forward in his life. However, as he grows to reach a pre-pubescent age, he begins to realise that he is physically superior to many of his fellow bondsmen. This offers Henson, or "Siah" as he's known, to gain opportunities which he recognises that others around him do not have. Even though he is able to accomplish tasks with a great level of alacrity he still suffers at the hands of dominant white men. By the time he reaches adulthood he is physically impaired. The beating which did this irreparable damage to him really stuck out to me. He was set upon by a white man and a couple of his slaves. Although strong, Siah could not fight against four men, and was almost beaten to death. He received this because he was perceived to have done something wrong: if this fit and able, incredibly intelligent man was liable to such beatings, then one can only imagine the sufferings of those who couldn't fulfill their tasks as readily. Siah uses his wit and incredible physical abilities to earn money during his time as a slave. I'm NOT going to spoiler this one, as I think it's an incredibly important book to read, but I will just say that his attempts to buy himself freedom do not go exactly to plan ...

So if you've been keeping up with my recent posts, you'll know I reviewed Twelve Years A Slave (http://the-darkness-will-never-win.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/review-of-twelve-years-slave.html) and Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave (http://the-darkness-will-never-win.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/review-of-narrative-of-life-of.html). Although I felt the style and narrative of The Life of Josiah Henson reminded me a little of Twelve Years a Slave, they obviously still offer an incredibly different viewpoint on the topic of slavery. The biggest lesson which I feel Henson tried to express through his writing is that slaves are no less intelligent than their masters. Henson himself was stripped of all means of education as a child and all contact with the commercial world, however, by adulthood he had enough wit and sense to free himself from captivity successfully and build a safe haven for former slaves. He is largely the reason why the next generation of his family were schooled - he chose the correct way forward at every turn point so that the community had enough money to build a school. Moreover, Henson expresses more potently than the other writers just how great an affinity there was amongst the slaves owned by each master. They were not just holed up together like animals as the masters thought, but had genuine bonds and feelings for one another. 

The utter barbarity of white slave traders was (I think) expressed and felt by Henson more through their words and legal actions than their physical abuse. The tragedy of the plot lies in Henson's attempt to purchase his own freedom. He is thoroughly respected by his master and purchases his freedom, only to find that he has been betrayed in the worst way. The document which declares his freedom has been destroyed, to be replaced with another one which indicates that he owes an insurmountable sum of money in order to become free. At this point it really struck home for me that, no matter how well you performed as a slave, or how much you had done for a master personally, they would rarely (if ever) see an individual as more than a piece of property.

Have any of you read it? What did you think?

Steph

Review of "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave

“At that time, the slightest manifestation of humanity toward a coloured person was denounced as abolitionism, and that name subjected its bearer to frightful liabilities”

Frederick Douglass was born into slavery in 1818. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave is his attempt to reveal the injustices of slavery in order to work towards abolitionism. The very existence of this narrative is a testament to his bravery and hard-working spirit.

This text tracks the story of Douglass’ escape from his hellish treatment as a slave. It includes details of all of the various slaveholders who wrongfully imprisoned him in order to shame them. Initially Douglass accepted that he was going to spend his life as a slave, however, the help of a kind mistress sparked his interest in words and education. He soon began to seek help from free white boys in order to develop his understanding of the alphabet and later reading itself. This is eventually what paved his way to freedom. Without this intellectual hope Douglass himself admits that he would have been forced to the despair which many of his fellow men and women in bondage were consumed by. Alongside his attempts to learn however came many great risks: slaveholders feared that if their slaves learnt to read they would become empowered and thus liable to rebel and riot.

If any of you read last week’s review of Twelve Years A Slave (http://the-darkness-will-never-win.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/review-of-twelve-years-slave.html) then you’ll see that I thought that had a different emphasis on the traumatic effects of slavery. Solomon Northup heavily focused on the physical and emotional implications on himself and the people he was held with. In Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave however, Douglass’ work is more directed towards exposing the hypocrisy and corruption of American slaveholders who believed in their Christian vocation to slaveholding. Many of the slave holders in the South whom Douglass was unfortunate enough to have to call “master” insisted that they were good Christians. As a result of this, they often quoted scripture whilst whipping their slaves.

This hypocrisy really hit home when I read this text as the recent crises in the Middle East show that people have not yet learnt that religion is not an excuse for persecution. Religion should discourage hatred, prejudice and torture, rather than encourage people to commit it. Frederick Douglass realised that Christianity was often (although not exclusively) a front for this. Him and his fellow bondmen were prohibited from attending Church and learning how to read scripture, to the extent that the Sunday school they created was punishable by death.

What did you think of the text when you read it? 

Is Lionel Shriver’s We Need To Talk About Kevin a simplistic, grotesque reading of Freud’s works or a more ethical social reading of modern day America?

The crude, graphic language of this modern text, at once compelling and repugnant, in fact seems to show that this book is not about either of the topics highlighted above, but about both of them. This language is initially applied to Eva’s (the protagonist’s mother) sexual life with her husband, but as the novel takes a sickening plunge it becomes enmeshed with the murderous violence of the book’s eponymous “hero”, Kevin. Arguably Kevin’s actions are a symbol of the violence taking place in America when Shriver wrote the novel (early 2000s), and Eva’s are those of a sexualised, neurotic mother and thus these two characters encapsulate what I see as being the two key influences on the text.

Firstly, the Freudian scenes lord over the text. Not only are they frequent, but they are memorable because of their graphic and disturbing nature. Shriver confronts us with the sexualisation of a mother-son relationship that is physically and emotionally repellent to us. In my opinion the disgusting nature of their relationship peaks when Kevin masturbates in front of her mother, and yet she does not immediately recoil from this, but watches before telling him to stop. Freud theorised that parents repress their child’s sexuality; all children are born sexual, but are misguided by information given to them by their parents about sex. Thus Shriver exposes what happens if one’s parents do not repress their sexuality. This is scene not only through the Kevin’s phallic stage of development (as highlighted above), but also through his anal one, as he wears nappies for a prolonged period of time, thus pleasing himself through his fecal matter.

However, Shriver takes the opposite view to Freud: she shows that by not repressing the sexual, Oedipal urges of a child towards both his mother and himself the child can still grow up neurotic. Kevin makes no attempt to stop his animosity towards his father, and yet he can conceal it. This act of concealing which is usually performed by the unconscious but here has to be performed by Kevin’s conscious ego creates a great deal of psychical energy within him. This thus erupts and results in him not only killing his father, but shooting him through the penis as an additional wound. The murder appears to arise out of a deep seated hatred of his father as a person, but this specific wound combined with the murder of his younger sister appear to show that this more likely arose out of jealousy regarding his mother’s affection.

Although the novel does have this Freudian foundation, it is a rather complex narrative as Shriver focuses on the mother’s perspective within an ethico-social context. The narrative is written from a retrospective point of view; she is contemplating whether or not the actions Kevin took were a result of him being inherently evil or her poor nurturing. This simple nature-nurture dilemma is never answered in the text, and many people and critics have entirely opposing views on it. Shriver appears to be highlighting that Kevin’s character is not developed because of one of these aspects of his infantile life, but because of a combination of the two.

The disgusting reaction of the community to Eva is also an ethical dilemma: how does one treat someone who has raised a child who has massacred children living in your community? Or perhaps even your own child? Their violent, antisocial reaction links in with the nature/nurture dilemma: are they inherently antisocial and this traumatic event merely worked as a trigger for this or was the event the reason why they behave in this way? All these questions remain an unanswered undercurrent of the book which I believe works as an appropriate antithesis for the simplicity of her Freudian content.