HENRY,SLAVERY

The incidents of slavery impacted more than the lives of the slave, but it also impacted the slave owner. In our readings this week, we learned that possible there is more than one master in the slave and slave owner relationship. I believe that the slave is also a master in sense, because he/she controls the master. The masters’ actions are direct responses to the slaves’ actions and vice versa. In Fredrick Douglass’ tale, as in most slave narratives, slaves were not allowed to read and write. In this tale slave owners wanted so very badly to prevent slaves from learning how to read. Yet, Douglass puts all that he has in educating as many slaves as he possible could. In this aspect, the slave continually pursues what the owner does not want him to do and has to commit acts to punish the slave for disobeying. So he beats him and this is because of the actions of the slave, then the cycle starts over. Due to these actions committed by the slave owner, it is ridiculous to believe that they have any trace of morality. It is funny to think that save owners felt the slaves were subhuman, and yet they inflicted beating so bad as to cause death. If there was any trace of humanity on the slave owners’ part, then it is lost when they felt pleaser and power when causing pain to another being. As in the case of Harriet Jacobs’ story of her being continuously raped by her slave owner, which is a savage act to commit. In present day society rapist are looked upon as inhuman creatures, even in prison. So, should the slave owner be treated differently? My answer is no, and they should be treated worst because they deprive humans of the born right of care. Every human is born with the right to be cared for, and that falls into the lap of the slave owners sense they are responsible for their slaves. In present day society I believe we hold the same control over others, in the form of social class. Some people are born into a class and inherit a lot of money and power, while others have to work for the little money they get, without the power. This is a way that the high class controls the lower class because this allows the lower class to work all their lives and not reach as near as much success as the higher class. Yet, they keep striving for it as slaves did in learning how to read and write.

Le Sage, Slavery

The first exchange of power that has to be mentioned is that of Dr. Flint and Linda in Harriet Jacobs’ “Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl.” Particularly because the obsession to recapture ‘property’ makes a clear and easy target for questions of slavery’s impact on the oppressor, writing about the master’s pursuit seems like a fine start. This point can draw some to use the words ‘slave’ in describing Dr. Flint: slave to property, pride, etc. It’s a mistake to really label an oppressor a slave when the word ‘dependant’ should be used. The difference is massive, with ‘slave’ implying an inability to relieve an obsession, a fascination and dependence implying a need for it. Here is a slave owner’s morality, absent and pathetic, and dependent on the feeling (as mentioned in class) of superiority.
There is a constant shift between the dominance and subjection between men and women, even today. Sex, affection, companionship, parenting, and responsibility place one gender over another, having one role in a relationship constantly working to attain a product, a compensation. In this sense we’re still being whipped.

Martin-Klumpp, Slavery: Power Corrupts

Both Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs identify the inhumanity of their masters as a direct result of slavery. Douglass observes that new slave owners are harsher than the ones who are raised around slavery because they have to prove themselves as masters, thereby showing that enslavement in not a natural occurrence. For example, Sophia Auld becomes the perfect example of a new slave owner. At first she treats Douglass almost the same way as her son, teaching him how to read and write. However, after her husband tells her that education makes slaves worthless, she becomes the exact opposite of her kind understanding self. Douglass describes her as becoming cruel and heartless, lacking the traits that made her human before. Similarly in “Incidents,” Jacobs observes that her master Dr. Flint, is a beast that relishes power over everyone and everything; he is willing to go into debt simply to hunt down the one item, Linda, he can’t seem to have. He has no redeeming qualities; he is a static figure, neither changing nor growing as an individual, which makes him inhuman. These cruel masters not only physically and mentally attempt to debilitate their slaves, but they also end up dehumanizing themselves in the process. They do not have empathy or realize the pain and suffering they personally inflict on slaves, and they do not realize that by not noticing this, they become monsters or shadows of their former selves. They become completely dependent upon slavery for their identity. They lead half or hypocritical lives, which Douglass also explores in his observation on their hypocritical religious practices.

In our present society, there are most certainly strains of power that cause the degradation of both the controller and victim. The most direct correlation of modern slavery is human trafficking. However, nearly everything in our society is defined by power relationships, whether it is in parental relations, love relations, or capitalist institutions. For example, in our capitalist society one can define himself by where he lives, what his income is, what he wears and look down upon those lower on the social spectrum. He defines himself by his power over the other. Abusive relationships also follow this pattern of thought.

Wood, Slavery Post

As we learned through our reading of Frederick Douglass, it is very important that we as readers observe the moral dilemma that is most obvious when it comes to the topic of slavery. In Frederick Douglass, we saw that an education is what separates the wealthy from the poor, and this takes the phrase “knowledge is power” to the next level. In this narrative, we saw the ways that slavery destroys both the slave and the enslaver because it is dehumanizing for both in every aspect. For instance, in Frederick Douglass, Douglass makes a point to mention the idea that slave owners would not think twice about raping their female slaves. Many times after doing this, the female slaves would birth a mulatto child who clearly possessed the traits of his/her African-American mother and also those of the Caucasian father. Douglass makes a point to mention this aspect of slavery because it violates the importance of keeping the family together. This act of adultery not only caused many problems between the slave-owner’s wife who was most likely aware of her husband’s infidelity but also, between the new “family” between the slave owner, his slave girlfriend and their newborn child. The moral issue here is that the slave owner most commonly did not claim the “bastard” child to be his own and also did not usually develop a relationship with the child or the mother, therefore, not upholding the moral obligations associated with that of a stable family.

There are many ways that people have control over others still in our society today. The first that came to mind was the idea of abusive relationships. If you were to look through the lens of domestic violence victims, abusive relationships are always about power and control of one person on another. This example connects to Frederick Douglass because even though there now are, for the most part, equal opportunities for both men and women (despite cultural demographics) in terms of education, abusive relationships can tend to get in the way of that. These abusive relationships also mirror the same problem of respecting the family that we see in Frederick Douglass - that same manipulation and control that occurs in abusive relationships is definitely strong enough to overpower another person. However, knowledge is always power.

Rihner, There is No Master

The relationship between master and slave is often considered a one track form of service and obedience from one individual to another; however, this relationship actually results with both individuals being slaves to one another and there being no master. We can find this shift in power in the slave narratives by both Fredrick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs.
Ultimately, the master and slave relationship causes both persons to become obsessed with the other, to act in a continuous power struggle against one another. Both individuals must dedicate their lives to besting their "master" or "slave," and therefore fall into slavery by the other. In Jacobs' "Incidents," we are told about the great hide and seek game between Jacobs and Dr. Flint. Both Jacobs and Flint lose their lives to this slavery power struggle, because neither will admit defeat, which is accepting slavery. This relationship even becomes hereditary when Flint's daughter continues to seek out Jacobs. In Douglas's text, there is the struggle of literacy for slaves. The slave owners focus on preventing their slaves from learning to read (which would lead to further uprisings and power struggles), while Douglass focuses on educating as many slaves as possible. Yes, either might be considered more of a free man by law, but because neither master or slave wished to accept defeat, both become slaves to one another. This theory is mostly taken from Georg Hegel's idea of "the master/slave dialectic" in "The Phenomenology of Spirit."
We also find different morals among masters and slaves in both Douglass and Jacobs's narratives. Douglass and Jacobs admit that there were certain masters throughout their lives who did not treat them poorly, and some free men who would help them in their causes (such as the jailer who allowed Jacobs and her grandmother to visit Benjamin). However, there were also slaves who began to give up on their quests for freedom and accept their slavery (such as Benjamin begins to do).
Perhaps I am forfeiting a portion of my manhood here, but the first modern master-slave relationship that comes to mind is in the movie "The Devil Wears Prada." I will not go into that. Yet, the movie's depiction of a powerful financial figure and her peons must comment on our obsessive desires for high paying jobs and popularity. I would not be surprised to find an over controlling, perhaps abusive, relationship between Donald Trump and his many employees, or in foreign countries ruled by a dictatorship.

Moran: moral compromise

Few would argue that the institution of slavery did not produce an incalculable number of evils for the people who are owned, but Frederick Douglass also argues that it does great evil to the masters as well. The idea is if you can lower someone or a group of people until they aren’t even human anymore, you must lower your conscious and soul to the same level. The best example of such would have to be Frederick Douglass himself. He is rumored to be half white, most likely the son of his and his mother’s master. Despite being the master’s flesh and blood, he is still nothing more than a piece of property in the eyes of the law and most of southern society. If indeed his father is also his master, the white members of his family now own one of his sons. If the master decides to keep his son, the white members of his family would most likely despise him and go out of their way to torture him (perhaps even literally). The other option is to sell him, where his birthfather would be unable to offer him any protection, if he so wanted to, and leave him to the harsh life of a slave for the rest of his life. Either way, the owner would have to choose between being a father and a master. Most would choose to be the master, a moral compromise that I believe would destroy the soul.

Tahir, Beast Nature

The objective of the institution of slavery is to dehumanize the slave by subjecting him/her to all sorts of horrible degradations, and justifying those actions by the claim that these slaves are not human. But slavery does not simply dehumanize the slave; the perpetrator of these gruesome crimes loses his humanity in the process, thus becoming just as dehumanized as the slaves who are the victims of his cruelty. In fact, one could argue that the slaves aren’t the sub-humans; in reality, it is the slave-owners who aren’t fully human since no man with any vestige of humanity would so eagerly attempt to destroy another’s with a viciousness that borders on religious fervor.
In “Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass,” the author talks about the first time he witnesses a slave getting beat by her master. The slave-owner tied the poor woman by her hands from a hook, which she dangled helplessly from as if she were a piece of meat, and then proceeded to beat her with such force and violence that her blood fell in torrents to the floor. The slave-owner was attempting to teach her a lesson: the lesson that she should never disobey his commands. To him, the woman is nothing more than an animal, to be treated as he deems fit. For someone to treat another human being in such a manner makes them less than human. If someone believes that he is superior to another human and as such can inflict agonizing tortures on the “lesser” person, than that person loses any shred of humanity he previously held.
Another example is shown in “Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl.” At a part in this work, Jacobs speaks of how sad it is to be a slave girl. Not only are they subjected to the same degradations the male slaves suffer, but they have an added injury: the almost certain threat of rape. “…there is no shadow of law to protect her from insult, from violence, or even from death; all these are inflicted by fiends who bear the shape of men.” If any person believes rape to be condonable through the guise of slavery, that person is an abomination and definitely dehumanized. This is one of the most hideous blights on man’s nature; to participate in rape makes him equal to a beast.
To be a slave-owner, one must turn a blind eye (and heart) to his morals. By attempting to dehumanize another person, the slave-owner can pretend that his actions are legitimate since the slave isn’t a real person, and that he still retains traces of morality. In doing so, he has lied to himself, for he is the one who surely has become something less than human. Do we have anything that can parallel this in our present day? Perhaps our treatment of illegal immigrants is similar. They are subjected to many things that a normal citizen would never have to deal with it. True, they are illegal, but does that mean they can be treated so unfairly? We all are guaranteed basic rights as fellow humans; to deny them to anyone simply because of their "status" as a non-citizen is akin to a folly that we have already committed in the past.

Rogers, Subjugation/degredation

In Harriet Jacob's "Incidents In The Life of a Slave Girl", there is a part in chapter II (The New Master and Mistress) where the protagonist sees a young slave girl exsanguinating after giving birth to a baby that clearly has white blood. The mistress stood by and watched the girl die while taunting her with "You suffer, do you?...I am glad of it. You deserve it all, and more too." The master had obviously dallied with the slave girl and the mistress was taking her anger out on the poor girl. The practice of raping and impregnating the slave girls was very common and the mistress was forced to watch the evidence of her husbands infidelity grow up in her household. This indubitably drove a wedge into marriages not to mention fostering a hatred of the slave girl in question for both the master and the mistress. In Frederick Douglass's "Narrative of a Life", the same subject is brought up, and he tells us how the masters and mistresses invariably worked the slave-children of the master harder then the other slaves. He goes on to say that the master must not only whip the slave himself, but watch his white children beat their "mulatto" siblings, "...and if he lisp one word of disapproval, it is set down to his parental partiality, and only makes a bad matter worse, both for himself and the slave whom he would protect and defend."
Slave-owners turned slaves into brutes and gave them the idea that they were somehow subhuman and that they were supposed to be enslaved. They should be grateful for any bone the master chose to throw to them, like the myth of the "happy slave". When you subjugate another people, you deprive them of the most basic right of humanity, freedom and in doing so most slave-owners discarded their own humanity and became only, "Master". This may be far-fetched, but I believe that the practice of Euthanasia correlates to the practice of slavery. People who have no hope of recovery, or who are in constant pain or who are elderly and suffer the indignities of being bedridden, should be allowed to make the decision to die. Being kept alive is its own type of slavery. Being kept in the grip of a terminal illness or a crowded hospital ward when there is no chance of recovery is enslavement in one's own body.

Slavery Then and Now

Both texts we've read for this week present clear pictures of not only the horrific consequences of slavery on blacks, but also slavery's corrupting powers for those who impose it. Frederick Douglass recounts tale after tale of white foremen and masters cruelly beating black slaves: he implies that enforcing such an unnatural system--the enslavement of one human being by another--forces those doing the enslaving to partake in inhuman behavior. In other words, the system of slavery is so inherently wrong, it requires extreme callousness and brutality of the white men for them to participate in it.

Harriet Jacobs echoes this cycle of moral degradation in her writings, as she relates the sexual harassment she was subject to under white male masters. Her audience of white Christian women would have read her story as proof that female slaves provided readily-available temptation for white men, and thus slavery is immoral. If men could not be masters over women slaves, they would not be tempted to engage in illicit relations with them. If Dr. Flint had not pursued her so aggressively, she would not have had to lose her children as she did.

Not to be too controversial, but I think the free market as it stands today in America is a form of enslavement. A society based on competition rather than cooperation will inevitably marginalize certain groups of people. The US economy is based on the myth of the "self-made man," which we discussed earlier in Benjamin Franklin's writings. Someone can, indeed, put in a great deal of effort and work into building a livelihood, but a competition-based market ensures that for every one person that does succeed, at least a hundred others will not--no matter how hard they work.

Tregre, Are slave owners really free?

Some people strangely believe that the slave owners were really the ones enslaved. When I read this in an article, it mind boggled me so much that I had to research more into it and turn the tables.
Often times it was reported that the white children would envy the black children because of their freedom to play. The black children would usually run around naked since they were too poor to afford clothes. The white children would see this and get jealous because they had to put clothes and shoes on and go to school. White men also envied the black men because their marriages were "impermanent." For example, when Harriet Jacobs was forced into sexual submission by her master, the wife would be cruel to her. It was easier in the Black community since marriages were not really "real" so it was easier to get by with having more than one woman.
Other people also believed that it was better to be a slave than free up North because of the jobs. If a person was a slave, at least they had food, water, and shelter. Up North it was hard to gain money to afford these necessities.
Also, as slave rebellions became more prominent, owners lived in fear. Slavery also proved white labor to be less efficient, giving black men and women a better work ethic. They could work circles around white men. Also, when owners would fear that slaves would escape, like in Jacob's story, they were sold which often allowed slaves to be happy because they could be lucky and receive a "good owner."
Although I do not necessarily agree with these reasons, it was interesting to ponder and read about how slave owners could be just as enslaved as their actual slaves. Depending on how a person looks at it, both owner and slave were bound together enslaved.
In current society slavery does not exist in the U.S., however, the hierarchy of the economy and political systems represent the system. The CEOs and the big dogs in the government run the people. It is corrupt and they are mega rich and have control over lots of things. It is not the form of enslavement as back then, but the hierarchies and controls still exist.

Fuhrer, Emerson and Thoreau; Self-Seliance vs. Civil Disobedience

Emerson concludes self-reliance is a responsibility of all. How did this become an advocator for rebellion? Rebellion by definition is categorized as an “act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler” Emerson’s essay, “Self – reliance” comes from the observations of a man who believes in the spirituality of nature. By which he means concepts like originality and trusting our basic intuitions are not things to be rejected and suppressed, as Puritan law would have once enforced. Emerson believed that everyone had their part to play in the world and the accepting or conforming to the ideals of what they felt were not right only serves to harm the moral structure of the world at large.

Thoreau on the other hand, perhaps took his visions of non-conformity a little too far. He used the ideas taken from “Self reliance” and twisted them to create the ideology behind “civil disobedience, most probably to suit his own radical views on politics. Emerson believed in the spirit of togetherness. Thoreau it would seem is far less concerned with the well being of all than he is with the rising up of people against society if it were to threaten or “crush” their individual independence or freedom.

It seems both men had interlocking influences on one another and essentially both are speaking out against the oppression of man just in two very distinctly varied ways.

McCay Slavery Post

Choose one example of the way in which slavery destroys both the slave and the enslaver from each of the texts we are reading this week. You should discuss the moral implications of being a slave owner. Are there ways in which, in our present society, people hold the same control over others as they did before Emancipation?

Martin-Klumpp, Emerson/Thoreau: Critiquing Conformity and its Concomitant

Emerson’s definition of “Self-Reliance” consists of complete individuality. Emerson promotes an individual who would be a non-conformist who does not patronize institutions, who "pinches the dime." He writes, “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members…the virtue in most request is conformity. Self reliance is its aversion.” This assertion states that society is stealing individualism, and it is enforced through conformity. Because of this, one should adhere to his or her ideals before any other outside influence, which stems from society and its’ concomitant, institutions.

Thoreau puts these ideas into action in “Civil Disobedience.” First of all, her promotes the individual over society. He went to jail because he refused to pay taxes that supported the Mexican-American war and slavery, both of which he severely disagreed with. In this instance, Thoreau put his beliefs above “duty” to the government, a societal institution. After his night in jail, Thoreau comes to realize that everyone else is conforming. They will protest something so long as the effects, such as jail time, do not affect their property or position in society. These people are embarrassed not to conform, and therefore society holds power over them. But not Thoreau. Thoreau is Emerson’s writing come to life. He is the quintessential non-conformist who is willing to go to any extent to pacify his beliefs and criticize those who do not.

Wood, Emerson/Thoreau Blog

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s definition “Self Reliance” in his literary work pertains to some of Henry David Thoreau’s arguments in “Civil Disobedience”.
Both of these literary works require the reader to understand the real governmental thought-processes. In other words, in order to comprehend the sincerity that also mirrors the passion that both of these authors most obviously present, we as readers must be aware of the underground problems with politics.

In “Self-Reliance”, Emerson wants to spread the word to all of his readers that no matter what the situation, you should always go with your gut instinct. He wants people to know that it is okay, and sometimes better, than to not follow in the footsteps of society’s view of conformity. In saying this, as we learned in class, he even encourages people to strive for non-conformity. However, I think he also does this because he wants the world to develop in such a way that people will be able to fearlessly think outside the box. If everyone were to just follow along with what “Big Brother” was telling you to do, then we all might as well be robots. Emerson is warning people to always question the government. Don’t just take it for what it is, and don’t think that just because you’re doing what is seen in the government’s eyes as a “good action” is actually good.

This same idea parallels some of Thoreau’s arguments that are made in “Civil Disobedience” as well. Thoreau also wants to argue that not developing personal thoughts on your own is sinful because governmental corporations are just corporations. Therefore, unless these corporations have people in them that are willing to be conscientious of what is good to the very core (not just a façade of being perceived as good), the corporations will not prosper. Emerson and Thoreau both taught some very interesting lessons to their readers because they both intend to ultimately empower their readers. For all of these reasons, I really do think that Civil Disobedience puts Emerson’s idealism into action.

Le Sage, Emerson and Thoreau

Sovereignty of the individual is a focal point for both Henry Thoreau’s “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” and Ralph Emerson’s “Self Reliance.” While not as clear, confidence and suggestions of man-as-an-island are implicit in Thoreau’s piece, and if the question is of the action taken with these ideals in mind, yes, Henry took Ralph’s words further. A lot centers on whether or not the night in prison can be considered action, though. While it can be considered a crowbar in ‘the machine,’ as Thoreau’s tax evasion voices disapproval as much as any protest, the self reliance of Emerson is slightly watered down by Thoreau. Considering Emerson’s praise of “the great man who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude,” it seems Thoreau’s protest goes too far for Emerson’s ideals BUT only because he is one man without impact on his named “machine.” Had the refusal of poll taxes been done en masse, Emerson’s solitary, self reliant man would transcend and transform in the solitary, self reliant group which has no choice but to act out. An individual protest forces discomfort on another man. More work, headaches in court, etc. A group’s impact is that much greater, balancing out the defender’s discomfort with the advantageous change desired by many. A group argument contrasts Emerson’s non-conformist ideal. But, the conformity of few for the benefit of the many would probably be a necessary evil. Even Thoreau saw reason in obeying something undesirable to produce an impact on something much more worthwhile: “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go.” While he is speaking of laws and restrictions, not of abstract concepts like individual sovereignty, the phrase “lesser of two evils” still applies. Thoreau’s jail time actually seems to hamper the concept of the quiet, self reliant, confident man and vies for an outspoken, action hero, which needs many many many sidekicks if anything (peace, abolition) is going to get done.

Rihner, Be A Man and Disobey

Emerson writes on the self-reliance of man, on what we need to do for ourselves. Meanwhile, Thoreau sat in a prison cell for his disbelief in society. Although I would rather stand behind Thoreau (the man who takes action), I would agree that he (Thoreau) follows Emerson's mindset in "Self-Reliance."
The act of conformity is very much looked down upon by Emerson. Conformity is essentially the element which allows leaders and political figures to do as they please, in complete disregard of others. "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist," states Emerson. Thoreau acknowledges this independent idealism, but in a proper way. Thoreau suggests that we should only follow the laws which we believe to be necessary and right. We should not just disobey all government regulations entirely, but only those laws which bring harm to others or otherwise act unjust. Following his beliefs, Thoreau writes in "Civil Disobedience" about his time spent in prison for refusing to pay the poll tax. The money given to the poll tax would fund the Mexican war, which Thoreau was openly against. The ultimate point of all this being that going to prison is just the necessary step in order to fight against the governments injustice, to fight against the machine. However, Thoreau only spent one night in lockup (thanks to Emerson), and prisons today are much more unbearable than the one that Thoreau visited (with a nice window and cellmate).
I believe that Thoreau also acts with Emerson's mentality towards property and materialism. Emerson writes that the sum of man is nowadays judged by what a man has rather than by who he is or what he has done. Man has become dependent on leaders, political and religious figures, to ensure the safety of his property. Therefore, we do not want to upset those figures that care for our property, our reputations in society. Thoreau does not care for materialist ideals. He chooses to go to prison, away from his home and reputation. Admiring his nice cell, Thoreau even thinks of the jail as a sign of his reputation, his civil disobedience.

Tregre, "We're Just Anonymous Numbers on a Governmental Chart" -Better Than Ezra

The thing that struck me most in "Civil Disobedience" was the part about soldiers not really being true heroes. Soldiers go into war to fight for freedom and the law, however, the law does so many unjust things. For example, murdering another does not make the US law right when that is doing an unjust thing to another. Soldiers are a shadow of humanity and the government molds them into machines. They cannot exercise moral beliefs and are just trained to follow rules such as, shoot only if fired at. One critic commented that their existence is reduced to that of a horse and only used to get a "job" done. When one works for the government as a soldier, the individual is supporting unjust laws. They are carrying out their created injustices and being the governments workhorse. It is not right to betray ones integrity to commit a crime, governmental or not Thoreau explores. The attitude is not a brave soldier, but committing an unjust act. It is one's chief duty to do what is right and to break a law if it commits an unjust act upon another. One should not fit into the crowd, but exercise their rights as an individual and trust their instincts. One should not just be an "anonymous number on a governmental chart."