Frederick Douglas (Post 3)

Life Without Rules

          Before diving into Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave I was well aware of how poorly slaves were treated, but it was not until I read this narrative that I have become fuming at how slaves were actually treated. I am curious to know what made punishment by owners and workers so acceptable in the eyes of society. Was it negligence that was the shining star in this situation or was it that society knew no other way than to treat men and women of color in such unscrupulous ways? While reading the book Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave I became outraged at the disciplinary actions that were taken on both the slaves and the owners throughout the mid 1800s. By reading through this first section of our readings I have come to notice a common theme, punishment. Punishment was deemed acceptable more or less under any circumstances the owner or any of the owner’s associates found possible. Keeping in mind that while all these punishments were happening to the slaves not one owner was punished for his actions later. One of the larger instigators of punishment was not introduced until chapter 4, Mr. Gore. Colonel Lloyd who was the overall owner of the plantation hired Mr. Gore in high hopes of his persistent cruel attitude maintaining order amongst the slaves. Mr. Gore was the perfect man for the job. He was described as “artful, cruel, and obdurate” (65). This plantation gave him room to exercise all of his powers and show that he was indeed the man to fit the first-rate overseer job position.

            One instance that provided me with a solid basis on which I could convict Mr. Gore of such hatred and cruelty came from an interaction between himself and a slave named Demby. After Demby acted out Mr. Gore was self entitled to punish Demby. Demby was then given a few lashings, which caused him to surge for the river in hopes of relieving his splitting pain. Mr. Gore was not too fond of these ideas and took other actions. “Mr. Gore told him that he would give him three calls, and that, if he did not come out at the third call, he would shoot him. The first call was given. Demby made no response, but stood his ground. The second and third calls were given with the same result. Mr. Gore then, without consultation or deliberation with any one, not even giving Demby an additional call, raised his musket to his face, taking deadly aim at his standing victim, and in an instant poor Demby was no more”(67). This passage speaks so loudly of how vicious Mr. Gore really is. He has no concern for life, he does not care what the outcome is if things do not go his way. One would think that from this murder Mr. Gore would be prosecuted and potentially thrown in jail for such a malicious act. That is where I am wrong, Mr. Gore is not only free to go about his ways but he is not even questioned in his actions.

            A great way to describe Mr. Gore is from a passage in the book that explains, “His savage barbarity was equaled only by the consummate coolness with which he committed the grossest and most savage deeds upon the slaves under his charge”(66). This sentence was right before the Demby explanation where he obviously committed a heinous crime that was deemed acceptable. Why wasn’t this given more attention by Douglass? To me this is a pivotal point in the story where punishment is clearly given and over used for such minuscule reasons. Why was Mr. Gore not overseen in a more strict setting that would keep him on a level of civility that would not be so disgraceful? It seems that the laws and regulations on slaves were frail to say the least. From my understanding and critical analysis I have come with the conclusion that Mr. Gore was to do as he pleased as long as the product (Tobacco, Cotton, etc..) was being produced at high profitable levels there would be no reason to worry or pay any attention to the disciplinary actions that were being taken.

            At this point in the book I had to walk away for a few minutes because I was caught in the emotional state of being both outraged and confused at what had just occurred to this poor man. I was outraged at how these poor men were being treated because they did not correspond to the orders correctly as they were directed to do. The state of confusion was what really had me thinking, what could drive a man to do such things to these people? What was the purpose of such cruelty? I dug a bit deeper and started to think about our class discussions about how these men knew no difference in what should be happening. It was socially acceptable for all of these actions to be taking place. Which lead me to think that Mr. Gore was just a major player in the game that apparently everyone played in. The society at the time gave proof that not only was this behavior deemed acceptable but also it was almost encouraged from a neglecting point of view. When I say a neglecting point of view I am alluding to the people who might have though that slavery and the punishments were not right but no matter right or wrong they were not able to speak out and change what was happening.

            Although punishment was almost inevitable to a degree it was apparent that a level of neglect was also suitably active in the first parts of this book. It is frightening to comprehend that people were treated the way they were and how little people reacted to such brutal actions. One of the main themes that I came to accept was that around this era punishment was acceptable, maybe not by everyone but no one had the will to say otherwise. Which leads to neglect, therefore can be traced through this time in our history as a country where not much could be done to stop any of these actions being taken. It is sad to think how many men and women were savagely beaten, abused, and murdered through this book, which only covers a small geographical area. Its painstaking to understand how ruthless some of the players in this book (Mr. Gore along with others) treated the slaves. Douglass was able to tell about how cruelty and actions toward his race were so normal and frequent with such detail and ease that makes plantation owners and overseers to be the bad guys that they actually are. Slavery was a dark time in our countries past and the first half of this book is a clear indication of why.

Homeward Bound

            In class today we had a great discussion based on the Kindred about what it meant to be home and how Dana was reacting to being home. The class talked about how there is a difference between what it means to be home and what it means to be in a place that feels like home. Octavia Butler does an excellent job identifying and highlighting a problem that the main characters, Dana and Kevin, have. This problem of almost an identity crisis happens at the very begging of "The Storm” chapter in the book.

            Kevin one of the main characters was stuck in a time travel that was five years long, in that time he had grown accustom to what was happening in the era where he was stuck. When Kevin returned to the home that he and Dana lived in everything changed and not necessarily for the better. “I found him fiddling with the stove, turning the burners on, staring into the blue flame, turning them off, opening the oven peering in. He had his back to me and didn’t see or hear me. Before I could say anything, he slammed the oven door and stalked away shaking his head. “Christ,” he muttered. “If I’m not home yet, maybe I don’t have a home”” (Butler, 190). This quote spoke out to me and grabbed my attention in the aspect that he was not sure what or where his home was.

            While reading over this quote in the book I felt as if I had a connection with Kevin. Now that I have been attending the University of Redlands for three years now I can say that this is my home. Although, realistically, my home is still in Winter Park, Colorado where I grew up. What really catches me up is that I spend so much time in Redlands that whenever I go home I feel as if I am out of place and don’t necessarily belong there. This is the same feeling the Kevin has when he goes back to 1976 and is in the California home. Dana is able to see Kevin not really being able to adjust to their home.

            I found this portion of the book spoke out to me and gave the book a more realistic feeling because I was able to relate to what was happening to one of the characters (even though I don’t time travel). Being able to connect with a character drew a higher interest in the book for me and I hope this book did the same for others!

Kindred

In the novel Kindred by Octavia Butler, Dana, the main character, goes back in time to protect a young white boy named Rufus. It is discovered that Rufus is her great-great-great grandfather, who is a slaveholder’s son. Dana is sent back in time to protect her grandfather, who whenever is in danger or is afraid, Dana goes back to the eighteen hundreds to save him from trouble, vanishing right before her husband’s eyes and eventually bringing him with her to the year eighteen nineteen. The novel shows the contrast of the different eras’ social norms and the conditions that slaves were put through during the eighteen hundreds. During her time stuck in the era, she conforms to the role of the slave to stay protected, but does she conform too well? And if she does conform to the role of a slave, what does that have to say of the African American culture in the 1970s?

            It is mentioned in “The Fall” when Kevin and Dana transport back to eighteen nineteen to save Rufus who had just fallen out of a tree and broken his leg, that Dana believes it is in their best interest to conform because it would be too hard for other people to understand that they had time traveled. In the scene, she explains the idea that they are from the future and they are there to protect Rufus and that she is called whenever he is in immediate danger. Her statement, “[w]e’re going to have to fit in as best we can with the people here for as long as we have to stay. That means we’re going to have to play the roles you gave us”(65). To keep themselves safe, they pushed forward and changed their roles to match the society that they were in at the time, Kevin was Dana’s owner now. The change that they had to make could refer to the social changes that many African American people have to make in order to “fit in” in the seventies, just after the civil rights movement. Many white people did not consider African Americans equal citizens at the time, which better supports the suggestion that Butler is using the novel to compare the social norms of the slave era to the civil rights era.

At the time that they appeared, the marriage that her and Kevin have was illegal, and although they had been legally married in nineteen seventy-five, their relationship when they first met was mocked by Dana’s coworker, Buz. These comments made by Buz and the mention that the marriage was illegal by Rufus could very well have been a social commentary made by Butler on the idea that although the marriage between an interracial couple was legal at the time, but did not mean much when it came to the societal pressure that interracial couples faced was much different from that of a white couple. Not seen as being fit, the ability for a white man to marry a black woman was unheard of in the time of pre-Civil War. That makes the fact that Kevin is a white man in the story so much more important to the plot. The idea that Dana’s life is a “picture of progress” for African Americans is important because it also allows for the proof that they still faced major roadblocks and deserved equal rights as well, but as comparing the two lifestyles, Dana’s life was exponentially better than the slaves.