Phillis Wheatly

The poetry of Phyllis Wheatley was very amusing. Not that I mean to oppugn her beautiful poems, all of which are masterpieces, but reading her work after finishing the exhausting tales of Douglas and Equiano, I felt a bit like some of her eloquent lines were maybe a little…forced. I entered into her section already with the knowledge that despite the many prohibitions a slave would have faced, one could still achieve sophisticated, even scholarly English speech and that a person forced into slavery might be able to be shockingly positive. But Wheatley’s enthusiasm in regard to her own personal enslavement felt like a stretch. From the first line, “Twas mercy brought me from my pagan land” I didn’t buy it. Wheatley’s poems seem so contrived to me that they both failed in serving their intended purposes and impeded my enjoyment.
The first poem, On being brought from Africa to America had two supposed functions, I believe. The first is to prove to wary white people that black people can be faithful and refined. The second function is to comfort slaves oppressed by white slave-owners through the insistence that black people too can be faithful and refined, and therefore, fit in.
The first of these goals was not met, in my opinion, because: many slaves during the first few hundred years in America converted and I don’t believe the majority of white people respected them much more because of it.
The second goal, to appeal to slaves feeling lost, isn’t even probable because:
-how many slaves could even read at the time?
-Slaves were just as much forced into Christianity as they were forced into slavery. In the case of black people, religion just looks like another form of oppression.
Finally, I take the last four lines of On being brought from Africa to America to mean: “there are some people who hate blacks, and think blacks are diabolic. But as a consolation, they are wrong because blacks too can be saved (which I know because it happened to me…)”. Really when broken down, it doesn’t feel very comforting. If the same people who force blacks to convert also think their color makes them diabolical, how is the fact that a black person can convert going to make a difference, Wheatley? Also, she is basing all of this information on her own experience. She was brought to America, taught to believe Christianity and therefore is refined.
This brings me to my main problem with the poem, which is that Wheatley equates refinement with Christianity; only through Conversion can one be appropriate to participate in a respectful society. If refinement and Christianity are the same, the majority of slaves would have been “refined” because they would have already faced conversion. Her belief here doesn’t account then for how many slaves dealt with abuse despite being Christians. But if slaves hadn’t been dealing with such abuse, there would be no need for the poem, with respect to soothing blacks or whites. If Wheatley was writing from her own self-attained conviction, however, which she had investigated and come with on her own without the persuasion of the master’s world-views, there might have been a more powerful message to match the strong language.
I don’t believe that a person would have held the Christianity=Refinement=Acceptance-belief unless it was impressed upon her. I think that Wheatley’s masters, though probably well-intentioned, influenced her so much that her work isn’t interesting on a creative level. I imagine that had she not been heavily influenced by her masters, and written from a more natural standpoint, her poetry would have been much more interesting. Then again, if she had not been trained, her work wouldn’t have been as marketable to those who could read. No educated (i.e. white upper-class male) would have wanted to read the terrible truth about being forced away from family to be a servant. The educated people were the same people responsible for arranging society the way it was; they would want to see people thriving their way. Instead this poem is interesting on a more sociological level. I look to these works to experience an assimilated slave’s endeavor to participate in the Americanized Anglican-inspired tradition of the ancient art form of poetry.
Still, the lesson, which is still a valuable one for this time in history, is that a person, torn from her home and brought to a country to face horrible discrimination (both racial and gender), can still show incredible potential in one of the highest forms of art. This lesson and the inherent beauty of her phrasing, does make her work very satisfying to read today.

Judith Sargaent Murray on the Equality of the Sexes

Judith Sergeant Murray On the Equality of the SexesOne of the reasons that I enjoyed Judith Sergeant Murray was her alternative method of writing about subject of sexism. Not that her thoughts are all that different from the more modern stuff, it’s just that she has a way of laying down information that makes it all seem very sensible. She makes it feel like what it should be, common sense.
Feminist writing, especially prior to third wave feminism, always exhibits the frustration I experience when I am attacked with profeminist skepticism or criticism. This frustration is very present in Murray’s work as well, as she becomes increasingly more passionate. My frustration is mainly due to the (what I consider) evident issues of society and history. I just don’t get where the confusion lies about the unequal nature of female treatment in many elements of society. I think many feminists or profeminists can feel like they are beating their heads against a wall having to actually explain what should be obvious to people. Not that all feminist matters are obvious, one of the awful natures of oppression is its sneakiness. It’s just that often enough the person inquiring about profeminist reasoning is already decidedly against the study.
Murray begins her essay by questioning the nature of nature- would nature be biased in how it assigns intellect-then emphasizes the unlikelihood of this supposed great disparity of intellect in men and women. Her tone throughout the essay shows the same level of exhaustion that other writers display, wondering if the patriarchy is just blind.
She obviously is trying to use the male-imagined stereotypes about women to her advantage in the essay. She discusses the four types of intellect: Imagination, Reason, Memory and Judgment. With each of these types of Intellect she uses what mean say as evidence of women’s capability against men.
She begins with women’s talent with imagination. I smiled to myself when she said that she barred the contemptuous smile, but not for the reasons that she barred it. She discusses how women so beautifully decorate themselves. She also brings up women’s ability “to slander”, which also tickled me. The problem is that although many people value imagination, because the manners of fashion and gossip are considered trivial or negative, they don’t get any credit as being creative. The problem, as Murray continually points out is that women do not have the education to guide their intellect, which only leaves negative possibilities for them.
Murray disregards reason, basically blaming women’s lack of reason on men, who have denied them. Not other arguments there.
Memory is easily settled for Murray as well, who decides that old women are a likely approached as old men for their memories, which are just testaments of their experiences.
Judgment is the aspect which incites the most passion from Murray, who uses the argument that study shows that two year old females develop judgment better the males. She says that after that the experience of the child will evince the superiority. Murray points out that basically, since there is no worse fate than being a learned lady, a female will have nothing to do but to use her imagination; contemplating fashion and scandal, and possibly doing even worse things for her strength of character.
I like how Murray again uses common sense, no B.S. talk when she counters the argument of “Your domestic employments are sufficient”. Her obvious, forced reply makes me laugh, considering how backward the aforementioned argument is. Her response is a question, allowing the questioned to have to say something; Is it not crazy for someone with all of the faculties of a human being to have to confine their imagination to pie fillings?
Part II just makes me think about how a person in Murray’s time would have contemplated the role of women; this is 1790. I can’t imagine being a feminist during this period, yet I can’t imagine not being one either. For the protofeminist of 1790, I think, how could you deal with this blatant degradation? Murray describes women adorned with bows, denied any education apart from shopping and homemaking, and treated like inferiors. I wonder how a person would deal with facing actual scrutiny for opposing the patriarchy without going crazy. Then again, I also wonder how a woman could not care about the subjugation of women, unless they were sadly brainwashed in some manner.

Creativity in Slaves: Fredrick Douglas

The slave narrative of Fredrick Douglas is much less inspirationally peaceful to read and is more of a human rights piece. He painstakingly accounts more of the abuse he endures as a slave than Equiano shows in his narratives. Still, while Douglas does not appear to have been as resourceful and able to protect himself as Equiano, he shares what I believe to be a characteristic of creativity which all slaves seem to have shared in order to survive.
One of his first homes begins as a pleasant experience, with an initially very kind mistress, Mrs. Auld. Early on, before she converts to a power-tripping, crazy oppressor, she begins teaching him to read little. Upon criticism for educating Douglas by her husband, she stops and eventually transforms as a slave owner. But Douglas gains from hearing Mr. Auld castigate her teaching Douglas, realizing how important reading and writing must be, and how this great power is a threat to his masters. He makes it his main focus to secretly learn to read and write from this day forward. Both the comprehension of the importance of reading from Mr. Auld’s lecture and the means by which Douglas surreptitiously learns to read show great creativity. Douglas befriends poor, hungry white children while running errands, offering them bread to teach him from a stolen book. He also learns the names of letters through attention paid to labels (“s” would be the label for “starboard”). After learning four letters, he would challenge arrogant boys, cleverly tricking them into showing him more letters.
In chapter IX, he recounts his experience with “Captain Auld” as a gruesome living, as he and the other slaves were practically starved to death, and were not only subjected to beatings but torture. He discusses a weakened female slave who was often tied up for five or so hours, whipped, cut and starved for her inability to lift large bushels after an accident which had left her severely burned and injured.
While with Captain Auld, he explains that he was punished because he would “accidentally” lose one of the horses, and have to travel five miles to retrieve him. The truth was that Douglas had intentionally let the horse go because, although the trip was long on an empty stomach, he could fill his stomach at the house of his master’s father-in-law, who always fed his slaves.
Douglas relates in chapter X that he is moved, still under the ownership of Master Auld, to work as a field-hand for a Master Covey. Master Covey is regarded as an incredibly abusive fellow, stripping and cutting Douglas for failing at a task he had no prior experience in on his first day of work. After a grueling six months of torture, Douglas again finds a creative means of bettering his situation. He falls over while working a particularly tiresome task and then has to endure very harsh beatings from Covey. After some time he stops complying to Covey’s demands to get up a return to his work, but lets Covey commit violence to him. He then walks seven miles, ignoring Covey’s protests, to Master Auld. He assumes that if he comes to Master Auld all bloody and beaten, requests his protection and conveys that Covey is harming his own bosses property (his slave) he will face better treatment. Though this proves to be an incorrect assumption, it still shows a great amount of creativity in his problem solving. Though he eventually finds that he has to face and defeat Covey in a fight to gain any respect, he tried creatively peaceful resistance first.

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine and Common Sense
In the textbook’s introduction to Thomas Paine, it says that he was supported by Benjamin Franklin, who called him an “ingenious, worthy young man”. I have to say that his pamphlet, Common Sense, was very interesting for me to read. I felt that he proved himself to be very wise, and intelligent about the injustices the colonists faced and a master of persuasive rhetoric.
In outlining this work, I found that all of the textbook English mechanisms of persuasion were present, exemplary for an English 190 class. The following are the points of persuasion that I noticed in Common Sense.
To begin, the title Common Sense instead of something more longwinded and boring like “why colonists of America should fight for independence from British Tyranny” gets right to the point of his persuasion; that a person with common sense will fight to extricate the American inhabitants from abusive British rule. Most of what he says in his essay is common sense exactly. The problem is that he has to consider that common sense is being defeated by the loyalty to custom, as Paine points out. One of the ways in which I would define American culture, unlike English culture is, for better or worse that Americans lack the pride in tradition that the English possess. Americans don’t tend to do things because “that’s the way they have always been done”. I can’t decide, as I read Common Sense whether the American disinterest in maintaining tradition is something that stems from Federalist liberalism or if it was there to begin with. Paine certainly has the spirit of a Maverick (teehee), but did all of the settlers?
Anyway, the introduction of the essay begins by appealing to the dubious reader, addressing those most likely to disregard the pamphlet. Paine explains this issue of custom/tradition in the first page, explaining that the “defense of custom” is a result of habitual belief that something because something doesn’t appear to be wrong that it is right.
Paine addresses the importance of the cause at hand, pumping up the reader, (creating a patriotic lust even?) by reminding that this is a huge amount of the globe at stake and that the geography is the only concern of the King of England, not the wellbeing of his English brothers and sisters in America. He contemplates options, separation and dependence on England.
Some of the persuasive approaches of Common Sense are the following:
*Paine is very creative in his reasoning, coming up with great analogies for America: -as a child, who has thrived without meat
-as a child of England, and therefore an threatened enemy of France and Spain
*Paine uses Financial Appeals: citing the economic state of America after English wars, mentioning taxes.
*Religious appeals: Attributing the distance between the continents as protective gift from God, as well as the fact that God allowed the discovery of America at nearly the same time as the religious persecution of the Protestants during the reformation.
*Paine appeals to the pride of the individual, expressing how England is taking advantage of Americans in everyway, and that all that is left for Americans is unpopularity by association.
All in all, Paine’s very convincing work really befits its title.

Franklin and Concerning the Savages of North America

Reading Benjamin Franklin’s Remarks Concerning the Savages makes the Native Americans not only appear to have an ideal society, but also makes them look like what many of the settlers were seeking when they left England. Franklin’s thoughts are so profound and well-written that I wonder how anyone reading could not have been in complete agreement with him. He seems to appeal to many aspects of society that the English would have prided in a way that shows that the Native Americans both matched and even exceeded them.
First, he explains that Indians were concerned with the wisdom, as the Indian men would grow old and eventually become sages of society. These sages were an essential part of their tribes, as the younger people would go to them for understanding. The British not only prided themselves on their wisdom, but deemed themselves superior to others based on their concern with attaining and preserving old wisdom. Also language was and is one of the most important features of English culture, which Franklin prudently points out is the greatest attainment of the Native American oral tradition.
The Native American, often perceived as beastly heathens, was not a police society; punishment was not one of the terror-causing aspects of the culture. One of the issues in England at the time was the injustice, and violent public punishment and government sponsored torture.
He explains that the Native Americans believe that the English waste their time on educational pursuits, which mainly function to make them feel superior to others. While the English spend hours making themselves feel pretentiously educated, the Indians focused on being active and not learning that would instruct them toward artificial desires. Franklin draws up an example of a trade proposal to the Indians of the Six Nations, in which six of their young men would be funded and allowed to go to an American college. He accounts the Native American’s polite rejection of the offer, including their reasoning (past examples where Native Americans who were students came back unable to function properly within the tribe) and a very clever final proposal, which was to take six of their white boy and make men of them.
Franklin points out the clever memory of the women, who mentally record during public counsels the events and information of the meetings. He tells that the women have remembered everything as well as the written documents the Americans possess, for the last 100 years. Another aspect of these counsels which he mentions is the ritual aspect, showing the Native American value of tradition, also important to the English. Despite the emphasis on tradition, the councils, Franklin points out, are different from British councils, which allow interruptions and are full of confusion.
The politeness of the Native Americans is something that I never have really considered in the past. While I always imagined these tribes to be considerate of people within the community, I would have never used the term “polite” which, I confess, I would have attributed to more western societies, of those deemed at the time to be more “civilized”. But the Native Americans appear to have rules for most of their actions, which functioned mainly to show respect to others. I have to say I have gained quite an admiration for these lost cultures, where I only had respect before. I imagine that this work would not have been taken incredibly seriously to the English, who were too conservative and unlikely to respond to Franklin’s truthful degradation of them. But I think the American Revolutionaries and those rebellious against the Brits would have liked it.