Within the first page of reading I
came to a section that made me stop and think: did blacks and whites share the
same bible? I remember reading that Douglass was of mix decent, having an
enslaved mother and an unknown white father. I mean I could see plantation
owners holding a service once a week in their religion to try and “purify” the
slaves. However, I remember learning in school that slaves would sing songs,
some religious, from their native lands while they worked. Douglass relates and seems to really take an
immediate interest in William Lloyd Garrison’s work; “the bible was his
textbook – held sacred, as the word of the Eternal Father –sinless perfection
–complete submission to insults and injuries – literal obedience to the
injunction. (1075)” But in my mind if I was Douglass, how could I believe in
the same god as a plantation owner that owned slaves, I just couldn’t? However,
Douglass and Garrison held their heads above it all, and decided to believe
what they thought was correct about the bible and gods teachings. For example
take Douglass’s view on “those ministers who defended slavery from the bible, were
of their “father the devil;” and those churches which fellowshipped
slaveholders as Christians, were synagogues of Satan, and our nation was a
nation of liars. (1075)” They did not deny themselves faith or the belief in
god, they instead looked to each other for support against those who did not
believe all of gods children were equal.
The other part to my question then
is: who was the person selling subscriptions to the “Liberator?” From the name
the Liberator sounds like an anti-slavery paper, but who then could have
published it? At this time many blacks still could not read and in Douglass’s
case could not afford the paper because he “had just escaped from slavery, and
of course was very poor. (1075)”
I found it crazy that within a few
years Douglass would be accused of being a fraud. Honestly I hope he did not take
it offensively when people doubted if he had ever been a slave. Northerners said
he “did not talk like a slave, look like a slave, nor act like a slave, (1078)“
which should have been the biggest compliment to Douglass, however from our
reading it does not seem as if he took it that way. I don’t understand why
Douglass would not be incredibly pleased with his assimilation; he was well written
enough and knew how to address a crowd so well that they thought he had been
educated his whole life.
I think the fact that people doubted Douglass because he didn't "look" like a slave or "talk" like a slave is further proof of how we so easily stereotype people according to the norms of our society - and it's really irritating to see that that still hasn't changed. It makes more sense (terribly) that people had such a hard time stomaching women like Willard in that time period as well - if women are to be meek, and seen-but-not-heard, how else would society react to seeing one up on stage in a position that would make her seem more "manly" for lack of a better, less appropriate term? Douglass didn't fit the mold of a runaway slave, therefore he couldn't have been one. Willard didn't fit the time period's mold for femininity, and so was less feminine. We never really learn, do we? We'll just continue to throw people into categories based on how they look for the rest of time, I'm sure. We advance in so many ways - and yet stay unchanged without knowing it in others.
ReplyDeleteHe might also desire his own culture. Sure, the culture is that of owned human beings, but still, it is the culture he identifies with. Though the surrounding conditions were atrocious, religions (Voodoo and Santeria), art, education, family values and so much more exploded from the slave-culture that he probably wouldn't want to have completely isolated himself from it in favor of white culture. I think Douglass learned how to live as a black man in white culture as a means of promoting freedom, but at heart, he was culturally (not simply racially) tied to his people. In other words, it wasn't so much that a specific race of people should be freed as it was that a people (culture included) should be free. Does that make sense?
ReplyDelete