This time, I've given you a question for each of the historical readings, but as always just respond to any TWO of the questions. However, consider how some of them work together in their denunciation--or defense--of slavery.
Answer TWO of the following:
Q1: “A Declaration By
The Barbados Colonists” (1651): This declaration predates the publication of Oroonoko
by several decades, making it an interesting counterpoint to the colonial
perspective offered by the unnamed narrator.
Based on this declaration, how might colonists feel themselves growing
apart from the mother country and becoming “slaves” themselves? In what way does being a colonist mean
forsaking a traditional sense of being English?
Q2: How might John
Locke’s argument for the “natural state of man” support Oroonoko’s own bid for
freedom in the novel? On the same hand,
how does Locke, despite his humanitarian impulses, define slavery within the
construct of “the state of nature” and “the state of war”?
Q3: Writings like “The
Speech of Moses Bon Sáam” (1735) formed a genre of abolitionist writing written
exclusively by white Englishmen trying to further the cause. Most likely, Moses Bon Sáam was a mask for
one such abolitionist. Nevertheless,
what arguments does he advance against Locke’s notion of slavery as a “natural”
state for a certain class of people? Why
might these arguments resonate with (and perhaps even be inspired by) the
example of Oroonoko?
Q4: “The Answer of
Caribeus to Moses Bon Sáam” (1735) is the prototypical “apology” for slavery in
the 17th/18th century.
In essence, how is slavery defended as a necessary state of existence
and even as a kind of blessing upon the slave him/herself?
Q5: How does Johnson
echo many of the sentiments from Moses Bon Sáam to attack a Lockean view of
slavery? Why does Boswell feel the need
to editorialize this sentiment at the end of the excerpt? Though he admits that Johnson’s views are
“perhaps…in the right” (177), what crucial element does he feel Johnson
overlooks?
Q6: The Life of
Olaudah Equiano (1789) is
one of the most extraordinary works of the late 18th century, as it
is a polished, almost novelistic account of slavery from the inside—a slave who
was captured as a child, served in the Royal Navy, and gradually bought his
freedom (though few Englishmen believed in a freed slave). How do these excerpts contrast with the
“white” perspective of slavery seen in Oroonoko, Moses Bon Sáam, and
Johnson? Is Equiano able to write like
an Englishman yet remain, in spirit, an African? In other words, how much does he conform to
literary expectations—or how much does he remain an outsider sneaking in?
Q1A). In regards to forsaking traditional sense of being an Englishman, what stood out most to me in this reading is the opinion that how could the colonists be “free” if they are unable to partake in parliament, that they have no representatives yet are supposedly “free”? This cause alone would alienate a person from his own nation. This is something of a slave – slaves have no representatives – and he even says, “born to be slave”. This phrase is a broad opinion that most have of slavery, born into it, not made into it.
ReplyDeleteQ2A). John Locke’s argument for the natural state of man, he says, is NOT “all men are born slaves”. Indeed, he is denying this. In Oroonoko, the natural state of man, being free, you can see the grasp that Oroonoko has on his freedom – he does not see his fellow men becoming slaves and think, “we are all natural born slaves,” but thinks he is not a slave at all, should not be treated like one, and should be respected for his high ranking in his personal society. This is on the same level as John Locke’s “all men are not all born slaves”.
For the latter part of the question, Locke’s view on slavery in “the state of nature” and “the state of war” is everyone is bound to preserve him, we are not born not but equal, and we should not harm one-another – yet, we are able to enact this “law” by restraining or destroying whatever is toxic to it. Those that get into absolute power in the state of nature will then put himself in a state of war, where he would even enslave a human, and therefore we shall be able to kill such a man.
3. Moses Bon Sáam argues that he identifies with Moses, the Biblical figure who, chosen by God, delivered the Jewish nation of Israel out of slavery from the Egyptians. He compares the enslavement of the Israelites to that of the African people as being “unfair, oppressive, and unnatural”. This could be paralleled with Behn’s Oroonoko as the moor prince stood up for his people and led a revolt against the plantation that held him captive. Like Moses, Oroonoko was once held people captive, left his place of comfort and nobility to eventually attempt to deliver his people from oppression.
ReplyDelete4. Towards the beginning of Ceribeus’s article, he asserts the lifestyle of a slave is acceptable “by showing that…their masters are restrained from cruelty, both by laws, and their own interest; and that the negroes are much happier than in their native country; much happier than the bulk of mankind; nay, than the poor labourers of England”(173). This sort of opinion is one that labels the life of a slave as a Fortunate Fall: a slave falls into slavery, but they are saved from the dismal and barbaric ways of Africa, provided places of residence, food, and water, and live even more comfortably than the standard Englishman.
Q4- Many people attempted to defend slavery by saying that their slaves were actually happy, however, we never actually hear the slaves back this up. White men also claimed that they gave the slaves a way to live. This was a way of saying that "without us, how would the slaves survive?". Slaves were taken from their homeland and introduced to "civilized" culture.
ReplyDeleteQ6- The fact that Equiano is able to write at all is a testament to his conversion to an Englishman. However, the subject matter covered in his writing displays his African spirit. A true Englishman would never use a slave's point of view. The answer to this question is a bit tricky. For this time period, literate slaves were strongly frowned upon; this makes Equiano almost as English as a slave could be. However, the fact that "The Life of Olaudah Equiano" was written from a slaves perspective reminds readers that he is a former slave, despite the skill of his writing. Perhaps the skill employed in this work was a way of grabbing an English reader's attention in an attempt to raise slavery awareness.
Dana Welch
ReplyDeleteQ4.
Slavery is kind of romanticised by Boswell. He thinks that the slaves are treated as property, but treated well. They are not, according to Johnson and Equiano. His main argument is that slaves are put here by God. There are slaves because God wants us to have the ignorant for slaves. That's why savages are here.
Q5.
What Boswell feels is overlooked is the fact that the Bible mentioned people having slaves, so it is a thing God wants. Also, he thinks that you can't take people's property away, and slaves are just property.