Undercove Abolitionist

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Wheatley
November 5th 2009

Phillis Wheatley

1753-1784

"But when these shades of time are chased away,
And darkness ends in everlasting day,
On what seraphic pinions shall we move,
And view the landscape in the realms above?
There shall thy tongue in heavenly murmurs flow,
And there my muse with heavenly transport glow:
No more to tell of Damon's tender sighs,
Or rising radiance of Aurora's eyes,
For nobler themes demand a nobler strain,
And purer language on the ethereal plain.
Cease, gentle muse! The solemn gloom of night
Now seals the fair creation from my sight."
(Norton Pg. 761)

"In a more formal tactic, Wheatley challenged eighteenth-century evangelicals in their cherished religious arena by redeploying the same language and doctrine that whites had used to define the African, thereby undercutting conventional colonial assumptions about race and skin color."
(A Slave's Subtle War: Phillis Wheatley's Use of Biblical Myth and Symbol Oneale, Sondra)

The first quote was selected from Wheatley's A Young African Painter, on Seeing His Works. After praising Scipio Moorhead's for his natural talent, and his ability to create and give life to his artwork, Wheatley moves her perspective back to the harsh realities of the present. She seems to say that although Scipio's artwork has the power to take her away from the persecution of slavery, it's beauty is only a temporary reprieve, and at the end of the day, she must come back to a world of injustice. She admires his artwork, but see's no such angelic beauty in the world she lives in. One must understand however, that Scipio has little choice in the matter. He is a slave, just as she is, and is thus confined in the themes of his artwork, and the materialization of his passion. He is forbidden from painting the suffering he feels, the suffering of his race, and must instead synthesize a beauty that he does not feel. A beauty that is out of reach.

The second quote was selected from Sondra Oneale's A Slaves Subtle War: Phillis Wheatley's use of Biblical Myth and Symbol. Describing Wheatley's subversive use of Christianity, Oneale shows that Wheatley uses Christianity in order to fight racism. Incapable of fighting racism head on, being as she was a black slave, and a woman, Wheatley fought the struggle for equality through her verse; in the careful selection of her words, subtle moral lessons, and christian ideology. I personally find Wheatley's work to be very inspiring. It is a sad irony to consider the disgust many people garner towards her, because in truth, I find she had little choice in the style of her writing if she was ever to be published. Although it seems as though Wheatley is content in peeling off the heritage of her race, in truth, I find the opposite to be true. The only way she could survive and be a published poet was by assimilating into European culture, infiltrating it. In effect, I believe she made a great sacrifice, in the hope that she could influence change.

Look At Me, For Better To See Yourself

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Equiano
November 11th 2009

Olaudah Equiano
1745-1797

'From The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavas Vassa, the African, Written by Himself'

"Hitherto I had thought slavery only dreadful, but the state of a free negro appeared to me now equally so at least, and in some respects worse, for they live in constant alarm for their liberty; which is but nominal, for they are universally insulted and plundered, without the possibility of redress." (Norton Pg. 702)


"The book is directed not to the reason, an abstract quantity, but seeks rather to register its effect in the very bodies of its readers—at their feet, in their hearts, and in their minds. It represents individual experience to them—both the author's and their own—creating for them an isolate, intimate space through which they can respond sympathetically to its argument. It operates from the inside out, self-referentially, narrowing its focus in order to universalize its appeal." (Daniel O'Quinn, University of Guelph)

The first quote is part of Equiano's response after seeing a young mulatto man, and boat builder by the name of Joseph Clipson seized, and forced into slavery even though he was born a free man. It didn't matter that he had a certificate of being born free in St. Kitts, or that most of the people aboard the ship knew him not to be a slave, the color of his skin marked him a 'son of cain', and with the knowledge that they could take advantage of him without fear of justice, or retribution, they took everything from him. Realizing even a 'free' black man, is never truly free in the presence of racism, this quote exemplifies Equiano's understanding that there is no true escape from the injustices inflicted upon those of color until racism itself is abolished. Slavery was just the beginning of the suffering of the black man that would continue on to this very day, and as Equiano first realized hiding in the bushes in Africa: "If possibly I could escape all other animals, I could not those of the human kind." (Norton Pg. 679)

The Second quote is from Daniel O'Quinn's analysis of Equiano's narrative. In this quote, Daniel O'Quinn demonstrates Equiano's deliberate use of real life suffering to elicit a powerful response from the reader. Provoking reader-response empathy, Equiano's narrative is obviously seen as a story aimed at provoking a political change. By describing first hand the pain of losing his family, the horror of the slave ship voyages, and the mistreatment faced throughout his life, Equiano brings the reader to a place where they can sympathize with his plight, and the plight of all colored men. Through the use of his passionate exclamations, christian rhetoric, and real life suffering, he allows the reader to sympathize with him through the passage of their own memories and experiences. The same sympathy would be difficult to attain, if at all possible through reason, because there is no reason to the inhumanities of slavery. Reason is a language of right and wrong, principles and theories, and these can't represent the true wickedness of slavery. As O'Quinn says; 'the method (Equiano's) operates from the inside out, self-referencially' -thus bringing the reader a level of empathy otherwise unattainable because it allows them to truly feel how he felt as a slave.

Another interesting point that Equiano brings across through his narrative, is the manner of slavery in Africa, versus that in America, and Europe. As Equiano points out, African slavery was much more civilized and tolerable than European slavery. This can be observed through his first experiences of being subject to 'White' slavery versus that of African slavery:

"The White people looked and acted, as I thought, in so savage a manner; for I had never seen among any people such instances of brutal cruelty." (Norton Pg. 683)

"I must acknowledge, in honor of those sable destroyers of human rights, that I never met with any ill treatment, or saw any offered to their slaves, except tying them, when necessary, to keep them from running away." (Norton Pg. 680)

As can be seen from both quotations, there is a thick contrast between European and African slavery. Where European slavery depended upon fear, physical abuse, ignorance and ultimate hopelessness, the African slavery Equiano experienced depended solely on fear, and a minimum amount of physical abuse. A stark contrast to European slavery, in both the house of the smith, and the Widow, he isn't beaten or mistreated, but instead is cared for, and housed, while being forced to work. It makes one wonder how the 'civilized' Europeans came to resort to such brutality. Does the rise of civilization inevitably perpetuate violence? Will society always need a lower class to take advantage of, be it in the form of slavery, or poverty?

Baby Steps of Civil Rights

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
November 1st 2009

Journal on Apess

William Apess
1798-1893

"I would ask you if you would like to be disfranchised from all your rights, merely because your skin is white, and for no other crime." (Norton)

"Some critics claimed Apess, in adopting the rhetoric of Christian conversion narratives, "lost his voice" as a Native American and wrote in a derivative style" (Enotes.com)

The first quote exemplifies the empathetic method that Apess uses throughout An Indian's Looking-Glass For The White Man. By using sharp rhetoric, he forces the reader to contemplate the harsh realities of racism: To face inequality, and bear the manacles of segregation; To wonder what it would be like to think of yourself as an inferior, for no reason other than the color of the skin that you wear. Although non representative of his pervasively christian voice, this quote also highlights the conversational tone used in order to interact directly with the audience.

The second quote is representative of the contemporary criticism that Apess faced at the time. Being as he was a Methodist minister living in white society, many critics believed that he had no right representing Native Americans, as if Christianity naturally took the Indian out of him. I find this to be a hollow criticism. Although it is true that Apess was no longer living as a traditional tribal Indian, Apess was most definitely still an Indian. He still shared the sting of racism, the fractured childhood, and bitter abuses of an Indian heritage. Why else would he be demanding equality for Native Americans? Is it because he didn't fit the wild, and savage Indian stereotype that he faced this criticism? Because he was educated? Maybe he was seen as a man who had given up the fight for a world where Indians could still support their way of life, and turned to the society that had destroyed that possibility. But is that a crime? Did he really give up his heritage or was he just trying to keep it alive?


Another interesting thing to take note of, is the manner in which Apess brings across the Issue of race. Reminiscent of Martin Luther King Jr. Apess' use of analogies and biblical quotations echoes throughout future civil rights movements and as a method, it's very effective. By speaking in analogies, Apess gets the message across in a manner that isn't difficult to understand, and at the same time, retains a powerful depth of meaning. It doesn't exclude the lower class, and has a clarity of voice that is hard to get ahold of otherwise. It also brings about vivid imagery, and invites the audience to instill a meaning of their own to the words. The use of biblical quotations is yet another tool that is very effective because it disarms the audience of their bias. By referencing the bible, Apess roots his ideas into words that are inherently respected by the dominantly christian contemporary society. Even if they don't respect Apess because of his racial background, they respect the ideas that he presents, because they are founded on a common ground.

Apess's direct deconstruction of the typical white Jesus stereotype is also very effective. Just like the typical eurocentric representation of god as a white man living up in the clouds, the stereotype of Jesus being white is not only ignorant, but insulting. I've always thought that god would be better off being represented as a black bi-sexual cross-dressing transvestite woman, but then again, that may be asking too much. As for Jesus, it wouldn't much matter if he was accepted as being black, or brown, because he was born in the middle east and it would be an accurate representation of his complexion, but by purposefully painting him as a white man, European society implies that only a white man could be the son of god. Apess attacks this conception of superiority by bringing up the issue of Jesus' color. By establishing Jesus, as a non-white son of god, Apess dismantles the founding stereotypes of racism. He argues that if people of color are inferior, and victims of hatred, and abuse, then wouldn't the son of God be as well?

In another powerful example, Apess invites the reader to envision all of the nations of the world together in one room, and search for the white man. Leaving quite a striking image, and one that is just as true today, Apess example can only leave the reader imagining a room full of colored people, with few whites. I think to myself well big deal, I knew that, but it's still shocking to realize. Representing a majority of the media today, the 'white man' is misrepresented as the majority man, although he undoubtedly isn't. Consciously I know that caucasian males are a minority, but I feel like they're a majority because when it comes down to it, in California I'm not a subject of much ethnic diversity. It makes me wonder how much inherent racism there is in American society, and how such a cycle can ever be stopped.

Childhood America

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Washington Irving
October 28th 2009

Washington Irving

1783-1859

"The great error in Rip's composition was an insuperable aversion to all kinds of profitable labor." (Norton Pg. 955)

Taken from the beginning of Irving's short story, this quote paints a picture of the the main character Rip Van Winkle. A good natured man, and kind neighbor, his greatest failure is in his refusal to work, and support his family. His wife in turn berates him, as he lets his children go hungry, and his farm fall into ruins.

It is hard to gauge Van Winkle as a character. In one perspective, I see Van Winkle as a rebel of sorts. He refuses to be a subject to authority, and only does work that pleases him. It's not necessarily that he is lazy, but that he does that which he prefers to do and when his wife becomes too difficult an obstacle, he leaves to the forest. On the other hand, I find Van Winkle to be a detestable character, a lazy, apathetic, and misogynistic failure of a father, who refuses to take responsibility for his family. It's a strange clashing of ideals, and it makes it hard to pick a side. Is Van Winkle the protagonist, or the antagonist, or is he just a character that the story is built around? When looked at pragmatically, I find him to be more on the side of being an anti-hero. Although the story revolves around him, he helps no-one, and is the subject of a 20 year gap which he crosses over with nonchalance. He is weak, egocentric, lazy, and apathetic, but somehow I still relate to him.

Washington Irving's story seems simple at first, but I find that beneath the story is a commentary on the American Revolution. The story begins by describing Van Winkle's aversion to all work concerning family. His wife, who is never named, representative perhaps of Monarchy under King George III, plays the part of the tyrant, and continually reprimands him for his idleness. In return however, Van Winkle refuses to work. In effect, if his wife represents the monarchy of King George, then Van Winkle, is passively rebelling against England, and thus, represents the colonies. Upon returning to the town twenty years later, the American Revolution has ended, and Van Winkle is no longer a subject to the monarchy, but even so, Van Winkle refuses to work. In describing the sign on the Union Hotel that was once the village inn Irving gives us a hint however. A sign that had once borne the face of King George, the post revolutionary sign bears the same face, but added to it, is a sword, and a cocked hat with the title George Washington beneath it. Is this symbolic perhaps of Irving's belief that government is still government by whatever name? If not Irving's, it is certainly that of Van Winkle, who takes the change of government indifferently. In the end however, why should it affect him? Government means little to a man who refused even the authority of his own wife. To him, a government no matter the form, be it a monarchy, democracy, or matrimony, was still a means of controlling him. A means which he didn't respect.

" Critics have focused on the story's theme of change, in which the contrast between the peaceful pre-Revolutionary colony and the bustling post-Revolutionary America reinforces a simultaneous sense of nostalgia for a simpler time as well as a sense of the reality of our always-shifting American world." (NovelGuide.com)

This quote was taken from an online criticism of Rip Van Winkle, and I find that it brings an interesting perspective to Irving's tale.

In writing Rip Van Winkle, Irving may have been making a commentary on the American Revolution not only by completely omitting the event from the story, but by describing the changes it caused on the village as well. Perhaps Rip Van Winkle's twenty year disappearing act during the revolution represents the detached feelings that many of the colonials felt towards the American Revolution. If they weren't subjects of England, than what were they? Besides, although the British imposed steep taxes, and made it illegal to expand westward, what reason was there for a revolution? If one was a simple man such as Van Winkle, with little care for politics, the American Revolution may have meant very little.

Secondly, Irving describes the changes caused by the American Revolution. When Van Winkle returns home, he encounters a mob of American citizens, engaging in the chaos of the new democracy. He uses words such as 'bilious' and 'idle' to describe the public speaker at the inn. Obviously ripe with negative connotations, this perspective may not have been a commentary on the change in government, but rather a commentary on the arguments that ensued over which political party to support. After all, the first question he is asked, is whether he is a federal or democrat. Van Winkle doesn't seem to care much about the politics of the situation however, and that may be Irving's enduring message. What did it matter if you were Federal, or Democrat? They just wanted to be free.

Moral Duty

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
Journal on Henry David Thoreau
October 26th 2009

Henry David Thoreau
1817-1862

"There will never be a really free and enlightened state, until the state comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all it's own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. (Norton Pg.1872)

Taken from the last paragraph of Thoreau's Resistance To Civil Government these final words seem to illuminate Thoreau's philosophy on government. Government, to Thoreau, had no place controlling the life of an individual. Instead, being derived from the people, and empowered by the desire for a social construct, government was made to serve, protect, and enrich the lives of the people, and it's individuals. As Thoreau says, "We should be men first, and subjects afterward." (Pg. 1858)

This seems a simple enough philosophy and one that I strongly agree with. If there is anything that should follow the path of idealism it is a system of government. Civil rights should be supported, freedom ensured, opportunity promised, and justice practiced. I should wake up every morning, and be proud to be an American, and of all the things that this country does. I should admire the wars that we wage, and the lack of educational funding at home; look up to our foreign policy and be proud of the slave labor that American companies subside on; I should be content with the sickening gap between the upper and lower classes, and respect the government in everything that I empower it to do through my taxes, but I don't. What is the problem then? As Thoreau states, government is imperfect, "The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to... is still an impure one." (Pg. 1872) No one can expect to agree on everything, it simply isn't possible. The closest you can get is through the act of respectful compromise, but even so, there are times when I am unwilling to compromise. Some moral boundaries should never be crossed.Unfortunately, Democracy being a government based upon popular vote is a government that succumbs to the desire of the majority, and thus, inherently forces the minority to live with and support whatever decisions are made. This is what Thoreau had so much difficulty with, especially on the moral grounds of slavery. The question that Thoreau tries to answer then, is whether or not the minority has a duty to continue to support a government that is no longer serving it. Thoreau give his answer in the form of a quote, "But if it is of such a nature that it require you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." (Pg 1863)

Again, I agree. Unfortunately breaking the law is no simple task. Revoking support from the government can lead to prison time, and a loss of all personal property. Even so, Thoreau's words make me want to take to the streets of San Francisco, and hold marches, and rallies against the injustices of the world. I want to stop paying taxes, go live off in the woods or some anarchistic commune, and fight for that which I believe to be right. Thoreau has a way of putting this spirit into words. With his naturally rebellious voice, he invites other to join him. After all, who doesn't want to make the world a better place? An inspiration to great minds such as Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, Thoreau embodied Civil Disobedience by provoking the rebel in all of us.

"What was central for Thoreau was neither nonviolence nor civil disobedience but direct action: the absolute demand that one practice — right now, and all alone if necessary — what one preaches." (Staughton Lynd)

An excerpt from Staughton Lynd's Henry Thoreau: The Admirable Radical, this quote illustrates the idea that Thoreau's true purpose in writing Resistance to Civil Government was not singular in it's goal, rather it was meant to inspire action, and fight the docility that has been embedded into the masses. In effect, he's telling the reader to get up out his chair, and scream, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

Personally, I find that this idea is just as relevant today, as it was in the 19th century. There is far too much passive acceptance of the injustices that go on today. We are all taught to be compliant to the government, taught to sit back and vote, taught that democracy is the will of the people and that fighting it is wrong. If government represents the will of the people, how can resistance be wrong? There are too many sitting behind TV screens, and computers, unwilling to stand up for what they think is right, passively supporting that which they think to be wrong. It infuriates me just thinking of all of the injustices I am forced to indirectly support through my taxes. It makes me wonder if Democracy really is the best government. Is there no way to improve upon it? Is complaisant voting, the farthest government will ever get towards representing it's people? In the end, there may never be a government that can fairly represent it's subjects. Perhaps the best form's of social structure are no longer possible with populations so vast.

Overall, Thoreau's message, is to resist that which you believe to be wrong. It is not only right to fight injustice, but man's moral duty. If nothing else, I hope that this message will endure. After all, if we don't strive to do that which is right, then it is living proof that conformity has stripped us of our humanity, and what is a human being devoid of humanity?

An Ideal World

Fred Heath

Eng 48A
Journal on Emerson
10/25/09

Ralph Waldo Emerson
1803-1882

"Nothing is at last sacred, but the integrity of our own mind." (Norton Pg. 1165)

In this quote, Emerson describes the importance of non-conformity. A recurring theme throughout self-reliance, he believed that fighting conformity was the only way to be true to one's self and, in doing so, he believed that one's 'Inner genius' would be unleashed.

In many ways Emerson's words ring true. It is important to listen to the inner thoughts, and desires that we all have, but at the same time, I disagree. There are various repressed impulses, inherent in all of mankind, that are better off that way. Society is bound by certain laws and mannerisms, and it is necessary to conform to them because society simply cannot support it's population if the people within it act upon their every desire. The social structure that has evolved with the human race serves a purpose, and it is necessary to keep it functioning. Even in the smallest of societies, social structure is necessary. It keeps mankind civilized. In the end, I find that Emerson's philosophy is unrealistic, and one that can only be practiced either by those with absolutely nothing to lose, or those that are so well off that it doesn't quite matter. On the other hand, Emerson was an idealist surrounded by friends and intellectuals, set apart from the city life. Perhaps his philosophy expects a certain civility amongst men and women. Taken in small doses, being true to one's self can have it's benefits, leading to provocative creativity, and thought-provoking philosophies, but taken too far, it inevitably leads to chaos. After all, not everyone can live in the woods.

"Society acquires new arts, and loses old instincts." (Transcendentalists.com)

In this quote, Emerson describes the cost we pay for society: As society advances, man becomes more and more dependent upon it. By living in a society, we give up on individuality, and come to depend and rely on society as if it were a part of ourselves, necessary to our survival.

I agree with Emerson. Society dulls many of the hardships that are faced by those that live alone. One doesn't have to fight to survive in a society, rather one must work, and be productive to support the society that protects him. Society forces the individual to conform to it, and rely on it making it illegal to 'take the law into one's own hands'. Being unable to rely on one's self, man comes to rely on the laws, and protections of society. This can be crippling to those that live at the bottom of society however, that bear no advantage from society's protection. Having been born into the society, the lower class can't just hike off into the woods, and live off of the land because society has turned the land into a nature reserve with 'no camping' sign's posted all around the entrances. They have to put up with the society that they were born into. They have to pay their taxes, work, and hope that someday they will be more than the guy doing dishes for five dollars an hour. In the end, there is no escaping society for better or worse.

Chains of Fear

Fred Heath
Eng 48A
10/15/09

Harriet Jacobs
1813-1897

"Slavery is terrible for men; but it is far more terrible for women. Superadded to the burden common to all, they have wrongs, and sufferings, and mortification peculiarly to their own." (Norton pg 1820)

In this quote, saddened by the news of her second child being a girl, Harriet Jacobs goes on to explain that slavery carries uncommon burdens when inflicted upon a woman. Jacobs explains that although slavery is horrible for all, enslaved women carry the same burdens that men do on top of difficulties unique to their own sex. The way I think of it, an enslaved man that has lost his freedom, has nothing left to lose but his life, whereas an enslaved woman has quite a bit more to lose. Not only were women slaves subject to the inhumanity of slavery, they were subject to the unique degradation of sexual slavery. Worst of all however, was that the victims of rape had no choice but to bear the children of their rapists, furthering the cycle of slavery, and crushing any hope of attaining freedom.

"The slave girl is reared in an atmosphere of licentiousness and fear." Norton

In this quote, Jacobs describes the life of a female black slave, specifically, the life she experienced as a house slave in North Carolina. What she seems to be saying, is that there is an inherent fear in being a female slave because all slave girls are potential victims of sexual harassment and rape. Jacobs, although never physically raped, had a very real fear of being abused, causing her to become involved with Mr. Sands, and eventually to escape to New York.

A woman that didn't even realize she was a slave until she was six years old, Harriet Jacobs was not brought up as a traditional field slave. A contrast to Frederick Douglass, Jacobs did not have to experience the same atrocities that Douglass was subject to. Instead, she lead a much softer lifestyle, and with it, came a different class of inhumanity. Although just as despicable, the abuses that Jacobs suffered were rarely physical, and were instead manifested verbally. Rather than being beaten and lashed, Jacobs was the victim of verbal abuse, threats, and sickening sexual harassment instilling a fearful submission and passive rebellion in her. By describing the more subtle vices of female slavery, Jacobs gives a unique perspective on the multi-faceted subject of slavery.