I Got Nothin'

I usually try to incorporate some humor into these posts, but when it comes to Bastard Out of Carolina, there just isn't anything funny at all. The abuse that Allison portrays so vividly is so grotesque it is hard to find anything positive in this entire novel. There seems to be no hope for any of the characters, which is pretty depressing.

Allison flips the southern gentleman on his head with her portrayal of Glen. If the southern gentleman is supposed to be noble, honorable, and a man of good character than Glen is the furthest thing from it. As a man, there are some things you just cannot do. Right up at the top of the list is putting your hands on a woman with force or without her consent. This goes doubly for a child. Glen's actions are so despicable to think about. We aren't talking about a guy who spanks his kid when she acts up; the physical and sexual abuse that Bone endures at his hands is completely senseless. I found it ironic how it is that very senselessness that leads to Bone's internalization of her guilt, as we discussed in class.

I think Allison is trying to depict Southern men as backward, insecure, and intolerant. Bone's uncles are drunken idiots who shoot each other trucks, and Glen is a monster. The men's treatment of women in South Carolina in the 1950's is violent and irrational. Allison is trying to show how the southern gentleman has fallen and the South has not evolved into a place that accepts equality of gender and race.

Mtorcycles+Cars=Cool Poetry!

I really enjoyed the poem Cherrylog Road because it seemed like a big departure from most of Dickey's other writing. While elements of nature and religion are still found in the poem, Dickey grabbed my attention in the first two stanzas by talking about about a '34 Ford that used to be use to bootleg corn whiskey back in the day. Alright, so the car was in a junkyard and didn't look nearly that cool, but anytime someone talks about old cars that's what I think of. He keeps my attention through the next stanza by mentioning an old Essex and a blue Chevrolet. I think that the way I thought about these images is one of the themes Dickey is emphasizing in his poem--imagination and the innocence of childhood. I think the kid playing in the "parking lot of the dead" pretending he was in a stock-car race or a movie star really got my own imagination going. I used to love to imagine driving fast cars (still do), and this poem brought back those feelings of nostalgia most of us have towards our own childhoods. I have to admit that I after constantly seeing the themes of nature and religion in Dickey's poems this was a refreshing alternative. While these themes are still in Cherrylog Road, I felt like they took a backseat to the innocence displayed by this guy playing around in a junkyard full of sun-beaten, rotted-out cars.

I also have to admit that I have no idea who Doris Holbrook or her significance is in the poem. I also am not sure whether the main character is a kid or a grown man. I thought it was a kid the whole way through until I got to the end and he says he got to his motorcycle and takes off. At first I thought it was a man, but then I thought it could have been a kid pretending his bicycle was a mean motorcycle. Either way, I think the theme is the same--it's either a man nostaligic for his youth or a kid who makes us feel that same nostalgia.

Poetry is Weird

I have to admit, I probably haven't read any poetry since I graduated high school. I read several of the Dickey poems, and really didn't feel like I knew what he was talking about in any of them, other than that he appears to really like nature, which is cool. I actually like poetry because I feel like most poems are so vague and ambiguous that I can make them mean almost anything anyone wants them to. So, it would probably help to show you how this poem looked inside my head.

I'd have to say my favorite of the poems I have read so far is "The Heaven of Animals." Dickey seems to be comparing the assumed innocence of cute wild animals to their primal instincts by framing his poem in "the circle of life." The poem starts out talking about "soft eyes", which made me think of little baby animals. While he never mentions what animal he specifically is talking about (maybe all, maybe a specific one) I was thinking about lions while reading this. Dickey says they have no souls, and "their instincts wholly bloom." I took this as meaning the cute little baby lion in my head is growing up and its instincts are taking over, telling my lion that he is "more deadly than he can believe" and must hunt and kill to survive. I think that Dickey is trying to compare the percieved innocence of the wild that some see to the actual hunting, kiling, and gore that it takes to survive.

I have no idea why Dickey wrote this poem. Maybe he just really loved nature and wild animals. Maybe this is a metaphor. If it is, it could be a metaphor for all kinds of ideas related to human survival and violence. Maybe he is saying to people who view nature and animals as "better" than humans that animals are just as violent and brutal as men. Perhaps he is saying that every creature on earth has their instincts that tell them to survive, no matter what. He also says something that I found interesting, even though I have no idea what he meant by it: "Having no souls, they have come,/anywyay, without their knowing." It is unclear whether he is saying that just animals have no souls, or noone has souls, or if he means the animals are better/worse off for not believing in God and afterlife.

I feel like I haven't said anything with any actual meaning in this blog. I wonder if that's what poets want when they write-to create an intentional confusion on the part of the reader that provokes all kinds of different interpretations of their work. Or maybe Dickey is rolling in his grave with frustration at my stupidity. Either way, I like being able to look at these poems from basically any angle and making them fit my argument, whatever it is.

I liked him better as Don Corleone

The movie "A Streetcar Named Desire" is much different from the play. Most of the differences have to do with the characters being different from how we pictured them when reading the play. I think this is most obvious in Blanche's case. In the play, we see her as being a tragic figure who falls from grace and the "Old South" aristocracy to the slums of New Orleans and eventually a mental institution. When the movie begins, Blanche already appears to have lost it. This creates a much more hysterical, annoying character that I felt much less sympathy for than the character in the book-which says a lot. Vivien Leigh, the actress who plays Blanche, never stops moving. She is always bouncing around the set, in and out of the lights (mostly out), which automatically makes her look suspicious and the viewer immediately distrusts her. We don't really see Blanche this hysterical in the play until about Scene 10, after Stanley has confronted her, Mitch has left her, and she is dressed in a dirty, wrinkled gown.

Unfortunately, I have seen the movie several times before, and it is impossible for me to see Stanley Kowlaski as anyone other than Marlon Brando. When we talked in class about the actor who played Mitch originally being cast as Stanley, it did make sense to me because it would seem to be truer to Tennessee Williams' original vision for the play. "I have always been more interesting in creating a character that contains something crippled."(629) Physically, there is nothing crippled or defective about Brando's Stanley. "Mitch" was obviously not as physically attractive as Brando. The only defect I see in Stanley in the movie is his violent temper-but this seems to be the an intrical part of what Stella finds attractive about him. If Stella is his only weakness (as we see after the leaves him after the poker game and goes to Eunice's, only to return to Stanley begging for her kn his knees), then he has to maintain this primitive rage because it is a big part of what makes him so "manly" in this role. Stella tells him to clear the table, and he smashes the dishes all over the apartment. I'm willing to bet that she secretly liked this "abuse" a little bit, kind of how she liked it when he smashed all the light bulbs with her shoe on their wedding night. Clearly, this rage becomes a serious danger when he rapes Blanche-which still, like the play, leaves Stanley's motives for raping Blanche in question.

Stella didn't appear to change too much from the play to the movie. She seems the weak person who does everything for Blanche and Stanley and nothing for herself. Despite being the third best looking person on screen most of the movie, Stella comes off as more sexual in the movie than in the play. When she returns to Stanley, he is on his knees and she stands, which shows the power she does have over Stanley, even if it isn't visible most of the time. She kisses him and runs her hand over his back, almost scratching it-I had forgotten about that scene but it really shows Stella as a very sexual being. I thought it was interesting, then, that they used such a plain looking actress for this role instead of a they typical gorgeous actress. Maybe they were trying to go along with Williams' intentions of showing all facets of American life, and not the typical version that Hollywood always presents us.

Throw Some Deees...ire's On It

I found the dynamic between Blanche and Stella in A Streetcar Named Desire very interesting. They seem very close, but Tennessee Williams makes it clear that they have some underlying problems that they sort of dance around.

In Scene Three, Blanche playfully flirts with Stanley while Stella is out on the porch. While it seems she does this to try and sway Stanley away from the conversation he wants to have about what happened to Belle Reve, it doesn't seem very sisterly nonetheless. After Stanley has had enough of her nonsense, she gets serious: "A woman's charm is fifty percent illusion, but when a thing is important I tell the truth, and this is the truth: I haven't cheated my sister or you or anyone else as long as I have lived."(644) Moments after her attempt to seduce her sister's husband fails, she uses her sister as support for why she hadn't cheated anyone, insinuating that she loves her sister so much she would never cheat her. Makes sense, but not quite so much given the timing. I believe that if Blanche thought for a second she could wiggle her way out of her difficult situation with Stanley by sleeping with him, she would have. Ironic, given that Stanley rapes her at the end of the play and she ends up getting shipped off to a mental institution.

Another scene I found interesting was the first time Blanche and Stella sit down and chat after Blanche arrives in New Orleans in Scene One. We really see how dramatic Blanche is and how Stella just takes it all with a grain of salt. Stella says, "You never did give me a chance to say much, Blanche. So I just got into te habit of being quiet around you."(635) Not only that, while Blanche's weakness is vanity, Blanche tells Stella she has gained weight and makes her stand up and be inspected. Again, Stella just complies. Williams sets Blanche up as the domineering sister and Stella as the weaker, compliant sister right at the beginning of the play. In the first scene alone there are at least three references in the stage notes to Stella "complying reluctantly."

I think its kind of weird how weak Stella is depicted. Blanche is the tragic character, so maybe she has to be shown strong at first so that she can fall. Stella seems almost afraid of Blanche-and Stanley, to some extent. But it also is very clear that Stella loves her sister very much. The day after Blanche critiques Stella like she was an Top Model contestant Stella reminds Stanley to compliment Blanche on her appearance. I found their relationship so interesting because Blanche is so caught up in her make-believe world that she has lost her grip on reality and Stella loves Blanche so much that she can't drag her back into the real world for fear of hurting her. I found this more tragic than Blanche's downfall. While Blanche's undoing was her fault, Stella, with all her love for Blanche, cannot do the one thing to help Blanche the most-grab by the shoulders, shake her, and scream WAKE UP! Stella, at the end of the play, is left with the loss of her sister, which, with her new baby binds her increasingly closer and more dependent on Stanley.

In Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God, Hurston surprised me with her views on race. While the main idea of her story is her main character Janie’s search for love, it is impossible to ignore the implications of her portrayal of both blacks and whites in early 20^th century American south. Hurston differs very strongly from most black writers we have read so far in that she is not crying out for change and equality, but seems to write about what her perception is of race without trying to deal with the social inequalities of the time.

Hurston’s character Mrs. Turner deals with Hurston’s ambiguous feelings about race, particularly her own black race. Hurston describes Mrs. Turner as “milky” with a “slightly pointed” nose, “thin lips”, and a “bas-relief” buttocks.(208) Obviously, Hurston is trying to depict Mrs. Turner as physically looking white. Mrs. Turner has some surprising views on her fellow African-Americans. “Her disfavorite subject was Negroes”, she doesn’t trust black doctors, “can’t stand black niggers,” and believes that “the black ones is holdin’ us back” from being integrated into the white community.(210) Janie, who’s “coffee and cream complexion and her luxurious hair” made Mrs. Turner see her as another black woman who is different from the average black.

Mrs. Turner, while she and Janie may look similar, represents Hurston’s idea that race is not something that is only made up by blacks. Janie does not buy into Mrs. Turner’s crazy ideas. She humors her and lets everything she says go in one ear and out the other. Race is made up by anyone who buys into the idea that the way someone is has something to do with the color of their skin. This ambivalence towards ones own race is not something that has disappeared in the years since Hurston wrote this. Chris Rock, in his HBO stand up special “Bigger & Blacker,” jokes about how he loves black people, but hates “niggers”(his word). In his mind, “niggers” are the black people who give blacks a bad name. Black people are just people with black skin, no different from whites. Likewise, organizations like the Klu Klux Klan and Aryan Nation give white people who don’t hold the same bigoted views a bad name. Hurston does a great job of exploring views on race from within a race, and showing us that not all people from the same race share the same viewpoint.

I think this is an important break from most of the writing we have read so far by African-American authors. Douglass and Wright try to unite blacks by their shared suffering, while Hurston is trying to empower blacks by not shying away from unflattering subjects. If she ignored an individual like Mrs. Turner, she would be giving an unrealistic look at race, and if all of the problems aren’t addressed, how can they be fixed?

The Chris Rock stand-up I mentioned can be found here. The language is pretty rough, but it's really funny.

Black, Green, White, and Frenchies

“The Ethics of Jim Crow” by Richard Wright sheds a very unique light on the Jim Crow laws of the South. It was very reminiscent of Frederick Douglass’ narrative in that it was an account from a southern black man with the intention of exposing the racial tension and problems in the American south. This is by no means a romantic portrayal of the South but is meant to show how cruel an environment early 20^th century southern life was for African-Americans.

For Wright, the differences between whites and blacks come very clear to him at an early age. I found it interesting how Wright uses colors to describe the differences at the beginning of the text. He uses three colors in the first chapter a number of times: white, black and green. The white and black shouldn’t need too much of an explanation, but I liked how he used the color green, trees, bushes, and nature to describe the white’s property (although the houses are white, of course). White people had big lawns, trees, and bushes while blacks had a “skimpy yard with black cinders.”(548) The first difference begins not with any physical or mental comparison, but a comparison of property. Not only is the white’s property more pleasant to look at, but proves dangerous for blacks, as the white find cover in the trees and bushes while throwing bottles at the black kids who are armed merely with cinders and no cover. Wright says “Even today when I think of white folks, the hard, sharp outlines of white houses surrounded by trees, lawns and hedges are present somewhere in the background of my mind. Through the years they grew into an overreaching symbol of fear.”(549) Wright has come to identify white people with the property they own, and learned to be afraid of everything about it.

Another perspective I found really interesting in this reading was the reaction of other, older blacks every time Wright comes home hurt or embarrassed because he didn’t follow the Jim Crow laws perfectly. After quitting his job at the optical company in order to walk away with his life he goes home and “When I told the folks at home what happened, they called me a fool.”(551) I would have expected support, comfort, and advice. His mom beats him when he comes home with three stitches in his neck after the white boys hit him with a milk bottle, says they were right to hit him with it, and tells Wright he should thank God they didn’t kill him.(549) I was surprised by the lack of community in Wright’s portrayal of Southern blacks. Given, this is one short piece, but there is no mention of family outside of his mother beating him. I would have thought they all the blacks would look out for, protect, and educate each other. This is not the case in Wright’s writing. He portrays his fellow blacks as strangely independent. Everyone must learn these lessons of Jim Crow life on their own.

I’d like to conclude by noting how much I enjoyed the part where Wright talks about what topics were taboo for whites to speak to blacks about. It honestly made me laugh out loud, even though I know it shouldn’t have, but some of the topics were pretty hilarious or so obvious that it was funny he included them. Among my favorites-France; the entire Northern part of the U.S.; French women, the Pope, social equality, Socialism/Communism, and slavery. Mostly, I liked how the most accepted topics were sex and religion. While I think it’s safe to say sex is still a hot conversation topic among men in any blue collar working environment still today, I think religion has taken a backseat to celebrity gossip, fantasy sports, and my sources tell me that France and the 13^thamendment have snuck in there.

You Don't Want to Make Me Angry...

I was really struck by the character Abner Snopes in Faulkner’s “Barn Burning.” There was something about him that made me think he wasn’t an altogether bad guy even though he hits his son, shoves his wife, and apparently is a serial arsonist, which makes me wonder if that would have made him the first serial arsonist in American history. Alas, that is to be pondered in depth some other time. Faulkner spends a lot of time vaguely describing Abner, his son, and their relationship making him a mysterious and interesting character to analyze.

Abner Snopes is a poor white man aka po’ white trash in what appears to be post-civil war/emancipation South. He is a sharecropper who, when the story begins, is accused of, but not convicted of, burning someone’s barn. We find out that his son is illiterate and hungry, and his twin daughters look malnourished and are wearing cheap, ratty clothing. This guy is obviously not Dad of the year. I did not, however, hate him like I did Minnie in “Dry September.” I sort of felt sorry for him, and I think this is intentional on Faulkner’s part, because his own descriptions of Abner are contradictory. Physically, Abner is “wiry” and “stiff”, and is usually accompanied with a description of his black coat. His son “followed the stiff black coat, the wiry figure walking a little stiffly…”.(162) I interpret this as representing that sharecropping has replaced slaves in the South thus making sharecroppers, white and black, basically slaves. Post civil war the poor white class now overlapped with blacks, and Abner is dangerously jealous and angry that he is basically black. When they get to the new house, he remarks that it is “’Pretty and white, ain’t it?.’ he said. ‘That’s sweat. Nigger sweat. Maybe it ain’t white enough yet to suit him. Maybe he wants to mix some white sweat with it.’”(167) Abner is aware of his status but doesn’t really have any alternatives, but he can’t really take it. In a particularly self-destructive moment, right after the above quote, he steps in horse poo (which he could have easily avoided) and gets it all over his master’s rug. Not exactly what I call “getting off on the right foot”, but different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Abner also has a sort of surprising strength to him. He is repeatedly described as wiry but “effortlessly” swings the boy up on to the horse and jerks the mule to a stop with one arm. He is also described as grim and we are told he has a “harsh, calm face”.(171) Harsh and calm seem to kind of contradictory, but I think it means he has this potential for anger rages that he tries to mask, kind of like the Incredible Hulk I guess. The combination of strength, anger, and grimness make a pretty scary dude. Faulkner notes multiple times though that Abner does things “without heat”, notably when he strikes his son, pushes his wife out of the way, and when calls someone working in the house a nigger. When he pushes his wife he does it “not savagely or viciously.” I don’t know exactly what we are to make of this. I think it shows that he doesn’t have bad intentions, he just can’t help it. Faulkner’s use of this emphasized my ambiguous feelings towards Abner. Maybe we are supposed to feel sorry for him. It seems there is just something deeply wrong with him that no one can fix. “The old habit, the old blood which he had not been permitted to choose for himself…which had run for so long (and who knew where, battering on what of outrage and savagery and lust) before it came back to him.”(173) Maybe this self-destructive quality is hereditary and Abner looks at it with the attitude that he just can’t do anything about it.

I think the most redeeming qualities Abner has to offer are those when seen through his son’s eyes. His son doesn’t appear to have the same “blood” as his father and brother, who in the little we see of him, appears have the same cruel, violent mindset of his father. He admires his father immensely, though. He always gives him the benefit of the doubt and supports him when the master tries to take 20 extra bushels of crops as payment for the rug Abner ruined. The boy struggles between doing the right thing throughout the story. His father hits him in the beginning of the story for almost telling the truth in court about the previous barn burning, and the boy struggles at the end but ends up telling one of the black workers that his father is going to burn the barn, which results in his father getting shot. After he hears the gunshots, the boy feels “grief and despair” and cries out “He was brave!”(175) Maybe the story isn’t as depressing as I first thought. At least his son did the “right” thing even though it went against his family and was extremely difficult for him to do. This gives us the hope that his son isn’t cursed by his bloodline which makes his future seem brighter and with more possibilities than his father and brother. Abner’s death was inevitable, as deaths tend to be, but I think his was more so because he just didn’t fit in with society what with the arson and rug ruining. Perhaps for Abner death was a release from the cruel Reconstruction South.

Duke Lax and Faulkner

Faulkner uses strong gender stereotypes in "Dry September." The men are super-macho, quick to judge, irrational, defensive, and insecure, and the women are cruel, gossipy social climbers with "feverish, glittering" eyes.(445) Most of these traits are common gender stereotypes. The men are all led to capturing Willy by a couple of bully's in a barber shop talking about sheer rumors based on no evidence whatsoever. McLendon goes so far as to say it doesn't matter if Willy did do it or not. It's a pre-emptive strike. "Happen? What the hell difference does it make? Are you going to let the black sons get away with it until one really does it?" He peer-pressures the men into following him, and they comply, like sheep.

I think the men share this trait with the women as well. With the exception of a couple of standouts (Hawkshaw, Minnie, Willy), the men and women all just seem like mindless hordes of people that do whatever they are told to do. I take this as Faulkner telling the reader what he thinks of social hierarchies and societal norms and rules. I'm not sure if that's why Faulkner made it really difficult to keep track of the characters.

I was left feeling really unsatisfied at the end. Faulkner chose not to explain anything about Minny or Willy, so we will never know what really happened. I still don't really understand Minny's laughing attack. I really wanted to know whether she made the whole thing up for attention, or if she was having a consensual relationship with Willy, or whether he did do whatever he was accused of. In the wake of the Duke "rape" case in Durham, NC the story is clearly still relevant today. There are still serious racial tensions in our country. That particular case is alarmingly similiar to one possible interpretation of "Dry September," except the players don't get killed, but their reputations are damaged forever, and 8 out of the 9 seniors lost their first jobs coming out of college, even though none of them were charged with a crime.

Chopin's New Woman

In all of Kate Chopin's short stories, she emphasizes a "new" woman. This is significant because everything else we have read so far this semester has been written by white (with the exception of Douglass), "old school" men, with traditionally chauvinistic attitudes towards women . Chopin breaks the mold by being the first female author we have read, and by using a bold writing style that challenges traditional societal values about women.

The first two pages of "At the 'Cadian Ball" contain three examples of a bold, strong women. When describing Calixta, Chopin describes a fight Calixta was involved with another woman about a lover, which culminated in them swearing at
and hitting each other on the steps in front of a church in Assumption, "till the cure himself was obliged to hasten and make peace with them."(623) I think even today people would be very surprised to see that. Chopin uses this example to emphasize the sexuality of these two (and all) women, and by placing the fight at the church, she shows that walls of historic attitudes towards sex and sexuality are being broken down.

On the next page, there are two examples involving Clarisse that show a "new" woman. The first is Clarisse's reaction after Alcee comes in from the field, all sweaty and manly, and "clasped Clarisse by the arms and panted a volley of hot, blistering love-words into her face."(624) Clarisse gives the "ladylike" reaction by saying "Monsieur!", as though she is disturbed by this, although she is not. Clarisse looks at Alcee "full in the eyes, without a quiver. Alcee's hands dropped and his glance wavered before the chill of her calm, clear eyes."(624) Chopin reverses traditional gender roles by describing both Alcee and Clarisse in two ways. At the start, Alcee is this traditional manly, powerful, confident man and Clarisse is this proper lady who is taken aback by Alcee's outburst. But after this, we see that Clarisse is the more confident and more powerful figure. She never takes her "calm, clear eyes" off of Alcee's, but he drops his hands and looks away. She puts on the front of what a "lady" is but Chopin wants us to see her as a confident, empowered, smart woman.

Chopin goes on to describe Clarisse not being able to sit still and watch Alcee pack up and leave for the Ball. She watches him go, but "her impatience and anxiety would not be held in check."(624) She goes outside and talks one of the slaves into telling her where he went and then taking her there. This is a woman who knows how to get what she wants. She goes up there, and Alcee leaves right away, without even knowing why-"He would have followed [Clarisse's] voice anywhere."(625) She uses her beauty, and whatever else is attractive about her, to achieve her goals. No one can say no to her.

Calixta, not to be outdone, works over another man after Alcee ditches her for Clarisse. Feeling rejected, she falls back on the guy who has always loved her, Bobinot. He has always wanted to marry her, and she tells him that if he asks her, well, she won't say no. Bobinot is overjoyed, and can't speak, but finally Calixta "held out her hand in the business-like manner of a man who clinches a bargain."(628) Chopin here is comparing her to a businessman to show that she is smart and powerful. She won't even give poor Bobinot a kiss. She is playing him like a fiddle. Chopin wants us to see that woman can definitely use a man's desire against him. Yes, both these men got what they wanted in the end, but there is a huge power game going on that they don't even know they're playing.

I dont think that many of the writers we have read so far would have enjoyed Chopin's "new" woman, particularly John Smith, Jefferson, and Fitzhugh. These men had very traditional views of the world, and I don't think they would have appreciated Chopin's writing, particularly in "The Storm" that is overtly sexual and shows no repercussions for having an affair. I guess that's mostly the reason that story wasn't published until the 19600s. Chopin herself is one of these new women, she challenged the stereotypes of what a woman could be and pushed to the edge of what she could get away with publishing.

Santa's Elves-Slaves or Freemen?

The perspective of Frederick Douglass' narrative made me think about a number of issues in ways I never have before. The most interesting thing he discusses, to me, is that slavery as an institution and slaveholders' benevolence towards slaves are both "frauds". I had never thought to think of a slaveholder giving his slave a portion of his earnings or a break during the Christmas and New Year's holiday in a negative way, but Douglass shows how these techniques served the master's interests more than the slaves'.

Douglass first touches on this subject when he brings up the subject of the Christmas holiday, which is, in his mind, "part and parcel of the gross fraud, wrong, and inhumanity of slavery." What? I thought Christmas was supposed to be fun! The slaves were given the week between Christmas and New Year's off, and, with the exception of taking care of the animals, they had this time to themselves. Douglass talks about how a small group put themselves to work making things they needed like baskets and brooms while others hunted, although the vast majority played sports and got drunk all week. At first read, I thought, "And the problem is...?" Douglass goes on to say "A slave who would work during the holidays was considered by our masters as scarcely deserving them...It was deemed a disgrace not to get drunk at Christmas."(199) Again, I'm thinking, "Everyone gets drunk at Christmas, what is the big deal?" Here's where Douglass flips my perspective: "From what I know of the effect of these holidays upon the slave, I believe them to be among the most effective means in the hands of the slaveholder in keeping down the spirit of insurrection...These holidays are served as conductors, or safety-valves, to carry off the rebellious spirit of enslaved humanity."(199-200)

Douglass similarly opens my eyes when he speaks of his disgust towards his Master Hugh, who would sometimes give Douglass six cents as a reward for bringing him six dollars in a week. Again, I would not have given this a second thought had it not been for Douglass' interesting perspective on the matter. Instead of being appreciative, even grateful, and encouraging Douglass, it did exactly the opposite. "The fact that he gave me any part of my wages was proof, to my mind, that he believed me entitled to the whole of them. I always felt worse for having received any thing; for I feared that the giving me a few cents would ease his conscience, and to make him feel himself to be a pretty honorable sort of robber."(213) Again, I was surprised to hear this, but it makes perfect sense. It gets even worse when he hires his time out, but owes Master Hugh six dollars a week, "rain or shine", giving his master "All of the benefits of slave holding without its evils...."(213)

Douglass presents a very logical argument for everything he says in his Narrative. It is impossible to argue with his point that slave holders' benevolence was very often cause by selfish reasons, such as quashing any thought of rebellion and making the slaves think life wasn't "all that bad." The fact of the matter is, as Douglass points out, it was that bad, regardless of six cents here or a week off there, and the only thing worse was that slave holders' consciences were eased by these so-called acts of kindness that he considers insulting.

Ma'am, Sir, and the Southern Gentleman

The notion of the “Southern gentleman” is one that has long been associated with men from the South. What is the Southern gentleman? Today, most of us probably think of a Southern gentleman as someone with good manners and a Southern accent. Maybe you think of someone who looks like Tom Wolfe, dressed in white suits with a mint julep in his hand. I’ve never really gone any farther than that in my thinking of the Southern gentleman. I call people older than me who I respect Sir and Ma'am. When I first moved to New York, I had teachers and parents who thought I was being sarcastic with them (I wasn't, most of the time). Many of my friends parents say it makes them feel old, when it really is just a way for me to show respect to them. Good manners are really what I mainly associated with the Southern Gentleman before these readings. However, both Fitzhugh, in “Southern Thought” and Kennedy, in Swallow Barn go much farther in their generalizations of Southern men and Southern thought.

Fitzhugh obviously feels that the South is superior in every way to any other place in the world. This does not have to do with where these people are geographically located, but how they think. “Southerners have always shown themselves the equals, generally the superiors, of the first intellects of the world…no men have the strength of will that Southerners possess. We are accustomed to command from our cradle. To command becomes a want and a necessity of our nature, and this begets that noble strength of will that nerves the mind for intellectual conflict and intellectual exertion, just as it nerves the body for physical contest. We are sure to write well, because we shall write boldly, fearlessly, and energetically.” To summarize, Southerners are smarter, stronger (in body and in mind), natural born leaders, and the best writers because they ain’t scared to say what they mean and damn anyone who disagrees with them. These are some pretty bold statements by Fitzhugh. While they are nice to think about (especially for someone from the South), they are based wholly on Fitzhugh’s lofty opinion of the South and not on any concrete evidence. Still though, many people in the south still feel this way. “American by birth, Southern by the grace of God” is a common bumper sticker and saying that is commonly seen and heard throughout the South.

Kennedy takes a different approach is his description (upon description, upon description) in Swallow Barn of Frank Meriwether, who serves as a Kennedy’s stereotypical Southern gentleman. “He has a great suavity of manners, and a genuine benevolence of disposition….” (64) Kennedy writes this under the pseudonym Mark Littleton, “a genial but canny New Yorker whose unfamiliarity with Virginia plantation society let Kennedy describe this world with a mix of amused detachment and affectionate curiosity.” (59) Kennedy uses Frank Meriwether to manifest all the stereotypical traits people associate with a Southern gentleman—he is well-dressed (to the point of being showy), popular, a good-citizen, long-winded, opinionated, and has a complacent, go-with-the-flow attitude about him. I don’t know if everyone in the class would agree, but these are fundamental things I think of when I think of the notion of a southern Gentleman. He is even nice to his slaves.

Fitzhugh uses the idea of the Southern gentleman to emphasize his point that Southern thought is superior to thought anywhere else in the world, thus giving his own writing and opinions more validity (in his mind and in the minds of many other Southerners). Clearly he feels more strongly and militant in this notion than Kennedy, who uses Meriwether as an icon, a hyperbole of a typical Southern gentleman, well-off on his plantation. Kennedy is not using this to portray a strong conviction like Fitzhugh. I don’t know if it was writer’s goals to sell books back then (I suspect not so much), but if I was to read it today I would say he made this character up because he thought people would enjoy reading about this stereotypical Southern male and buy his book. All I know is behind all the stereotypes of Southerners as ignorant, racist rednecks, there lays a very flattering notion of what a man from the South is, and leaves all Southerners struggling to embody these ideals.

John Smith and Jesus-Fishers of Men?

I had a thought in class today that I want to discuss in my first blog entry. We were asked why we thought Smith included a seemingly random passage about fishing towards the end of the reading "A Description of New England," and we all concluded it was a metaphor. Some saw it as a metaphor for the abundance of possibilities in the New World, and I agree with that assessment. However, any time I see a fishing metaphor it is impossible for me to not think about Christian symbolism. Many biblical stories involve fishing, including Jesus miraculously calming a storm from a boat (Matthew 8:23-26), having his disciples catch so much fish their nets were overflowing (John 21:1-14), and paying His and Peter's taxes with a coin taken from inside a fish (Matthew 17:27). The closest passage from the Bible I can compare to Smith's writing is from Matthew 4:19 "'Come, follow me,' Jesus said, 'and I will make you fishers of men.'" This is, in his own words, Smith's message to Englishmen. His whole passage is an advertisement to his fellow countrymen to follow him to the New World. He even calls on their religious duty and faith in his attempts to convince them to come: "If he have but the taste of virtue...what to such a mind can bee more pleasant, than...building a a foundation for his Posterite, gotte from the rude earth, by God's blessing and his own industrie...?If hee have any graine of faith or zeale in Religion, what can hee doe lesse hurtfull to any; or more agreeable to God, then to seeke to convert those poore Salvages to know Christ, and humanitie, whose labors with discretion will triple requite thy charges and paines?" (15) Smith is saying good Christians have a responsibility to do good unto others and to spread the Word of God by opening the "Salvages" eyes to the Lord and civilization, as defined by Europe.

While John Smith clearly thinks quite highly of himself and comes off as quite a braggart in both of the readings, I don't think he is blasphemous enough to think of himself as a Jesus-like figure, although that would make for an interesting discussion. In 1616, most Europeans were extremely devout and put all of their faith in their religion. Smith is using Christian principles to encourage men and women to go to the New World and do God's work. I do think that Smith saw himself as a "fisher of men" in trying to recruit colonizers, and perhaps he really thought he was doing God's work, but mostly I think he just wanted some help in etching his name in history.

(I consulted http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/fisher.htm for some help in locating passages from The Bible about fishing.)