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.
4 comments:
Hi Matt,
Forgive me, but I don't quite understand what you're saying in terms of the Christmas break the slaves recieved. I am not justifying the fact that they got one for the reasons they did, I just wasn't clear on it. Otherwise, I do agree with your points about the whole payment thing. I thought that was odd Douglass's master was trying to justify the fact of slavery by giving him PART of the money he was owed.
That whole scenario reminded me of Jefferson and how he was trying to justify slavery by comparing themselves to the slaves over in Rome at the time. Saying that the south treated the slaves better because they gave them a chance to speak and they had more freedoms.
First of all, your title and your picture really caught my eye. Then when I was reading the points you made were very interesting. I was also confused at first when he said that he didn't enjoy the holiday break that the slaves get. I look forward to Christmas break and my work isn't nearly as tough as a slave's work. Him not wanting the few cents from is master didn't really make sense either. Although it would be annoying for the reasons he listed, it seems that he would still be somewhat happy. He was finally getting something after all the years of working.
I agree with the points you were making, and I also thought it was very interesting how he flipped what should seemingly something positive, into a negative. Obviously Christmas should be fun and receiving the week off does come across as a nice gesture, but Douglass makes a very good argument as to why he resents the time off. The slaveholders couldn't care less whether or not the slaves had time off, and the reason for the break wasn't to give them time to rest. Like Douglass mentioned in his writing, the point of the Christmas week off was to prevent the slaves from uprising, and to get them to "over-indulge" in what their sense of freedom should be (such as drinking). Obviously if you're wrecked for an entire week, you aren't going to feel especially great, and the alternative to a week long hang over being working in the fields doesn't seem so much worse, and that's what upset Douglass, rightfully so.
Matt,
I am glad that you brought up this point. Like you I thought that the slave masters were being generous by allowing the slaves to have a "vacation" during the Christmas holiday. But emphasizing it really brought to mind how demeaning it could have felt.
I do disagree with Fredrick Douglas and the idea that the six cents that he received caused him to feel like he owed his master money. I think that he owed the master the money because he was owned by him. I didn't really understand the reasoning behind the rejection of the money or why he felt he maybe didn't owe Master Hugh money.
Post a Comment