Thursday, October 25, 2007
Booker T. Washington
Critics have pointed out that Booker T. Washington in Up From Slavery adopts Frederick Douglass's slave narrative. Where does Washington copy the central elements/themes of the slave narrative? More importantly, how does he rework those elements/themes, endowing them with a different meaning or significance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Washington stays with the themes of the slave narrative from the beginning of his autobiography, giving a vague recollection of his place of birth; he is not sure of the exact time or place. He continues the pattern by mentioning he does not know anything about his ancestry; he has only heard that his father was a white man that lived on a nearby plantation. Washington speaks very kindly of his mother, recounting how she would sneak away when she could to take care of her children, similar to Douglass's recollection of his mother. He then goes on to describe his living conditions as a child, and the diet and clothing given to the slaves on the plantation. And of course he talks about his first realization of books and education.
Although he follows the slave narrative model very well, Washington mananges to give the work his unique identity in numerous ways. First, there is no authenticating introduction given by an abolitionist or esteemed white person of the time (I assume this is because slavery had been abolished for many years by the time this book was published). Second, Washington gives no horrifying or heartbreaking recollecton of his witnessing a beating or killing of another slave by a cruel master or overseer, as Douglass's narrative does; in fact, Washington says very litte about his master. I also noticed that the autobiography is not sentimental. It does not appear to be written for sympathetic white women, but instead, white men who may be able to identify with a man paving his own way, doing what he must to reach his goals. And lastly, and one of the most suprising things to me was that Washington places no blame on slavery for what he has gone through. He does not place blame with his master, his parents, or Southern whites. He sees everyone as a "victim" of the institution of slavery. I think it is a very noble idea to not place blame, but I wonder if it was a philosophy he TRULY believed, or one he championed just to further his agenda.
Throughout his personal slave narrative, Washington does follow the guidelines found in other narratives before him. His narrative begins with a blurred description of his birth place and date. He does not know his exact age or his biological father. The most he knew about his father was that he was white and did not acknowledge him or his mother (similar to Fredrick Douglass). The narrative then goes on to describe his living arrangements and his family. Washington also gives the typical description of his attire and duties he had to perform. I think he describes his clothes (wooden shoes and flax shirt) with just enough detail to make the reader sympathize with him, but not pity him. Even when he goes onto describe his journey to the corn mill, he could have made this description more detailed and evoked all type of images of sorrow and sadness from the reader, but he did not. Instead he described the journey with enough description for the reader to know it was hard, but it could have been worse. Washington goes on to describe his masters, but does not bash them or elevate them. It is almost as he makes them platonic characters in his narrative. The main thing that stood out to me when I read his narrative was that he did not just out right condemn slavery like his counterparts. He was against it and did not believe in it but he could have made his narrative so much more vivid if he would have “exaggerated” some of the experiences that he had. But he did not, he kept everything short and sweet and did not seek the sympathy from his reader. It eas almost as if he wrote the narrative to get his story off of his chest rather than persuade people to share his ideas. This makes me wonder……what was the narrative written for? It was published after the abolishment of slavery so there was not a need to “woo” abolitionist. I think that Washington wanted to reader to focus on the end of the story….his Exposition. I think that even though he stresses that the negativity that he received later for that speech did not bother him, it really did and by him publishing this work I think that he was able to release some “hot air” about how he was perceived by his race….but again these are only my thoughts :)
I am hardpressed to try to pick out any one aspect or portion of DOuglass' work within that of Booker T. Washington's "Up From Slavery". The first things I did notice when reading Washington's work was how he seems to be very similar in emotion with that of Douglass' piece in the story of a strong black person that was determined and self taught. While he is kept as a slave and intended to remain ignorant as was custom with slaves of the time, Washington took it upon himself to learn all he could on his own through his inquisitiveness and desire for knowledge. As with Douglass, he also took his feats of knowledge to pull himself up above the typical role of a slave. Not only being a poster child for the great things that achieving knowledge lead to, but Washington also took the given opportunity to go above and beyond the given intentions of the slave narrative. While the abolitonists collecting the narratives did not want anything but the basics for their purposes, Washington takes the opportunity given to ingeniously put in enough details and emotion combined with just the right viewpoints into slave life tocarry his story beyond the basic tale to getting his own agenda across to the public while on the surface he is still lying within the basic guides of the traditional slave narrative. I honestly have to respect those that were able and willing to pull the,selves above and beyond the demeaning expectations of limitation set for them. like Douglass, Washington said "no!, i won't settle" and further pushed for his fellow man to do the same.
Like many others have already stated, BTW uses the same required format of the slave narrative as did Douglass, but he instead chose to be objective and not subjective. He speaks of his unknown birth date as if it does not matter one way or another if he ever knew. He sums up the passion that he felt for his mother in one event; he states that he felt pride in his mother because she did not “conform” to the materialism that consumed his poor community by not spending money that she did not have on a cap. If this is the only thing that he can find pride in, then what kind of principles did he stand for? He should have elaborated on how he felt about his mother stealing a chicken for her family and risking serious punishment. Her self-sacrificial nature holds more weight than her frugality.
Also he never speaks of the cruelties of racism and slavery without figuring in the victimization of the White man. Whereas Douglass on the other hand, clearly points out the horrors of slavery for the Black man, and also points out how it affects and taints the White family. Though these poor Whites, which he seems so sympathetic of lack education, but they are still not born with the skin color that inhibits not only their chances of success, but their chances of survival in an unwelcoming world into which they were forced to live in. These people have a greater chance at grasping the American dream than a newly freed slave, who owned absolutely NOTHING!
He seems to relate more with the Whites who despise the Blacks, than the Blacks who suffer from the actions of the Whites. He felt the need to please the White man and allow them the security of knowing that the Negro was safe and would remain loyal and trustworthy. How can he possess sympathy for Whites because they were depended on slaves? So what if they are not used to cooking for themselves and cleaning their own houses! They have houses, beds, and land!
This narrative sounds more like the narratives of the uneducated slaves than a man of education whose mentality has been elevated to a degree of free thinking, learning, and self-governing. He seems not to fully understand the plight of his people!
The question here is “Who is Booker T. Washington?”, because it seems as if he has lost his identity as a freed slave. A man who has not only endure the strife of being the property of another man, but was “freed” and given no equal opportunity to succeed should possess at least an ounce of emotion regarding the matter! No wonder this book Up From Slavery was so widely loved and admired by White people and was translated in so many different languages; because not only does he reveal no emotion or sentiment whatsoever, he believes that Negros should conform to their society and do whatever possible to please the White man and keep him happy!
I feel that BTW was lost. Slavery wholeheartedly affected his sense of self. He wanted so desperately to have great ancestors. He was ultimately mortified at his Blackness, because he considered the fact that he was Black was an accident.
When researching Booker T. Washington, I found that he believed in accepting the political status quo and working gradually to change it by proving Blacks as valuable, productive members of society who preserved fair treatment before the law. I then began to think that he wasn’t so bad. But then I began to read further along, and the information began to mention that Washington advised Blacks to abide by segregation codes, but he himself traveled to locations via private railroad cars and also stayed in fancy hotels, while many Blacks were prohibited from even staying in such accommodations. The question I ask is, how can he preach what he seemingly does not practice?
He claims to ingratiate the black race by uplifting them, but in his rendition of the slave narrative, he does not. He does however, follow closely to the tradition counseled by abolitionists, but he does so emotionless, and without the respect of the millions of slaves who lived tragically by the hand of the slave master. For instance, Douglass says, in regards to his date of birth, “I have no accurate knowledge of my age, never having seen any authentic record containing it. The white children could tell their ages. I could not tell why I ought to be deprived of the same privilege” while Washington on the other hand, seems cavalier in respects of his birth date, he states, “I must have been born somewhere and at some time”. Washington seems not to concern himself with the emptiness of his unawareness of his existence as a man, while Douglass strives to know concern himself with learning his lineage.
Furthermore, while Douglass gives a heartfelt rendition of not knowing his mother and how this destroys a slave’s natural affection, Washington himself could not fathom this experience as Douglass knows it, because he had never been separated from his familial bonds. All who he knew, he knew since a small child; he’d not seen families separated and devastated, and if he did witness such a calamity, he at no point of time in his narrative mentions it and even concerns himself with it. What burns me is his forgiving spirit towards his white father who Washington claims is the “unfortunate victim of the institution”. His father is the perpetuator of the victims of the institution!! Where does Washington’s loyalty lie? More importantly, he does not, in this narrative, shed any illuminating light on the true victims of this system, which were his fellow brethren. To me, it seems as if Washington helps to perpetuate the notion that slavery was not as foul and degrading as many of the other slave narratives have presented in this literary tradition.
As we know, the story of one man can wrongly symbolize the life of many, and in Washington’s case, he seems to tell his slave story to sum the entire slave experience. He seems to, in so many words, show that slavery was not a demeaning experience at all, in fact, it was beneficial to both the black and the white race. I was really trying to find a communal bond inside Washington’s words, instead, I feel stunned by them in the respect that he makes our struggle seem not as a struggle at all, but as a duty to America! I understand that he is writing this to tell Blacks to stop feeling pitiful and start making a change, but as time in history, weren’t Blacks deserving of a little sympathy or even empathy perhaps? Am I wrong ROXANNE???
You know I love ya Roxie!!
In my Readings in the American Novel class, we are studying Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, and I have to say, that Ellison new exactly how to illustrate some of his characters after Booker T. Washington. We spoke about the narrator’s grandfather’s last words before he died which went with him for as long as it could until he became frustrated with the words: “Son, after I’m gone I want you to keep up the good fight. I never told you, but our life is a war and I have been a traitor all my born days, a spy in the enemy’s country ever since I give up my gun back in the Reconstruction. Live with your head in the lion’s mouth. I want you to overcome ‘em with yeses, undermine ‘em with grins, agree ‘em to death and destruction, let ‘em swoller you till they vomit or burst wide open” (16). We, or moreso our instructor, interpreted from the rest of the text that the old man abided by these laws all his life, until the end of it. That’s when he realized he believed everything he did [why he thought himself a traitor—to his race] and he did not want his children to follow the same pathway—to believe in anything that they did for the White Race. The Narrator learned that his grandfather was right and that he should not whole-heartedly believe in what he did in his “foreign” land …but he soon found out that the advice was no good at all.
Booker T. Washington, having been the “meekest of men” believed in everything he said, taught, and told members of both races. Whether he lived up to his preachings or not, he believed in it and this is why many [hence the divided line among the race] did not believe in him…because he was a traitor.
There is a huge difference between this man and the honorable Frederick Douglass. Douglass’s fingerprints are for one, all over his works—Washington’s was/is not. Douglass spoke as an escaped slave who had to recollect all the horrible things he experienced—Washington was born into the Emancipation Proclamation and he told about the horrible things which he thought he know of his ancestors. Douglass remembers and shares with us the coldness of the mud-caked floor in his family’s cabin while Washington barely remembered his own yet he could not figure out how to sleep between two sheets (a much acquired skill he was so eager to teach to his counterparts). Douglass spoke about the allowances he and the other younger slaves earned which went towards food and clothing for the entire family and all Washington could worry about when he was given his allowance as why he had to share it with everyone else who lived in his cabin and not on good clothing. Heck! Washington don forgot he was a slave!
This message is not meant to undermine the greatness of Washington, but of his negligence of his own race. He spoke of intelligence over ignorance at so many of his speeches and this was something Douglass did not do. “Trust no man!” Douglass says. “Cast down your bucket among us” is what Washington cries out to the White Race and he believes it! Yes, he gained enough respect from the white race to turn against his own. They loved him so much because he was a slave who was freed than willingly walked back into slavery again – to ask those “enemies” [how Douglass would put it] to suffer unto poor little us black folks cause we can’t succeed on our own…no, we’re not educated properly. And let’s remember how Douglass gained his freedom –he stole it by stealing education. He didn’t beg for it! When people like Douglass and later Dubois disagreed with the “representation of the race” apparently according to Washington, they didn’t “read good books, travel or open up their souls in a way to permit them to come into contact with other souls…” They were different. Of course, other Blacks were different…because Washington was the only one talking junk and claiming that he speaks for the entire race!
I really don’t mean to bash the poor guy…but hell, he said all that junk about Black ministries…and no wonder none of those folks sent their kids to Tuskegee anymore…it’s a shame….I was deeply offended by this brother’s arrogance and cheesiness to put another race and another land [the South] before his own. Don’t get me wrong Dr. Lape, I’m not that upset, I’m just disappointed.
oh, and to answer morgann's final question (which i hope i answered entirely in my comment) is that Yes, the man did truly AND HONESTLY believe in the goodness of slavery for all mankind...no, this guy...he's not one to use double-voice...i don't think he traveled enough
Like Cassondra, the entire time I spent reading this I had Ellison’s character in mind. I think that Ellison did a wonderful job constructing a character with the same inner struggle that Washington seems to possess. Washington and Ellison’s character both seem to desire acceptance of the White man that oppresses his race, or at least feel the need to please the White man in order to succeed in life. In the introduction of Washington the text states, “he wanted white Americans to see the freedmen and freedwomen of the South as a resource, not a liability, for the United States as it entered the twentieth century.” (571) I think that Up From Slavery is simply Washington’s way of proving to the White man that Blacks are perfectly capable of hard work and contributing to society, and are capable of doing so without overstepping their boundaries. Washington says himself that the book was written to appeal to “a class of people who have money and to whom I must look for money for endowment and other purposes.” (571) So, to me, Washington is a sell-out. Back to the original question of the blog… this would be how Washington differs from Douglass. Washington employs some of the typical slave narrative themes but for a very different purpose. Douglass was seeking to show the horrors of slavery while Washington is seemingly saying that slavery has equipped Blacks with the strength to become good, productive members of society.
Like everyone before me has already mentioned, Washington begins his narrative just like Douglass, and most other slave narratives, by stating that he has no knowledge of his birth or ancestry and so on. I agree that he does not seem to use the same emotional tug that Douglass does, but he does place importance on this element of Negro life, and does try to show its negative effects. He mentions this obstacle again later on in the narrative when he writes about the differences between the young White boy and the young Black boy. He writes that the White boy not only has ancestors to answer to if he fails, but also a support group in his family members, while the Black boy has no one to expect him to succeed or even care if he does. (585) Besides this comparison, and a few other similarities, I find Douglass’s account and Washington’s account to be drastically different. Douglass wrote a slave narrative, while Washington focuses more on life after slavery.
When reading Douglass I found myself 100 percent behind him and his cause, and had nothing but the utmost respect for him and his struggle, however when reading Washington I am somewhat torn in my feelings about Washington and his purpose. He writes about his address to The Atlanta Exposition saying, “the thing that was uppermost in my mind was the desire to say something that would cement the friendship of the races and bring about hearty cooperation between them.” (594) I can’t really argue with cooperation of the races, but I can’t help but feel that Washington is “sucking up” to White people, especially when he says many times that he is not bitter towards Whites for enslaving his race. Sure, in a perfect world Blacks can “cast down their bucket where they are” and Blacks and Whites can live together in perfect harmony. But honestly, I think that Washington is giving White people too much credit.
Sorry Dr. Lape, I went over 400 words…
The first time I read this passage, I admit I was moved by some of Washington's words and felt that even though his ways were very submissive, he had nothing but the best of intentions for his race. The "Cast down your bucket" analogy and all Washington's speech seemed to exemplify his work ethic, his humility and his hopes that blacks will be able to make a positive effect on the country. Like Roxanne I think he may have had more of an agenda in mind--remembering that his speech was for a white audience which received him with praises. Just as the novels we have been reading seem too focused on the "white" blacks that were being discriminated against--people that could have passed--in order to gain white sympathies, Washington's words seem to be meant-to me- to appease and please the white community, to pull on their heart strings just as Clotel and Iola were able to.
Douglas makes no apologies and is brutal in his attacks against whites. I can see how Washington seems to follow the initial legistics (sp) of the slave narrative but focuses more on the present and the reaction after it, not giving sympathy for the blacks defeated state. It is obvious Washington sells his people short. Perhaps he hoped for better for generations to come but could not see such changes happening in his lifetime. He discounts the fact that there is diversity in professional and academic aptitude that cannot be reached or explored if blacks are restricted to that which they have been only allowed to do in slavery. I agree with Tiffani that he does come across as one of the uneducated slave narratives we have read, not like Douglas or others who do not see limitations in the freed slaves abilities only in their given options.
Bravo Fallon! In her first paragraph she captures the heart of all I find wrong with Booker T. Washington's narrative and his philosophy. His ideas on black life smack me today of many black conservatives who ask for one thing but do another. They ask for no affirmative action, but they themselves got their doctorates' and plush jobs because of it. Washington asks that blacks abide by segregation codes when he himself has an entirely different lifestyle. To make another modern day connection, Washington is the black preacher driving the Jaguar while his parishoners can't pay the phone bill. All the while he's saying, "Keep your head up. Things will get better."
Washington's narrative was particularly hard to digest because of his complacency towards his slave owners. He might have lacked the power of word Douglass had, but I seriously doubt it. I think Washington simply condones the slave masters through his silence. And once again, I agree with Fallon that Washington almost seems to agree with the idea of life as a slave and has only a surface problem with it.
He had to realize that the audience that would be reading this and would go "Oh slavery wasn't quite as bad as these abolitionists make it sound."
I refuse to believe a man as intelligent (in some respects at least) like him didn't know that. To go to another modern day example, he strikes me as the modern rapper who when asked about their negative lyrics replies, "I'm not supposed to be anyone's parent."
But I've always felt (as probably many others do) that for the Black community to succeed there must be a bond of unity. Washington seems to be one of the prominent first in a long line of African-Americans who feel otherwise.
Oh and one more thing.
Tiffani calls BTW "lost" because of his experiences in slavery. I'm not buying that excuse for one second with him. He was far too intelligent to fall into that kind of mentality. I just think BTW was about getting his and damn everyone else along the way. It would almost seem to me, the more I read about him that BTW only commented on the black struggle because it provided him with some prominence rather than his really caring about the social issue.
He was out for his own legacy IMO and any blacks that got elevated along the way was just a happy accident.
The first thing I noticed about this narrative (in contrast to Douglass') was the detatched bland tone Washington takes when describing his beginnings. Granted, he says he doesn't remember or know very much, but Douglass took a much more emotional approach to this. Just the writing style (of Washington) itself is much less eloquent. I got an immediate sense that Washington accepted his slave circumstances a bit too much when he stated "During the time that I spent in slavery, I was not large enough to be of much service [...]". "Of muh service" struck me kind of strangely because it felt as though his plight as a slave was not so much a plight but that he owed the masters his service. It's hard to explain, but it caught my attention, nonetheless. Anyway, that type of language was not something Douglass used when describing his own experience in slavery. So, I suppose that set the tone for me for the rest of the book. It was almost as if he was telling someone else's story, yet telling it in the first person. It lacked the emotion and profundities of Douglass' narrative. In fact, it didn't even come close. It read like a very objective account of chronological events. Maybe I just need to wear a flax shirt for a day to truly understand, but it seemed like the 'tortures' Washington mentioned were either minimal in comparison to Douglass, or they were downplayed for his audience. I think Douglass and many other slaves would have traded a flax shirt or having a tooth pulled any day for the horrors they endured. Ganted again, Washington said his owners were not as cruel as some, but this emotional detatchment made me wonder how forthcoming Washington really was. It is common for abuse survivors to recount their stories as if the abuse happened to someone else; it eases the pain.
Overall, Washington's narrative compared poorly to Douglass'. Not to minimize Washington's experience (though, as I said earlier, he seemed to do that himself), but as a reader looking for authentic information about a historical icon, I was left feeling disappointed, even a little cheated.
There are several themes that are “mimicked” but all of which are the central elements of writing a “slave narrative” as opposed to an “ex-slave narrative”. One of the main themes that stood out to me was the “quest for knowledge” theme. Although Washington copies Douglass’ narrative by following this theme, there were some differences. For example, Washington had no money on his way to Hampton and had to work just to make from Richmond to Hampton Institute. Along the way he had to sleep on the streets as well as experience the same “depravity of white people” as Douglass did. Washington was introduced to the depravity of white people on his way to Hampton Institute, while Douglass experienced it on his way to a foreign country. I guess each man’s experience was different because of the location, but the same in context. Another thing that I noticed was how Washington experienced this after slavery was supposedly abolished.
Another theme that struck my attention was the “animal theme”. I do not necessarily think that BTW was copying Douglass with this theme because it has been used in almost every piece of literature that we have read. B.T.W. often refers to the way he, along with others were treated as animals such as when being fed. One of the references was “even later, meals were gotten by the children very much as dumb animals get theirs.” The other animal theme was that of “her addition to the slave family attracted about as much attention as the purchase of aw new horse or cow.” This theme was also mentioned in the film Unchained Memories.
Another thing that was very obvious was the beginning of B.T.W and Douglass’ narratives. Each of them were free when they wrote the narratives, but each follow the guidelines of not knowing their father, when they were born, or an exact place and each them had a white father who did not care about them. (Common in all the lit. we have read) The only difference I see in the way B.T.W. did it was that unlike Douglass, I do not think that he was trying to appeal to women. B.T.W also conveniently points out that while he was a slave he received no education.
One thing that was interesting to me was how B.T.W. talked of being a child and had to fan flies away from the table, which was also referenced in the film. I wonder if B.T.W. was “copying” Douglass or if these things were just so common that almost anyone could have experienced the same things with minor differences. My reason for saying this is because if everyone would think about it, every story we have read has almost the same themes.
Some other things that were similar to the Douglass narrative were: the descriptions of children’s clothes, the mean white slave master’s wife helping him further his education, changing his name, and a white man being his “friend”. All of these things combined share the same themes presented in Douglass narrative, but they are also presented in other narratives as well. One question is have other authors followed Douglass as well? Well, I think this is obvious.
Booker T Washington starts off his narrative in the same way that Douglas did by telling of where he was born, explaining that he was sure he had been born, but he wasn't exactly sure when since noone wrote it down. He goes on to speak of his immediate family, how he's not sure that of his mother's ancestry, that he only knows of a few brothers and sisters that she might have but never knew, and he doesn't know anything more of his father other than that he was a white man from a nearby by plantation. He seperates his life into sections, sticking to key life changing points.
As for him reworking the elements, sometimes as I was reading it seemed like he sat down and thought to himself "maybe I'll write my narrative today, I have nothing else to do", but maybe I was expecting something that was like Douglass, maybe my own fault. Washington's biography is more of a story about a boy's quest for knowledge than a regular narrative, something that was important to him throughout his life. He was however, a little too grateful towards the white people who had enslaved him, but maybe it can be linking to some sort of learning experience.... I don't know, left a bad taste in my mouth, and in an over all bad mood.... it was harder to read than I would have liked, and alot harder to get into than Douglass's was.
Post a Comment