Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Frederick Douglass
I have asked you to read the first several pages of "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave" and My Bondage and My Freedom. "Narrative," as you may have expected, is prefaced by two authenticating letters by white abolitionists. In the one letter, William Lloyd Garrison describes Douglass at his first abolitionist meeting when he got up a spoke to the group. Douglass himself describes his experience in the excerpt from My Bondage and My Freedom that I gave you to read. Do Douglas and Garrison both tell the same story? Do their details differ? What are some of the differences in their accounts and how are those differences significant? (You must post a response before class meets on Tuesday, September 11.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
In my opinion Douglas and Garrison do tell the same story but with different descriptions, as well as with different attitudes. When Garrison tells the story in the narratives he uses several adjectives to describe Douglas' speeches such as: "extraordinary", "virtuous", and suprisingly "melted tears by his pathos". Although I do believe that Garrison was a friend of Douglas, he gives Douglas praise but only with great emphasis on the fact that the things Douglas said could be disproved. Garrison also states that " I am confident that it is essentially true in all its statements;that nothing has been set down in malice, nothing exaggerated, nothing drawn from the imagination;that it comes short of the reality, rather than overstates a single fact in regard to slavery as it is". With all of these statements I can only guess that Garrison believed what Douglas said, but that he felt that he had to justify what Douglas said to the public. On the other hand, while Garrison seemed to think that Douglas spoke with great confidence, Douglas revealed that " it was with the utmost difficulty that I could stand erect, or that I could command and articulate two words without hesitation and stammering." This comment stood out to me because even though Douglass was free, he felt that those white men were superior to him. That is, before he went to other countries. In regards to the different accounts that each of the two experienced, the most significant to me, were the accounts that occured on the trip to other countries. Garrison and Collins along with others were trying to protect Douglas, but when they said things to him like " 'tis not best that you seem too learned", I think it means that we are your friends but you still have boundaries. We do not want you to sound too educated or informed because this may not cause danger to only you, but to us as well. Another significant occurance was his place onboard Cambria. Douglas could not be received as a cabin passenger. His friends did feel insulted for him, but Douglas took it as a normality. It was a eye opener to remind the reader "hey this guy was free and a great speaker, but in the minds of many he was still seen as an object. This brings me to a question: " Why do Douglas' friends refer to him in the same manner as slave owners refered to their slaves?" For example, when introducing him he was refered to as a "chattle", "thing", and "it". I find that rather ironic. More questions: 1.) Why doesn't his friends want him to sound too "learned"? 2.)What should one think the underlying meaning of Douglas telling Garrison of his many situations when he was told "we don't allow niggers in here"? 3.)Why did he feel he had to go to his native land with the "oppressed"? Was it really because he was afraid of being arrested or was it because he felt somewhat obligated to return? (not really sure how to word the question)4. Why did Garrison refer to Douglas' speech as being full of pathos?
The accounts that both Garrison and Douglas give reflect two different perspectives of the abolitionist meeting that night. In my opinion, Garrison held a high view of Douglas and was very fond of him as an orator and a fellow abolitionist. This is the first time that Garrison met Douglas and he was impressed by his “intellect richly endowed-- in natural eloquence a prodigy(188).” Garrison felt that Douglas was “induced” or persuaded to give his attendance to the meeting and he describes Douglas' speech as eloquent and full of “noble thoughts and thrilling reflections(389).” Garrison sees Douglas as a human being and a blessing to his race, not as the slave code sees him as a beast of burden, property or chattel(388).
Douglas, on the other hand, states that this was his first time off of work at the brass foundry since he sought out his freedom and he wanted a day or two of rest. He had heard of Garrison and his friends and the Conventions and wanted to see what it was all about but never “supposing that I should take part in the proceedings(452).” In fact he didn't even know that anyone knew his name. It was only because Coffin sought him out of the crowd to speak, after over-hearing him speaking to his colored friends. Douglas recounts this event by saying that this was the most difficult speech, if you could call it that, that he had ever gave. He didn't remember what he had said and was trebling, hesitating, and stammering.
The main difference of the accounts is that Garrison believed that Douglas was on the event list for the night when in actuality it was just by chance that Douglas decided to take off work and attend the convention. This convention set in motion a whole career for Douglas that he seemed to have never saw coming. He was an advocate of emancipation but did not imagine the realm that he was now placed in and the supporters that he had come by. A question that jumps into my mind is about the tight regulations that the white abolitionists soon put on Douglas' speeches. Because he became “too learned” he did not sound like a slave anymore and they only wanted him to talk about his slave experience, not about the real matters of freeing the slaves. To me this made it seem that he was merely a token for the white abolitionist movement. Would Douglas' path be different if he had foreseen these restrictions and consequences of his intellect?
Douglas and Garrison's perspectives of that first speech differ greatly in regards to how Garrison saw Douglas and how Douglas humbly saw himself. Garrison was awed by Douglas' eloquence and, of course, immediately saw in him a great asset to the abolitionist movement. Douglas was nervous, overwhelmed with surprise and, no doubt, scared. He recalls "I trembled in every limb." (453)
Perhaps this first speech was more of what they thought would be effective than his later speeches when he became an active orator.Despite their respect for him, they repeatedly asked him to "dumb down" his speech and repeat his story, telling him "we will take care of the philosophy." (454) Although I understand their sincere hope to keep Douglas from being perceived as an imposter and their desire to have the most effective political message, it seems hypocritical to ask him not to show the extent of his education and eloquence. It is apt Douglas uses the words "I could not always obey, for I was now reading and thinking" for the abolitionist leaders were in effect asking him to remain somewhat a puppet for their means (454).
This made me think it was all the more ironic for these same abolitionist leaders to react violently against his European friends purchasing his freedom. Although I can see their point in theory--by buying Douglas they are "conceding a right of property in man"--they seem less concerned with the practical purpose of keeping him safe from being recaptured into slavery (461). If they wanted him to behave as a free man,even though legally he was not, they should have let him speak as a free man would in his speeches, without censure or playing political games.
In response to Arlena's question about why Douglas tells Garrison of the many situations that he was told in America "We don't allow niggers in here!" I think Douglas wants to show his lack of patriotism to a country that has shown him nothing but cruelty. Douglas is treated much better in Europe. It was interesting to me to contrast this with Wheatley's patriotic poems. Douglas will not play pious or to people's patriotic sympathies and even states "as to nation, I belong to none." (457)
I think that if Garrison and Douglas had expressed to each other exactly how they felt about one another's speeches there would have been a strong bond of mutual admiration and respect formed. I think we have all been in a position in which we have been our own worst critics. If only Garrison had conveyed explicitly what he thought to Douglas, I think it would have done a great deal of good for the burgeoning confidence of Mr. Douglas.
Garrison's most potent compliments of Douglas were, "fortunate for the cause of negro emancipation, and of universal liberty" (388). That was a pretty big statement to make towards one freed slave among many and if we were to believe Douglas' account you would have to question Garrison's judgement. Unforunately, it is only human nature to try to pick a "right" and a "wrong" out of the accounts and in doing this I was posed with a dilemma.
My first and initial thought was that Garrison was a righteous, stand out man of his time who saw the genuis of Douglas and knew that great things would come of it. I figured that like any humble man, Douglas was simply underestimating himself. Of course I could not settle for that in this class because nothing ever seems to be so simple with the early literature of African-Americans.
Taking into account the times, I truly have a hard time believing that there wasn't a single white person without their prejudice. Going off that assumption, I'm forced to wonder something. Perhaps Douglas' account was completely accurate and he truly was a nervous mess while giving that speech, but what Garrison and his friends simply didn't care? What if they figured a Negro man was only capable of so much anyway and just the fact he did it made him a blessing?
Basically, what I intend to suggest is that perhaps Douglas' first speech really wasn't the godsend of oratory skills that Garrison made it out to be, but just that they were looking for any Negro at the time brave enough to do what Douglas did? As I read Garrison's account of how things occured I can't help but to feel an overexcitement to it as he was saying "At last a Negro we can use."
While as with Douglas, I felt a certain degree of truth from it. Genuine would be the more appropriate word I suppose, but Douglas' account of events seemed to be the more accurate. Especially when you stack up the facts and remember that Douglas was only a freed slave for a short time and was speaking to a group of white people. Regardless of whether they were Abolitionists or not I can't imagine him not looking out into that crowd for the first time and seeing the faces of his oppressors. That would be enough to shake up anyone. So for my two cents, I find the account by Douglas to be a truthful one.
I think Garrison's on the other hand was born of a need to have "that Negro" and to keep his movement progressing along. A white person can only offer up so many arguments against slavery, but oh imagine what a well-tuned slave could do. That idea harks back to that excitment I felt leaking from Garrison's letter. He just felt too anxious to me and that makes his account a suspicious one to me.
In summation, I think Garrison's account is one born of zealousness and a political agenda, while Douglas was offering a true account of what occured to him.
In response to the questions raised about why Douglas chooses to repeat the phrase "We don't allow niggers in here," I believe in one part it was used to make an impact in the piece of writing. And it was used to contrast the treatment he received in America verses the treatment he had been receiving in England and Ireland.
America lagged far behind when it came to abolishing slavery and even father behind when it came to treating free blacks equally. England had already had time to adjust to the change and accept the black person as an equal human being. I think Douglas saw the potential for America but he knew that with the history of slavery in America a reconciliation would be hard to come by. It would be a long time before any black man could be treated in America like Douglas was treated in England.
Garrison and Douglass both recount the same incident in very different ways. Garrison praises Douglass's ability as an orator and reports on the "extraordinary emotion it excited" in his mind and calls Douglass an eloquent prodigy. Douglass, on the other hand, reveals that he had at first intended only to sit in on the meeting and not to speak. It is only after he is invited to speak that he does so. While Garrison praises the speech and calls it "fortunate", Douglass can "not remember a single connected sentence" even finding it difficult to "stand erect or command and articulate two words without hesitation." Whether this was the result of simple apprehension, or that he felt the white men to still be superior as Arlena suggests, is anyone's guess. These conflicting descriptions are intriguing not only in that they present different views on Douglass's oration, but in that, in neither instance are the actual words of Douglass reported. One would think that where a speech which "excites extraordinary emotion" or created a "powerful impression upon a crowded auditory" is concerned, one would have thought to at least put down a few examples of it. Or was it simply that Garrison was so enthralled with the idea of having an individual face for his cause that almost anyone would do? Not to devalue Douglass's obvious talent, but one has to consider, given the agenda of Garrison and the abolitionists, if perhaps Douglass just happened to be the right man at the right time?
Garrison and Douglass do have the same foundation when describing the covention, the basic facts are the same. However, beyond that, the details differ greatly. The first difference I noticed between the two accounts was the reason why Douglass came to the convention. Garrison made it seem like Douglass was seeking out abolitionists because he wanted to become involved with the cause. However, Douglas says he just stopped by the convention because it was his rest day. He only planned to observe and didn't think anyone knew who he was.
Next was the difference in how Douglass' speech was perceived. Garrison was full of praise for Douglass and the speech. Garrison almost makes Douglass out to be this larger than life figure. To me, his preface sounds like a speech in itself, a piece of propaganda, meant to stir up the emotions of the reader. In contrast, Douglass can only remember how embarrassed and scared he was speaking in front of all those people.
One of the most intersting things I noticed in Garrison's preface was his comment about Douglass "needing nothing but a comparatively small amount of cultivation to make him an ornament to society and a blessing to his race". I wonder why he made this comment. Did Douglass need refinement so Garrison could make him into the poster chid for the anti-slavery movement, or did Garrison mean something else?
Lastly, Douglass' most significant difference from Garrison's account is how he really felt about going out and touring on behalf of the Anti-Slavery Society. Douglass admits that in the beginning he was excited and hopeful about the changes he was going to be able to bring about. But not too long after touring on behalf of the organization, he realized that his "enthusiasm had been extravagant; that hardship and dangers were not yet passed"... He began to feel like his abolitionist friends were limiting him. They wanted to keep him in a box. Soon they began to tell him he didn't act or look or talk enough like a slave. He no longer was under the abolitonists control, he was developing his own opinions and identity through learning. This difference makes me think that, although Garrison had good intentions, he did not truthfully see Douglass as any different than those who came to look on him as only a spectacle. It seems Garrison's true motive was to use Frederick to further his own agenda, failing to see the human being within.
Though Douglas and Garrison's stories do appear to differ, I feel that the variation between their stories could come from their different lifestyles. Douglas as a recently escaped slave must have viewed the situation as a frightening experience, but was in awe of Garrison and the other abolitionist at their abhorrence to slavery and their willingness to act against it. Garrison as a white abolitionist was born into a world where blacks were seen as inferior, so the awe with which he writes reflects the pride he must have felt about hearing an escaped slave speaking out against his oppression. Garrison knew when Douglas spoke that he (Douglas) was a escaped slave speaking out about slavery. Yes, he was speaking to a crowd of abolitionists sympathetic to his cause, but they were also white men. In Garrison's eyes, Douglas' incomplete sentences and obvious nervous quality could have been because of the fear that Douglas must have felt. Could the "natural eloquence" that Garrison describes not have come from the obvious eloquence and intelligence that Garrison noticed amid the broken sentences? I believe that Garrison was so impressed with Douglas' bravery to speak in front of the convention that he saw pas t his nervousness to the eloquence beneath his scattered sentences.
I actually find both Garrison’s and Douglass’s descriptions of the event to be quite similar. Yes, Garrison does seem to think that Douglass’s speech was utter brilliance and the most moving and beautiful oration that he had ever heard, but he does not claim that Douglass was the perfect picture of confidence and refinement. In fact, Garrison explains that it was quite the opposite. He describes Douglass as “trembling for his safety” and coming to the platform with “hesitancy and embarrassment.” (388) This seems to be in line with the description that Douglass gives us in My Bondage and My Freedom. The main difference in the two descriptions is the overall effect of the speech. While Douglass is modest and does not believe that his speech is particularly good or memorable, Garrison believes its effect to be quite remarkable. What I mean is, perhaps Garrison sees something in Douglass’s speech which Douglass himself can not see.
The praise that Garrison gives to Douglass and his speech is not for his confidence, but rather for his natural cleverness and eloquence. Garrison states that
Douglass stood there, “in intellect richly endowed – in natural eloquence a prodigy.” (388) Garrison is lifting Douglass up by saying that the things which made his speech so affecting were not the refinement of his speaking skills, but rather the God-given qualities he possesses. His intellect and eloquence come naturally, which proves his natural equality with whites. With his circumstances it is impossible to be a confident, educated speaker, but that does not prevent him from giving many “noble thoughts” and “thrilling reflections.” (389).
His hesitancy and nervousness do not take away from his natural gifts, but add emotion to his words and prove his credibility. Brent said in his blog, “Perhaps Douglas' account was completely accurate and he truly was a nervous mess while giving that speech, but what Garrison and his friends simply didn't care? What if they figured a Negro man was only capable of so much anyway and just the fact he did it made him a blessing?” I think that Brent is on the right track in thinking that Garrison and his friends did in fact see the “nervous mess”-ness of the speech, but I do not think that they thought that was all a negro man was capable of. I believe that Garrison sees Douglass as a brilliant man capable of everything a white man is capable of. Douglass’s roughness is inevitable due to his circumstances as a slave, and has nothing to do with his natural abilities as a human being.
After comparing the different descriptions of the same event, it is evident that there was still a lack of true understanding of the effects of slavery on a man. The abolitionists were on a mission to end slavery, but not all were truly free of prejudice. Garrison describes in his letter that Douglass is “created but a little lower than angels” (388). Here he has to explain to the intended audience (Caucasians) that this creature that escaped from such a horrible institution is indeed a human, just like the rest of them. This explains that though some were against slavery’s cruelty they still had trouble seeing Blacks as human beings.
Now Douglass on the other hand, portrays this same event from his perspective, that of a recently freed slave. He is, no matter how educated or “cultivated” he still has the mindset of a slave. He still feels that he is not equal. He is in constant search if equality. It is true that he was in better circumstances than a slave, but he was still inhibited by his country; a country that did not accept him as a citizen. He was told that he did not act like a slave and that he didn’t need to sound too educated. Why? Why could he not sound educated? I’ll tell you why, because Black folks free or not were still inferior in the eyes of Americans.
He speaks of his nervousness and anxiety that felt when speaking at that meeting. He feels that it was not even worthy of being called a speech. He tells how he was introduced as a “thing”, “chattel”, and “piece of southern property” and these very words prove that he was not truly seen as equal by the abolitionists. He even stats how he became bored with simply narrating the same old sad “slave story” and how he wanted to speak out against slavery. He felt as if he were property for a good purpose. He even metaphorically compares himself to a “textbook” that Garrison carried around to somehow authorize his fight against slavery. It is not until he is in Europe that he feels truly equal, and he expresses that within his letter to Garrison.
Hi, I am posting my blog late as I was out on sept. 6th class.
I do agree that Garrison and Douglass are essentially telling the same story, but with entirely different twists. While Garrison may seem jsut as racist as the rest of his white society, it may only be the way he speaks when he knows he may be "heard". I am not sure whether this is because they actually see things totally different as one being from the white class and the other of the slave class of the time, or simply to APPEAR that they see the current social situations in different lights to the public. On either side of the equal “use and abuse” relationship that seems present to me throughout the reading, Garrison and Douglass each have their own roles to fulfill and societal standards to uphold in order to protect their personal interests. While indeed I do agree fully that the Abolitionist movement of the time was extremely controversial and to even be related to these activities was incredulously dangerous, I see how Garrison and Douglass act toward each other and toward their audiences in cookie-cutter, expected fashion not only for their own safety, but for the overall safety and survival of their overall cause. While I can see why Douglass is upset and irritated with the fashion in which he is instructed and somewhat restrained by Garrison, I can see Garrison’s point to instruct Douglass in the fashion that he does. I do not have a single viewpoint on the fact of which character is using each other more or to what purposes or extent, but I feel that there is some definite advantages being taken on both sides. With the fashion that Garrison is keeping Douglass in line with the current audience expectations of ex-slave speeches, I feel, is not only for the personal protection of Garrison and Douglass, but also for the survival of the Abolitionist cause in that if they are too outrageous (not that they weren’t for their time), then their audience that they are trying to reach to, will totally shut them out and then the cause would be mostly, if not entirely, lost. I believe that the overall differences in the two gentlemen’s accounts are obvious, appropriate for their personal experiences, viewpoints, social expectations, and causes. What would a society so set against the education and equality of all peoples at this time possibly do or think if the “educated white man” sounded and presented themselves in the same manner as the “ignorant negro”?
Post a Comment