![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Frederick Douglas was decent, honest, smart, brave, and wise. I'll definitely read more by him.
Obviously an autobiography of an ex-slave written in 1845 is not going to be a fun read, even knowing that he survives and even escapes. He is a good writer, though, and a thinker. And he worked under several different slaveholders, so you get an education on a variety of lifestyles available for the enslaved. Also, he was in Maryland, one of the less horrific places, so at least you're not reading about the deep south, but that's sure not saying much. Just knowing that most slaves had it even worse and never escaped is not for the faint of heart.
Reading reviews, this book speaks to different people in different ways. Some people actually thought it might not be that bad to be a slave.
What spoke to me most was the part of his life when he moved in with a couple who had never had slaves before. The wife was so decent he had to learn new ways to interact with her. She was beaming with happiness when he arrived and she started teaching him to read. Unfortunately, this situation didn't last. Her husband not only made her stop the reading lessons, but explained that a) it was illegal, b) if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, c) learning spoils people for being able to know nothing but to obey the master, so they become unmanageable and thus worthless, and d) 'it could do him [the slave] no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy.'
You can't tell from my excerpts, but most of his writing is very matter-of-fact, letting you decide for yourself what you think of his experiences.
My thought was that slaves are already discontented and unhappy, to put it mildly. Yet Douglass found that this part was true--things became even worse for him in this regard, even while he was treated so much better than at the first place he'd lived.
But Douglass's first reaction was that this vehemence against reading explained a lot, and he decided he'd just been gifted the knowledge of how to find his way to freedom and determined to learn to read and then to write. (His methods were ingenious.)
And the wife didn't just stop teaching him to read: 'alas! this kind heart had but a short time to remain such. The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work.' I'd already been thinking that the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment apply to slaveholders just like they do to prison guards, and he got to watch it in action.
Another thing that spoke to me, due to obvious modern parallels, was in the appendix which he added to clear up any misconception that he was against all religion. 'What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference--so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. ... I therefore love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land ... the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels.'
Obviously an autobiography of an ex-slave written in 1845 is not going to be a fun read, even knowing that he survives and even escapes. He is a good writer, though, and a thinker. And he worked under several different slaveholders, so you get an education on a variety of lifestyles available for the enslaved. Also, he was in Maryland, one of the less horrific places, so at least you're not reading about the deep south, but that's sure not saying much. Just knowing that most slaves had it even worse and never escaped is not for the faint of heart.
Reading reviews, this book speaks to different people in different ways. Some people actually thought it might not be that bad to be a slave.
What spoke to me most was the part of his life when he moved in with a couple who had never had slaves before. The wife was so decent he had to learn new ways to interact with her. She was beaming with happiness when he arrived and she started teaching him to read. Unfortunately, this situation didn't last. Her husband not only made her stop the reading lessons, but explained that a) it was illegal, b) if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, c) learning spoils people for being able to know nothing but to obey the master, so they become unmanageable and thus worthless, and d) 'it could do him [the slave] no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy.'
You can't tell from my excerpts, but most of his writing is very matter-of-fact, letting you decide for yourself what you think of his experiences.
My thought was that slaves are already discontented and unhappy, to put it mildly. Yet Douglass found that this part was true--things became even worse for him in this regard, even while he was treated so much better than at the first place he'd lived.
But Douglass's first reaction was that this vehemence against reading explained a lot, and he decided he'd just been gifted the knowledge of how to find his way to freedom and determined to learn to read and then to write. (His methods were ingenious.)
And the wife didn't just stop teaching him to read: 'alas! this kind heart had but a short time to remain such. The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work.' I'd already been thinking that the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment apply to slaveholders just like they do to prison guards, and he got to watch it in action.
Another thing that spoke to me, due to obvious modern parallels, was in the appendix which he added to clear up any misconception that he was against all religion. 'What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference--so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. ... I therefore love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land ... the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels.'
