Michelle Romero
English 48A
Dr. Scott Lankford
"Yet we in America, whose antiracist idealists are admired around the globe, seem to have lost these men and women as heroes. Our textbooks need to present them in such a way that we might again value our own idealism" (Loewen 199).
Very true. Loewen is talking about the irony in the fact that America is portrayed as a humanitarian country abroad, being looked upon as a role model for human equality, yet that we Americans have resisted our own humanitarians. It is pretty ironic.
Honestly, I think as a country we want to be seen as great, an idealist nation with humanity at heart. However, I think that when the WASP view does not agree with who the hero is, he or she gets written out of history. That way, the great act of whatever the hero achieved or contributed remains, yet he or she does not. So, if one great role model of the time is a black activist, his ideals may be placed on the wall of honorary achievement, yet he will still be sent to eat at the slaves table in the kitchen, away from the rest of society. He is still denied the right to own his own theory or his own success.
Then, mainstream society begins to act as if white Protestants brought about the change, as though they had some sort of hand in the fate of our nation's history, as though they were and are the only ones capable of success. I guess we are not as far removed from discrimination as I thought. I guess we have not really achieved even the half-way point to true racial equality when we look at the subtleties that can leave such a lasting and misguided impression on us.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Journal #34 (Extra)
Michelle Romero
English 48A
Dr. Scott Lankford
Ch. 6 John Brown & Abraham Lincoln
"'Are you going to tell kids that Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in Jesus? Not me!' a textbook editor exclaimed to me" (179).
I was shocked at this statement, not only because I can't believe the editor actually said that so bluntly, but also because I had never thought that such seemingly insignificant details would be altered to perpetuate a specific society value. Who cares?
I mean seriously, why does Jefferson have to be depicted by authors as a believer in Jesus, if in fact he was not? Does it really change anything about the significance of his achievements or contributions? Can't you just be a good person or role model without having religion? Apparently, the white-Anglo-Saxon protestant editor would say no. I never thought about what a difference it would make if a great leader or "hero" in American history was not religious. As I sit here and think about it, most of the ones that I can come up with off the top of my head, are portrayed as religious. Who knows now! I don't think it is that big of a deal to write that Jefferson was not a believer in Christ, but I definitely see now how portraying all great leaders as Christians does perpetuate a certain belief over time. SCARY!
It also makes me wonder what puts these ideas in to our heads to alter details like this. Who pays the editor really? Who tells the editor what to put in and what to take out? What ideas to perpetuate? Are we really that much more censored and regulated by government, and so subtly that we have no clue? I do not really like where this is going….YIKES.
English 48A
Dr. Scott Lankford
Ch. 6 John Brown & Abraham Lincoln
"'Are you going to tell kids that Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in Jesus? Not me!' a textbook editor exclaimed to me" (179).
I was shocked at this statement, not only because I can't believe the editor actually said that so bluntly, but also because I had never thought that such seemingly insignificant details would be altered to perpetuate a specific society value. Who cares?
I mean seriously, why does Jefferson have to be depicted by authors as a believer in Jesus, if in fact he was not? Does it really change anything about the significance of his achievements or contributions? Can't you just be a good person or role model without having religion? Apparently, the white-Anglo-Saxon protestant editor would say no. I never thought about what a difference it would make if a great leader or "hero" in American history was not religious. As I sit here and think about it, most of the ones that I can come up with off the top of my head, are portrayed as religious. Who knows now! I don't think it is that big of a deal to write that Jefferson was not a believer in Christ, but I definitely see now how portraying all great leaders as Christians does perpetuate a certain belief over time. SCARY!
It also makes me wonder what puts these ideas in to our heads to alter details like this. Who pays the editor really? Who tells the editor what to put in and what to take out? What ideas to perpetuate? Are we really that much more censored and regulated by government, and so subtly that we have no clue? I do not really like where this is going….YIKES.
Journal #33 (Extra)
Michelle Romero
English 48A
Dr. Scott Lankford
Ch. 6 John Brown and Lincoln
"Most of our textbooks say nothing about Lincoln's internal debate. If they did show it, what teaching devices they would become! Students would see that speakers modify their ideas to appease and appeal to different audiences, so we cannot simply take their statements literally" (Loewen 179).
This is true. History textbooks are so boring--the never get to the meat: the details of behind the scenes, what people were really thinking, how it really felt to be in certain situations. Instead, it becomes dry and dull and as students, miss the connections that make those historical events part of our own individual history.
I was actually surprised to here about Lincoln's somewhat "on the fence" approach to the race issue. He is always talked about as one of the greatest presidents because of his achievements to end slavery and racial discrimination. Now I think it was more like luck that the North was winning to influence him to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. I think if the South was winning, perhaps things could have turned out very differently.
To see him as a real man gives us a different view. It makes sense though. When we think about how often we all change our mind or develop new philosophies or ideas of what is right and wrong through personal experience or new knowledge, then it is understandable that all of our "heroes" were the same way. And YET, it somehow suits us to put them on a pedestal, dehumanizing them to nothing more than a trophy to represent one fact about them and not the whole picture. I think that if we did hear the whole story and could see the truth about the influence of political rhetoric, we would be more cautious and skeptical about just believing whatever we here. Instead, by remembering only the golden moment, we feel like it is the government or our leaders who have our best interests at heart, as if they know something we don’t. I guess that is the point of re-writing history in this way.
English 48A
Dr. Scott Lankford
Ch. 6 John Brown and Lincoln
"Most of our textbooks say nothing about Lincoln's internal debate. If they did show it, what teaching devices they would become! Students would see that speakers modify their ideas to appease and appeal to different audiences, so we cannot simply take their statements literally" (Loewen 179).
This is true. History textbooks are so boring--the never get to the meat: the details of behind the scenes, what people were really thinking, how it really felt to be in certain situations. Instead, it becomes dry and dull and as students, miss the connections that make those historical events part of our own individual history.
I was actually surprised to here about Lincoln's somewhat "on the fence" approach to the race issue. He is always talked about as one of the greatest presidents because of his achievements to end slavery and racial discrimination. Now I think it was more like luck that the North was winning to influence him to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. I think if the South was winning, perhaps things could have turned out very differently.
To see him as a real man gives us a different view. It makes sense though. When we think about how often we all change our mind or develop new philosophies or ideas of what is right and wrong through personal experience or new knowledge, then it is understandable that all of our "heroes" were the same way. And YET, it somehow suits us to put them on a pedestal, dehumanizing them to nothing more than a trophy to represent one fact about them and not the whole picture. I think that if we did hear the whole story and could see the truth about the influence of political rhetoric, we would be more cautious and skeptical about just believing whatever we here. Instead, by remembering only the golden moment, we feel like it is the government or our leaders who have our best interests at heart, as if they know something we don’t. I guess that is the point of re-writing history in this way.
Journal #32 (Extra)
Michelle Romero
English 48A
Dr. Scott Lankford
Lies My Teacher Told Me
Ch. 6-John Brown and Abraham Lincoln
"The farther we get away from the excitement of 1859 the more we are disposed to consider this extraordinary man the victim of mental delusions" (Loewen 176).
This quote discusses the history of John Brown's legend. Loewen discusses how at different time periods in American history, Brown started being referred to as a lunatic. For example, while many black leaders of the time actually thought of him as a hero, white history textbook authors began to depict him as mentally ill and not altogether "with-it," especially after 1859. By doing this, it nullifies his work and discredits his cause. It basically causes people who read these textbooks and did not know the man personally, to easily forget him. Sure, you can read that he may have done a few things, but who cares if the man was insane, right? It makes a reader skip over him as having done "nothing of importance" to quote Columbus. And who would know the difference having not lived in that time.
I am not necessarily surprised by this, but it does remind me to think about who the "outcasts" are in current society. I mean many, many very influential people in history were exiled from their countries and thrown out of their states. Yet, years later, we somehow look back and decide to pick them back up again, as it becomes convenient, nevermind that we despised them while they lived. It just goes to show how conceded we are. If it doesn't suit us to include a person's philosophy we put them in a box, and if and when we decide that their philosophy is now our new one, we take them out and put them on the shelf to add to our collection, as some sort of adornment, as if to take credit for THEIR achievements and THEIR insight.
Amazing.
English 48A
Dr. Scott Lankford
Lies My Teacher Told Me
Ch. 6-John Brown and Abraham Lincoln
"The farther we get away from the excitement of 1859 the more we are disposed to consider this extraordinary man the victim of mental delusions" (Loewen 176).
This quote discusses the history of John Brown's legend. Loewen discusses how at different time periods in American history, Brown started being referred to as a lunatic. For example, while many black leaders of the time actually thought of him as a hero, white history textbook authors began to depict him as mentally ill and not altogether "with-it," especially after 1859. By doing this, it nullifies his work and discredits his cause. It basically causes people who read these textbooks and did not know the man personally, to easily forget him. Sure, you can read that he may have done a few things, but who cares if the man was insane, right? It makes a reader skip over him as having done "nothing of importance" to quote Columbus. And who would know the difference having not lived in that time.
I am not necessarily surprised by this, but it does remind me to think about who the "outcasts" are in current society. I mean many, many very influential people in history were exiled from their countries and thrown out of their states. Yet, years later, we somehow look back and decide to pick them back up again, as it becomes convenient, nevermind that we despised them while they lived. It just goes to show how conceded we are. If it doesn't suit us to include a person's philosophy we put them in a box, and if and when we decide that their philosophy is now our new one, we take them out and put them on the shelf to add to our collection, as some sort of adornment, as if to take credit for THEIR achievements and THEIR insight.
Amazing.
Journal #31
Michelle Romero
English 48A
Dr. Scott Lankford,
Final #2
Hawthorne:
"He changed himself into something awful only by hiding his face" (1312).
This passage refers to Mr. Hooper's physical change of appearance when he decides to wear a black veil which covers his face.
Hidden secrets play such a strong role in Hawthorne's The Minister's Black Veil because of the way Hawthorne structures the scene. By making everyone around the minister appear to be spic-and-span and in their holy, Sunday clothes, the ambiguity of the meaning of his wearing of the veil makes it seem like that is what stands out, like that is what is weird. It makes it seem like he was the one hiding something. Hawthorne creates a scene of clean, Sunday-best type of people and environment and compares it to the blackness of the veil, such a subtle darkness that causes such a great stir and spurs on the mystery of the black veil among the crowd.
I find this passage ironic also. For example, it says that Mr. Cooper changed himself by putting on the veil, yet underneath Mr. Cooper would have appeared to look the exact same as before. The veil did not produce any physical change of state, it was just an adornment. In addition, I think Hawthorne was making a point about how people oftentimes wear a mask before the public. We disguise our true selves from friends, neighbors, coworkers and so on. And certainly as he has mentioned here, we disguise ourselves by putting forth only our "best" on Sundays to go to church. Therefore, the black veil didn't cover anything but the mask that Mr. Hooper would have already been wearing on all the Sundays past. So, in a way, the black veil actually made him more real but taking away the front or the persona that he has been putting on. It didn't change anything, it only brought attention to something that was already present.
The hidden secret or mystery concerning the black veil is how Hawthorne makes his points. He puts all the focus on the black veil just as the crowd had put, so that the reader is forced to ask themselves also, "What in the world does it mean?" In addition, by keeping the secret a mystery even at the end, he leaves the interpretation up to the reader.
English 48A
Dr. Scott Lankford,
Final #2
Hawthorne:
"He changed himself into something awful only by hiding his face" (1312).
This passage refers to Mr. Hooper's physical change of appearance when he decides to wear a black veil which covers his face.
Hidden secrets play such a strong role in Hawthorne's The Minister's Black Veil because of the way Hawthorne structures the scene. By making everyone around the minister appear to be spic-and-span and in their holy, Sunday clothes, the ambiguity of the meaning of his wearing of the veil makes it seem like that is what stands out, like that is what is weird. It makes it seem like he was the one hiding something. Hawthorne creates a scene of clean, Sunday-best type of people and environment and compares it to the blackness of the veil, such a subtle darkness that causes such a great stir and spurs on the mystery of the black veil among the crowd.
I find this passage ironic also. For example, it says that Mr. Cooper changed himself by putting on the veil, yet underneath Mr. Cooper would have appeared to look the exact same as before. The veil did not produce any physical change of state, it was just an adornment. In addition, I think Hawthorne was making a point about how people oftentimes wear a mask before the public. We disguise our true selves from friends, neighbors, coworkers and so on. And certainly as he has mentioned here, we disguise ourselves by putting forth only our "best" on Sundays to go to church. Therefore, the black veil didn't cover anything but the mask that Mr. Hooper would have already been wearing on all the Sundays past. So, in a way, the black veil actually made him more real but taking away the front or the persona that he has been putting on. It didn't change anything, it only brought attention to something that was already present.
The hidden secret or mystery concerning the black veil is how Hawthorne makes his points. He puts all the focus on the black veil just as the crowd had put, so that the reader is forced to ask themselves also, "What in the world does it mean?" In addition, by keeping the secret a mystery even at the end, he leaves the interpretation up to the reader.
Journal #30
Michelle Romero
English 48A
Final Question #1
Both Emerson and Thoreau not only emphasize the individual, but the natural power of human nature.
Emerson: "But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars. The rays that come from those heavenly worlds, will separate between him and vulgar things" (1111).
Thoreau: "Law never made men a whit more just; and by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice" (1858).
In the first quote, Emerson explains the power of a man in solitude, finding the heavenly things on his own. Here, it does not take government or society or any other outside force to tell the man what is right and what is vulgar. By looking at the stars or the heavens, which represent man's nature or first origin, he can know. Emerson also says, this knowledge or ability to do so, separates him from vulgar things. Basically, he considers much of society and the institutions we have created as vulgar. In fact, I find it somewhat ironic that he does not find the man vulgar, yet the institutions the man made are vulgar. How can it be?
In the second quote by Thoreau, we see Thoreau agreeing with Emerson in that the law is not what makes a man just. It is not what makes him know right from wrong. Both authors emphasize the innate ability of man to see within him-self, to feel on his own. Here again, we see Thoreau comparing justice to injustice the way Emerson separates out the vulgar things.
To me, this shows the idealist in each of these men. Many authors write about the violence of men, the mistakes or hardships, or the evil in their nature to tend toward selfishness and other not-so-admirable traits. Instead, these two talk about relying on that nature and embracing one's own nature. They see human nature as basically good.
English 48A
Final Question #1
Both Emerson and Thoreau not only emphasize the individual, but the natural power of human nature.
Emerson: "But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars. The rays that come from those heavenly worlds, will separate between him and vulgar things" (1111).
Thoreau: "Law never made men a whit more just; and by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice" (1858).
In the first quote, Emerson explains the power of a man in solitude, finding the heavenly things on his own. Here, it does not take government or society or any other outside force to tell the man what is right and what is vulgar. By looking at the stars or the heavens, which represent man's nature or first origin, he can know. Emerson also says, this knowledge or ability to do so, separates him from vulgar things. Basically, he considers much of society and the institutions we have created as vulgar. In fact, I find it somewhat ironic that he does not find the man vulgar, yet the institutions the man made are vulgar. How can it be?
In the second quote by Thoreau, we see Thoreau agreeing with Emerson in that the law is not what makes a man just. It is not what makes him know right from wrong. Both authors emphasize the innate ability of man to see within him-self, to feel on his own. Here again, we see Thoreau comparing justice to injustice the way Emerson separates out the vulgar things.
To me, this shows the idealist in each of these men. Many authors write about the violence of men, the mistakes or hardships, or the evil in their nature to tend toward selfishness and other not-so-admirable traits. Instead, these two talk about relying on that nature and embracing one's own nature. They see human nature as basically good.
Journal #29
Michelle Romero
English 48A
Final Question #1
Where do Emerson and Thoreau differ?
Emerson and Thoreau differ in many ways. The most talked about perhaps (at least from my point of view in this class), is that Emerson was a great talker, he was a great influence, but Thoreau and many of his other prodigies were the actual doers, the ones that acted on what they believed.
For example, Emerson was public in his addresses against slavery:
"...in 1844 he went public with his views in a passionate antislavery address, 'Emancipation of the Negroes in the British West Indies'" (Norton editors 1109).
But, Thoreau actually protested against slavery:
"During his time at Walden, Thoreau also spent one night of 1846 in the local jail when, in a protest against what he regarded as the proslavery agenda of the war against Mexico, he refused to pay his poll tax" (Norton editors 1855).
It wasn't until much later that Emerson began to take more action. I find this very interesting to see. In fact, this comparison reminds me of a popular phrase, "those who can't do, teach" (no offense Scott...it is not my personal opinion, just a phrase many people use). At first I am shocked that Emerson did not take more action against slavery. From his incredibly radical language, I would think he would have been the kind of guy who was very in-your-face about things. I imagine him to be very active, very involved, very up on the news. But after reading the bios, it would seem he was more concerned with voicing his opinions than acting on them.
Thoreau on the other hand should be commended for "practicing what he preaches." However, I also think about how many people Emerson influenced, how many other writers and activists. And then I think how we really do need the talkers as much as we need the doers. For example, it is possible that had Thoreau never read or known Emerson, he may not have turned out the way he did and would not have fought so passionately for the causes for which he did, such as antislavery. In a way, Thoreau performed the direct act, but Emerson assisted still, indirectly. Basically, although they differed in the way they carried out their plans, both had the same idea.
English 48A
Final Question #1
Where do Emerson and Thoreau differ?
Emerson and Thoreau differ in many ways. The most talked about perhaps (at least from my point of view in this class), is that Emerson was a great talker, he was a great influence, but Thoreau and many of his other prodigies were the actual doers, the ones that acted on what they believed.
For example, Emerson was public in his addresses against slavery:
"...in 1844 he went public with his views in a passionate antislavery address, 'Emancipation of the Negroes in the British West Indies'" (Norton editors 1109).
But, Thoreau actually protested against slavery:
"During his time at Walden, Thoreau also spent one night of 1846 in the local jail when, in a protest against what he regarded as the proslavery agenda of the war against Mexico, he refused to pay his poll tax" (Norton editors 1855).
It wasn't until much later that Emerson began to take more action. I find this very interesting to see. In fact, this comparison reminds me of a popular phrase, "those who can't do, teach" (no offense Scott...it is not my personal opinion, just a phrase many people use). At first I am shocked that Emerson did not take more action against slavery. From his incredibly radical language, I would think he would have been the kind of guy who was very in-your-face about things. I imagine him to be very active, very involved, very up on the news. But after reading the bios, it would seem he was more concerned with voicing his opinions than acting on them.
Thoreau on the other hand should be commended for "practicing what he preaches." However, I also think about how many people Emerson influenced, how many other writers and activists. And then I think how we really do need the talkers as much as we need the doers. For example, it is possible that had Thoreau never read or known Emerson, he may not have turned out the way he did and would not have fought so passionately for the causes for which he did, such as antislavery. In a way, Thoreau performed the direct act, but Emerson assisted still, indirectly. Basically, although they differed in the way they carried out their plans, both had the same idea.
Journal #28
Michelle Romero
English 48A
Final Question #1
Thoreau and Emerson both also emphasized the individual over the collective in their works:
Emerson:
"These are the voices which we hear in solitude, but they grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the world. Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members" (Self-Reliance 1165).
Thoreau:
"Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, subjects afterward" (Resistance to Civil Government 1858).
It amazes me how closely these two passages are to each other. Obviously, Emerson was a great influence on Thoreau, but their views oftentimes appear to be this similar. In the first quote, Emerson criticizes society as having a conspiracy or vendetta against all men. He makes it seem like society is out to get you. This type of language creates a sense of hyper-awareness; he is trying to get his readers or audience to become aware of their own self. In fact, he even talks about the voices of conscience that individuals can hear on their own, but not when they are in the world. In a sense, he is creating a feeling that individuals have power, but that they lose power when they are with others. If you think about it, his accusations are pretty radical. It's Big Brother kind of stuff....he makes it seem like someone or something is planning the conspiracy, not just that conformity tends to happen in groups.
Thoreau also talks about the conscience of man. By asking the question, Why man has a conscience, he is meaning to say that men should use their consciences since they have them. Their conscience is intended to be used. Like Thoreau, he thinks men should be men first; before all else they should be individuals.
(Side note: As a woman, I have to point out that their language does not include women, so I don't know what they expect of us. It is okay for us to be part of society? Are we part of this whole conspiracy against men? Ironic that Emerson was a woman's rights advocate.)
English 48A
Final Question #1
Thoreau and Emerson both also emphasized the individual over the collective in their works:
Emerson:
"These are the voices which we hear in solitude, but they grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the world. Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members" (Self-Reliance 1165).
Thoreau:
"Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, subjects afterward" (Resistance to Civil Government 1858).
It amazes me how closely these two passages are to each other. Obviously, Emerson was a great influence on Thoreau, but their views oftentimes appear to be this similar. In the first quote, Emerson criticizes society as having a conspiracy or vendetta against all men. He makes it seem like society is out to get you. This type of language creates a sense of hyper-awareness; he is trying to get his readers or audience to become aware of their own self. In fact, he even talks about the voices of conscience that individuals can hear on their own, but not when they are in the world. In a sense, he is creating a feeling that individuals have power, but that they lose power when they are with others. If you think about it, his accusations are pretty radical. It's Big Brother kind of stuff....he makes it seem like someone or something is planning the conspiracy, not just that conformity tends to happen in groups.
Thoreau also talks about the conscience of man. By asking the question, Why man has a conscience, he is meaning to say that men should use their consciences since they have them. Their conscience is intended to be used. Like Thoreau, he thinks men should be men first; before all else they should be individuals.
(Side note: As a woman, I have to point out that their language does not include women, so I don't know what they expect of us. It is okay for us to be part of society? Are we part of this whole conspiracy against men? Ironic that Emerson was a woman's rights advocate.)
Journal #27
Michelle Romero
English 48A
Final Question #1
Theoreau agrees with Emerson in many ways. For one, Norton editors describe both men as antislavery and in each of their works, we can read their expressions of skepticism:
Emerson:
"Society never advances....It undergoes continual changes: it is barbarous, it is civilized, it is christianized, it is rich, it is scientific; but this change is not amelioration. For everything that is given, something is taken" (Self-ReliIance 1178).
Thoreau:
"In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun....I think it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize" (Resistance to Civil Government 1859).
In the first quote by Emerson, it is evident that he feels a loss of hope for the future when he says society "never advances." It is also an undercut to the image American society was trying to portray. He basically was saying that despite all these fancy things we talk about: science or religion, none of these make us better. Then, he turns to his philosophical spin on this by saying that what society has done is not to ameliorate or to soothe human suffering, but rather he implies that it has perhaps even been the cause of human suffering at times: "For everything that is given, something is taken away." This statement shows he is antislavery because a pro-slavery person would not look at the situation in terms of what is wrong about the society. Instead, they would comment on how good slavery or other circumstances that have been made, help the society or help the economy. Emerson clearly disagrees with that.
Likewise, Thoreau makes a clear statement against slavery through his frank tone. His blunt reasoning kind of throws the slavery issue in his readers' faces. In fact, he even says that when a sixth of the population is oppressed they have a right to revolt. He sides with the slaves. He sides with those who want equal treatment. The best part is that he contrasts the slaves' oppression in American to the symbolic refuge of America in a way that criticizes American society as hypocritical and ironic.
In essence, both authors were anti-slavery and shared their views in their writing and lecturing, but Thoreau perhaps (given the examples) may have been a bit more bold or blunt about his views.
English 48A
Final Question #1
Theoreau agrees with Emerson in many ways. For one, Norton editors describe both men as antislavery and in each of their works, we can read their expressions of skepticism:
Emerson:
"Society never advances....It undergoes continual changes: it is barbarous, it is civilized, it is christianized, it is rich, it is scientific; but this change is not amelioration. For everything that is given, something is taken" (Self-ReliIance 1178).
Thoreau:
"In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun....I think it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize" (Resistance to Civil Government 1859).
In the first quote by Emerson, it is evident that he feels a loss of hope for the future when he says society "never advances." It is also an undercut to the image American society was trying to portray. He basically was saying that despite all these fancy things we talk about: science or religion, none of these make us better. Then, he turns to his philosophical spin on this by saying that what society has done is not to ameliorate or to soothe human suffering, but rather he implies that it has perhaps even been the cause of human suffering at times: "For everything that is given, something is taken away." This statement shows he is antislavery because a pro-slavery person would not look at the situation in terms of what is wrong about the society. Instead, they would comment on how good slavery or other circumstances that have been made, help the society or help the economy. Emerson clearly disagrees with that.
Likewise, Thoreau makes a clear statement against slavery through his frank tone. His blunt reasoning kind of throws the slavery issue in his readers' faces. In fact, he even says that when a sixth of the population is oppressed they have a right to revolt. He sides with the slaves. He sides with those who want equal treatment. The best part is that he contrasts the slaves' oppression in American to the symbolic refuge of America in a way that criticizes American society as hypocritical and ironic.
In essence, both authors were anti-slavery and shared their views in their writing and lecturing, but Thoreau perhaps (given the examples) may have been a bit more bold or blunt about his views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
