Week 7

Though I did not make it to class on Thursday, I will write about what "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" stirred within me. While reading this book, I could not stop my mind from flashing back to two things. The first is the recent(within 10 years or so) discoveries of Thomas Jefferson's relations with his slave. Just like within the book, Jefferson also seemingly had sexual relations and children with his slave. However, I think Jefferson attempted to justify his relations by sending all of his "slave children" to college and having them educated. Also, at his death Jefferson noted in his will for the woman slave whom he had had the sexual relations with to be freed. The thought that Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of this nation, committed some of the same crimes described in this book makes me wonder just how prevalent and/or accepted the act of masters having sexual relations with/raping their females slaves actually was during the 1800's.

"The Jefferson-Hemings story was sustained through the 19th century by Northern abolitionists, British critics of American democracy, and others. Its vitality among the American population at large was recorded by European travelers of the time. Through the 20th century, some historians accepted the possibility of a Jefferson-Hemings connection and a few gave it credence, but most Jefferson scholars found the case for such a relationship unpersuasive.

Over the years, however, belief in a Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings relationship was perpetuated in private. Two of her children - Madison and Eston - indicated that Jefferson was their father, and this belief has been relayed through generations of their descendants as an important family truth.

That a Jefferson-Hemings relationship could be neither refuted nor substantiated was challenged in 1998 by the results of DNA tests conducted by Dr. Eugene Foster and a team of geneticists. The study - which tested Y-chromosomal DNA samples from male-line descendants of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's uncle), John Carr (grandfather of Jefferson's Carr nephews), Eston Hemings, and Thomas C. Woodson - indicated a genetic link between the Jefferson and Hemings descendants. The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings. There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time, and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello. The study's authors, however, said "the simplest and most probable" conclusion was that Thomas Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings."

The full article can be found at the following web address: http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html

I still remember hearing about the DNA testing which was done in order to prove that Jefferson had sexual relations with Sally Hemings. And I remember people like my grandma making statements like "oh, he never did that" and "It's just people with agendas trying to make Jefferson look bad." I love my grandma to death but I gotta say I think maybe she was wrong on this one. It seems like, from reading this book and other accounts of slave women, that having sex with the master was almost a common occurrence. It really is amazing though to think that one of the founding fathers of the greatest and freeest(sp?) country in the world would use slaves, not only for labor but also for his own personal pleasures! It's embarrasing to think about and perhaps that is why so many people like my grandma just deny the thought even though there is substantial evidence being brought to support the claim.

The other area my mind kept wandering to was the "Roots" movies. These movies are re-telling of an African-American man's geneology and the struggles his ancestors faced as slaves in the South. These movies are filled with situations much like the ones which arise in "Incidents in the Life as a Slave Girl". I think what stuck out most in the movies was the fact that it did not matter to masters which slaves were married to who. The slaves were all viewed as livestock which could be separated at a moments notice. In "Roots", there is a moment when a man and wife were suddenly separated from each other because the husband was sold away. This left the wife unsure about what she should do. Should she remain faithful to her husband even though she hasn't a clue whether or not they will ever be reunited again in this lifetime. Or should she forget him and find another man to take care of her? This situation brings me to a quote which helps put us in the shoes of a slave.

"Why does the slave ever love? Why allow the tendrils of the heart to twine around objects which may at any moment be wrenched away by the hand of violence? When the separations come by the hand of death, the pious soul can bow in resignation, and say, 'Not my will, but thine be done, O Lord!' But when the ruthless hand of man strikes the blow, regardless of the misery he causes, it is hard to be submissive."(pg. 170)

It is hard for anyone born in a free country to be able to understand what slave go through. Not even being able to have the luxury to love because if you love someone you are probably setting yourself up for disappointment. I can't imagine. As a slave, do you think it would be worth the risk of loving someone even though the very next day they could be sold away? Would you marry someone if you truly loved them even though, like in Roots, they could be sold and you may never see them again. If that were the case, would it be ethical to marry someone else even though your husband may very well be remaining faithful to you?

Week 6

I like this picture because I feel like it expresses Emerson's "Self Reliance" pretty well. The men walking in line all have robes on. They are probably all religious men with the exception to the man in the back of the line. The man in the back of the line is wearing a robe but it is not a religious robe. This man is expressing his uniqueness by showing his individuality in a place where all the other men are pretty much unified. I can only imagine the kind of looks Darth Vader is receiving from the other religious men wearing robes. They are probably wondering why this is dressed so weird and I can bet they are probably annoyed by him. Perhaps they think he is mocking them by wearing a completely different attire than what is "appropriate". This brings up an interesting point. How is appropriate clothing determined. In my opinion, society draws the rules of what you should where and when you should wear it. One of my biggest pet peaves is ties. Why in the world would anybody ever think that something you tie around your neck and let it dangle would be a fashionable thing to wear? I never understood the logic behind ties. They are uncomfortable and annoying to eat with. Yet, I fall prey to them everytime I have to coach a basketball game because it is the rules of the school. All coaches must wear ties. And if I were to ask the school why they would probably tell me that ties look good or professional. But who's opinion is that? I think it is society's opinion that ties look good therefore we must all conform to society. Very interesting to see how individualism is lost in society when it comes to clothing.
Another area the Emerson's piece reminded me of was a passage in the Bible. Romans 12:2 states "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is- his good, pleasing, and perfect will." I want to focus on the first part of that verse. It is basically summing up what Emerson is stating. I like how the verse says "the pattern of this world". The world is one big pattern. We are born and sometime in our growing up we learn to do things or think about things because we have either been taught that way or we have observed others and copy their behaviour. It is very interesting the way the mind works.

There is a part of me, however, that believes that one must conform to the society they live in in order to live a happy life. For example, if one is continually breaking the law and being thrown in prison, their life will be wasted within a 15x15 foor room and watching their back in the showers! Not fun. If you have ever been driving and suddenly seen the flashing red and blue lights in you rear view mirror, that is also not fun. I think we can look at Emerson's piece with a realistic perspective. We must conform to a certain extent in order to live as individuals in society. But that brings up an interesting point, if the government we live in eventually gives us such a short leash where nobody can live as an individual and everything is uniformed, then I think that is when it becomes time to revolt or stand up against the governement. Just think about this type of government makes me think about a movie I once saw. "Equilibrium" with Christian Bale is a good example of a government which would not allow for any kind of individuality. All the citizens were forced to take these pills which removed human emotion. Human emotion was said to be the "disease" of humanity. Also, any type of art was forbidden. Everyone wore a black or grey uniform. This was a completely opposide world from what Emerson is describing. Eventually Christian Bale joins the underground movement of humans who would not take their pills but would collect art. Bale eventually kills assassinates the government leader and the world is made individualistic again. Such a happy ending. :)

Favorite quote: "Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life's cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another, you have only an exemptoraneous, half possession."(1177-1178)

Week 5

There are a couple areas around The Coquette which I found interesting. One is how the book seems to relate to the American attitude. And the other is how I was really able to relate to portions of the text.
Eliza Wharton really seems to relate to the American spirit by the way she excercises her vibrant free will. In a time when women were supposed to act the part which society had written for them, Eliza chose to rebel and not conform. Women during this period of time were supposed to marry within their social class, have many children, and be the homemaker society wanted them to be. While Eliza was initially going to conform and marry a much older man who had money, he died and she expressed her relief. Now, I believe, she felt like she was given a second chance to do what she wanted and make her own happiness. In fact, in a letter Eliza explains to Lucy Freeman that "I recoil at the thought of immediately forminag a connection, which must confine me to the duties of domestic life, and make me dependent for happiness...I would not have you consider me as confined to your society, or obligated to a future connection...You must either quit the subject, or leave me to the excercise of my free will..."(pg. 29) How does Eliza's independent attitude relate to the American spirit? I believe it is because the colonies of the new world would not conform into paying the taxes to the king of England and thus rebelled. But that was just the beginning. The United States has always seemed be the nation which will always do what it wants when it wants. Up until the United Nations was formed, America seemed to draw the lines of right and wrong for other countries. Actually, we seem to still do that in today's world. I view America as having a philosophy of not conforming to the world, but making the world conform to us. Just like Eliza, America did not conform but rebelled against the world's view of what it should do.
The other area I want to touch on was the personal application I took away from this book. In class, we just barely touched on the relationship Eliza had with Major Sanford which brought up the question of why Eliza kept going back to him even though she knew there was really no future for her in his eyes. This relationship brought up some memories of a past relationship I had. About from my junior year in highschool to about my freshman year in college, I dated this girl off and on. I'm not sure why we always broke up and hot back together. I think both of us always knew that there was not a future for ourselves together but we would get back together anyways. Perhaps we both just liked having the feeling of security that we had someone to talk to when the day was over or just to have someone to hold. whatever the reason, I think Eliza's feelings towads Major Sanford is pretty much the same. While he does a good deal of "playing the game", I think she ultimately understands that he is not a permanent solution. But, like myself, she liked to have him around for the time being as did he.