Captivity and Slave Narratives as Political Promotion - Research Paper Example

Captivity and Slave Narratives as Political Promotion Mary White Rowlandson (1637-1711) was a colonial American woman who was captured by Native Americans during King Philip’s War and endured eleven weeks of captivity before being ransomed. After her release, she wrote a narrative of her experience, The Sovereignty and Goodness of God: Being a Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. A second work, the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, is a memoir and treatise on abolition written by famous orator and former slave, Frederick Douglass. The latter, generally held to be the most famous and moving of a number of narratives written by former slaves, in factual detail describes the events of his life as a slave and thereafter. Both works are considered influential in early American literature. Analyzing the two, one sees that what at first appears to be a connection bound by the notion of captivity, that connection is well superseded by the very different personal and overall goals of the writers. Examining the Narratives A detailed description of the writers of Early American Captivity Narratives, such as that written by Mary Rowlandson, is given by Richard Stokes in his Regeneration through Violence: ... a single individual, usually a woman, [who] stands passively under the strokes of evil, awaiting rescue by the grace of God. The sufferer represents the whole, chastened body of Puritan society; and the temporary bondage of the captive to the Indian is dual paradigm-- of the bondage of the soul to the flesh and the temptations arising from original sin, and of the self-exile of the English Israel from England. In the Indian's devilish clutches, the captive had to meet and reject the temptation of Indian marriage and/or the Indian's "cannibal" Eucharist. To partake of the Indian's love or of his equivalent of bread and wine was to debase, to un-English the very soul. The captive's ultimate redemption by the grace of Christ and the efforts of the Puritan magistrates is likened to the regeneration of the soul in conversion. The ordeal is at once threatful of pain and evil and promising of ultimate salvation. Through the captive's proxy, the promise of a similar salvation could be offered to the faithful among the reading public, while the captive's torments remained to harrow the hearts of those not yet awakened to their fallen nature. (Stokes 94) Narratives of slavery, such as that written by Frederick Douglass, recounted the personal experiences of ante-bellum African Americans who had escaped from slavery and found their way to safety in the North. Employing the tradition of the captivity narrative, narratives of slavery were similarly reliant on Biblical references and imagery. Differing in context, however, they were replete with abolitionist rhetoric written against an emotional autobiographical backdrop that particularly appealed to whites in the North. Some of these narratives, including those of Rowlandson and Douglass, began with a preface, in Rowlandson’s case, carefully worded in almost legal mode that attested to the narrative’s authenticity and to the horrific inhumanity and suffering described within. The events leading up to the writing of the Douglass narratives are worth mentioning, since unlike Rowlandson’s they were not written in close proximity to the events she described, but after Douglass had secured his freedom. Advised to write a simple factual account by William Lloyd Garrison, head of the Abolitionist movement in Boston, Douglass insisted upon a more personal work that would include not only what happened but the philosophical, rhetorical and persuasive argument against slavery popular with the Abolitionist movement. The Preface Defines the Purpose It is clear in Rowlandson’s Preface that the narrative was purely religious, but as has been suggested, was probably meant later to be used as a tool to convince those in England not favorable to the Puritan movement to accept its tenets. She writes,“The sovereignty and goodness of GOD, together with the faithfulness of his promises displayed, being a narrative of the captivity and restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson...Written by her own hand for her private use, and now made public at the earnest desire of some friends...” (Rowlandson, Preface). These “friends” are not identified; one can safely assume them to be Puritan leaders anxious to impress the English with their trials and tribulations faced bravely [with the help of God] in the colonies. The Preface to Douglass’s narrative written by Garrison is longwinded and far too detailed to appear. However, it is clear from the document that while he somewhat emphasizes Douglass’s ordeal in slavery, his intent is to promote the document as a tool of the Abolitionist movement. The Preface reads like a persuasive political speech, complete with a call for readers to adopt the motto: --"NO COMPROMISE WITH SLAVERY! NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!" (Garrison, Preface, final par)—with the ring of a good public relations pamphlet. Close Reading of the Narratives As a work of two clear purposes [religious and political], the account of the captivity, if accurate, amounts to extraordinary bravery on the part of Rowlandson in the face of often cruel and despicable actions on the part of the Native Americans [whom, for the sake of literary accuracy, we shall call ‘savages’]. This often obvious self praise and promotion is combined with regularly intermittent praise of God and his mercy, almost casually yet strategically mentioning English attempts to free her, and the subsequent savage’s distain for their efforts and abilities. The criticism would be enough to enrage any government official to the cause of the colonists. To begin, especially in the case of Rowlandson, it is helpful to refer to what Slotkin calls, “the narrative action of the myth-tale [which] recapitulates that people’s experience in their land rehearses their visions in relation to the gods...and reduces both experience and vision to a paradigm” (Slotkin 6), in this case the paradigm of the godly and good captive against the cannibalistic, heathen savage enemy. The myth [in this case, the narrative] “can be seen as an intellectual construct...[bridging the gap]...between the world of the mind and the world of affairs” (Slotkin 7). Enter the Rowlandson narrative and its hyper-religious tone, and, as we suspect, is political intent to impress and convert the English through her experience through what today amounts to excessive fundamentalist zeal. Portraits of the “enemy” are of those without mercy or God“—all this so that “The Lord hereby would make us the more acknowledge His hand, and to see that our help is always in Him” (Rowlandson par 2). In reference to the cannibalistic identity attributed to the savages as defined by Slotkin, she insists the savages intent to “devour us” and “thus were we butchered by those merciless heathen, standing amazed, with the blood running down to our heels” (Rowlandson par 3). Carefully insisting upon her own extraordinary bravery amid all this chaos, she prays “Lord let me die with them...” (Rowlandson par 3) The evangelical preaching nature of the text goes on throughout, relating every incident inevitably to religion and its power to overcome. The Second Remove presents perhaps the most convincing evidence of her intent to prosylatize and of Slotkin’s contention that “their [colonists’] attitude was marked by an inability...to perceive the Indians humanity” (Slotkin 118). After falling off her horse, with a baby in her arms, she comments that the savages laughed. She responds, “Oh, I may see the wonderful power of God, that my Spirit did not utterly sink under my affliction: still the Lord upheld me with His gracious and merciful spirit, and we were both alive to see the light of the next morning” (Rowlandson, Second Remove, par 2). Her prayers, if Slotkin is correct, can be expected since he believes that colonists, in their religious fervor, saw the savages as having a relationship with nature which they viewed as imbuing them with “demonic power” (Slotkin 118). As a political document her comments regarding the English seem almost inserted among the obvious prejudicial telling of events, asserting “...there was a vast difference between the lovely faces of Christians, and foul looks of those heathens”(Sixteenth Remove, par 1). She goes on, “I cannot but remember how the Indians derided the slowness, and dullness of the English army...Thus did scoff at us, as if the English would be a quarter of a year getting ready” (Rowlandson, Twentieth Remove par 4). Douglass’s slave narrative [aside from Garrison’s Preface] presents an entirely different perspective on his “captivity.” Filled with pathos “...a want of information concerning my own [birthdate]” (Douglass 1), he describes his life of subjugation peppered by descriptions [not unlike Rowlandson but never as vivid and grotesque] of extreme cruelty on the part of his masters. Through it he maintains hope, but unlike Rowlandson does not rely on the grace of God but upon his own steely will to survive and one day be free. There is a certain acceptance of his lot early on, as with Rowlandson, who in a manner accepted her lot as God’s will and had faith that he would save her from her cruel condition. Douglass, a realist, knew his freedom would depend on his own willingness to achieve it. He takes his own fate in his hands—learns to read and write. He is even willing to speak of some kind white masters. The work is personal, journalistic and gives the impression that incidents, unlike Rowlandson’s work, are for the most accurate and not overstated for emotional impact. To look at Douglass’s work through the eyes of Romanticism [a category appropriate in many aspects to captivity narratives], that seems hardly appropriate given its “...significant challenge to concepts of Romanticism...and [its] endeavours... to prioritise the slaves rebellions, both literary and actual, upon the emerging autobiographical genre” (Thomas 5). As Garrison suggested to Douglass, the author kept the piece rather journalistically-styled yet deeply revealing and personal. “...she [pseudo mother] left me without the slightest intimation of who my father was. The whisper that my master was...” (Douglass 2). Yet as a literary work—one that satisfies Thomas’s description, “Douglass’s Narrative remains a sort of master text against which others are measured and evaluated... the paradigm for and almost exclusive example of the genre” (Heglar 23). Paul de Man's deconstructive approach [of Romanticism to slave narratives] offered[s] a way of reading that resisted 'authoritarian complacency' or a belief in 'timeless truths' [such as the notion of slavery]. He suggests the inevitable failure of Romanticism's rhetoric of conscious intent and self-representation. (Thomas 82) In Douglass we have a work that in intent succeeds on an autobiographical level, while satisfying Garrison as a usabablepolitical document for forwarding a social cause [abolitionism] through Douglass himself “whose eloquence...brought him into the field of public usefulness” (Garrison, Preface par 2). By charting the translation of literary and polemic expressions of identity into abolitionist/non-conformist rhetoric,[revealed are] disclosures of the slaves' experience of cultural fragmentation and their emergence into the social and linguistic order of the west. “Scarcely a day passed...but that some slave had to take the lash for stealing fruit. The colonel had to resort to all kinds of stratagems to keep his slaves out of the garden” (Douglass Chapter III: 9). The phrase serves two purposes in terms of identity: slaves as children and animals to be owned, as fox or other animals must be keep from stealing the master’s largess. In truth, the statement also reveals an interesting aspect of Douglass’s perception of himself as an apologist for the master. Douglass’s Narrative is a “narrative of transformation, with [his narrative] as its paradigm, begins[ing] in slavery and moves [ing] to freedom and literacy in a linear, chronological sequence” (Heglar 19). Comparing here the work with Rowlandson, that aspect does not exist except in spiritual terms, as she is re-educated through her ordeal to become a better and more perfect spiritual being. Her transformation, so to speak, has little to do with any concrete social advancement. Conclusion Comparing Rolandson and her captivity narrative with Douglass and his slave narrative, certain small consistencies become obvious while for the most we are analyzing two very distinct accounts of captivity. While Rolandson places all of her efforts into the religious realm, probably for the purpose of proselytizing and accruing political favor with England, Douglass’s Narrative journalistic in style obviously challenges authority and the status quo to listen and heed, which is essentially the purpose desired by Garrison. However, for Douglass the narrative was undoubtedly a catharsis subsumed for a political purpose. There is little personal animosity expressed in Douglass’s Narratives as opposed to Rowlandson who never misses a chance to downgrade the savages, who have no redeeming qualities; she seems eager to provide the most gruesome details about her captivity and captors [as non-Christians]. When analyzing Douglass it is surprising that he seems reluctant to do the latter, leaving the reader with at times the desire to know more details regarding the harshness of his situation and perhaps expecting a bit more commentary on their lack of Christian behavior. Douglass, I maintain, did not write the narrative for that purpose, but for the purpose of inspiring Negroes to believe that despite the imperfections of American democracy, a man with will may aspire to his rightful place within a culture. That he allowed the story to be used by Garrison to promote his cause makes perfect sense, however in writing the work I doubt if Douglass had Garrison or the Boston abolitionists specifically in mind. As captive and slave narratives, particularly the two studied, each had its political purpose, but taken separately had drastically different overall goals. Works Cited Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. New York: Dover, 1995. Garrison, William Lloyd. Preface: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Boston: Anti-Slavery Office, May 1, 1845. Accessed November 10, 2010. Helga, Charles J. Rethinking the Slave Narrative: Slave Marriage and the Narratives of Henry Bibb and William and Ellen Craft. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001. Richard Slotkin. Regeneration of Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier 1600 – 1860. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. Rowlandson, Mary. The Narrative of the Captivity and the Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson (1682). Accessed November 11, 2010. Thomas, Helen. Romanticism and Slave Narratives: Transatlantic Testimonies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Read More