- The Declaration of Independence
- William Apess, "An Indian's Looking Glass for the White Man"
- H. D. Thoreau, "Resistance to Civil Government"
Tuesday 25 October 2016
HW for October 31: Frederick Douglass, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" and rhetoric intertextuality
Find and comment examples of rhetorical or structural intertextuality with either of these texts:
- The Declaration of Independence
- William Apess, "An Indian's Looking Glass for the White Man"
- H. D. Thoreau, "Resistance to Civil Government"
- The Declaration of Independence
- William Apess, "An Indian's Looking Glass for the White Man"
- H. D. Thoreau, "Resistance to Civil Government"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
There are many similarities between Douglass speech and An Indian’s Looking glass for the white man, for instance they both quote The Declaration of Independence, they both give examples of models that Americans should follow, they both denounce injustice, they both give details of that injustice, they both intend to change their audience’s or reader’s mind and they both intend to inspire their audience and reader to take action. However, differences are more important and Douglass’s commitment to his cause is more profound.
The Apess reader never feels uneasy, Apess invites him to see through his eyes or even identifies himself to the reader, so there’s no real confrontation. Douglass confronts the listener, he repeats that he is not like the listeners: “I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! “, “The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me”, “This Fourth of July is yours, not mine” and he accuses Americans: “Your broad republican domain is hunting ground for men. (…) Your President, your Secretary of State, our lords, nobles, and ecclesiastics, enforce, as a duty you owe to your free and glorious country, and to your God, that you do this accursed thing.” and church: “(…)church regards religion simply as a form of worship, an empty ceremony”.
At the beginning, Douglass takes a long time expressing his humility: “distrust of my ability”, “my limited powers of speech”, “I have to say I evince no elaborate preparation”, and then, after showing his great knowledge of America’s History, he says “Many of you understand them better than I do. You could instruct me in regard to them.” Maybe he is following the advice mention in his biography (to prevent his audience to doubt that he was a slave) or maybe to mark the distance between him and them. Apess doesn’t do this. He needs the reader to identify with him.
From the sentence “This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July” to the sentence “My business, if I have any here to-day, is with the present”, he builds up a tension. The word “slavery” appears only once in 19 paragraphs. This is one of the factors that contribute to this increase of tension. But there are others: “There is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon.”, “This home government(…) impose upon its colonial children, such restraints, burdens and limitations”, “Oppression makes a wise man mad”, “The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary”(he uses you), “Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.”, “With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men.” The tension becomes almost intolerable. In Apess’s text the reader knows from the beginning what is the theme and he addresses it from the beginning.
After reading this speech, the doubts emerge: The speech was prepared but is the brutal confrontation a rhetorical strategy? Does it help his cause? Should it be analyzed like a literary work? Is that analysis important? Should we ignore SLAVERY to focus on the literary analysis? The theme is brutal so a brutal speech is accepted. In this case, the text doesn’t say everything, it is not enough. It would be important to be there, listening to the speech, to see his audience, to hear the celebration noises from outside, to be living that reality, to watch him. Only then an opinion about his speech (and not so much an analysis) would be possible. In my opinion, when the theme is slavery, the chosen words and tone can be whatever the speaker choses, whenever he chooses to speak.
O discurso de Frederick Douglass tira especial proveito dos deíticos, tal como a "Declaration of the Representatives". Enquanto que no documento setecentista os pronomes pessoais são utilizados não só para não hostilizar aliados britânicos dos Estados Unidos como também para enfatizar a luta entre o colectivo e um único déspota, em "What to the slave is the fourth of july?" Douglass utiliza-os para dar a entender antecipadamente, ao leitor com um olho atento, a tese do seu discurso: ao escolher a 2ª pessoa do plural "you" em vez da 1ª pessoa do plural "we", o autor está a sublinhar a diferença que existe entre os Americanos brancos e negros em termos civis, diferença esta que faz com que os Estados Unidos seja "your nation" e "your home" (pag.1819), o povo americano seja "your sovereign people" (pag. 1819), e os "founding fathers" sejam "your fathers" (pag.1819 e 1820). Douglass vai então, ao longo do seu discurso, explicar como o povo negro, sofrendo ainda os horrores da escravidão, não sente que os Estados Unidos sejam o seu país, nem que o 4 de Julho seja uma data que lhes diga respeito, uma vez que eles não desfrutam de qualquer espécie de liberdade ou independência.
Relativamente à intertextualidade com o texto de William Apess, é possível concluir que ambos, sendo membros de uma minoria racial que ascenderam para além da sua origem social, apropriam o discurso e argumentos de autoridade do homem branco. Tanto Apess como Douglass utilizam argumentos bíblicos: Apess, com citações bíblicas, e Douglass com a incorporação de parábolas bíblicas no texto (" But, with that blindness which seems to be the unvarying characteristic of tyrants, since Pharoah and his hosts were drowned in the Red Sea, the British Government persisted in the exactions complained of.", pag. 1820; "It was fashionable, hundreds of years ago, for the children of Jacob to boast...", pag.1823). Para além de parábolas bíblicas, existem também parábolas de natureza não-biblíca. Douglass vai ainda um passo mais longe, evidenciando a opinião de figuras lendárias como George Washington e Thomas Jefferson acerca da escravatura: "Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves." (pag.1823); "in a bondage which, according to your own Thomas Jefferson, 'is worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose'" (pag. 1833). Douglass está a tirar proveito da admiração que os Americanos brancos sentem em relação a estes "heróis Americanos" para os confrontar com a incoerência das suas crenças. Este argumento é especialmente relevante num discurso acerca do 4 de Julho, tendo em conta a ligação histórica destas figuras a este evento, e à guerra pela independência no geral.
Quanto ao texto "Resistance to Civil Government" de Thoreau, pode-se dizer que ambos os textos tratam a resistência ou insurreição contra a opressão estatal, estando presente a ideia de um governo que "imposes" algo aos seus cidadãos, assim como a denúncia da opressão. Existe também, em ambos, um ode à liberdade individual - "Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? (...) Is that a question for Republicans?" (pag.1826).
The first similarity between this text and the “Declaration of Independence” and William Apess "An Indian's Looking Glass for the White Man" is the use of pronouns and the address to the reader/listener/audience. He begins with a more rhetorical speech, in a calm way, speaking of the celebration of the USA independency and how young it is.
A main device is used in this part - he often separates himself (and his kind from slaves to everyone who does not have access to their rights or are treated in a bad way just because they don’t correspond to certain characteristics) from American people. He goes back and forth between “Fellow citizens” to “your” (your fathers, your nation, your celebration, your minds). “This Fourth (of) July is yours, not mine.” Fellow citizens is used 14 times throughout the whole text. The pronoun “you” is used constantly not only to separate but also to address to whom the responsibilities correspond to. “I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary!”
The main intertextuality with “Resistance to Civil Government” is the straight accusations and explicit answers. In this text Frederick Fourglass doesn’t let the rhetorical questions remaining there to be understood, he proceeds with answering with full explications. “What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? (…) The manhood of the slave is conceded.”
Although he has suffered the horrors of slavery and prejudice, he starts de section of The Present with “My business, if I have any here to-day, is with the present.”, showing that he is only interested in ending what continues to exist.
Another intertextuality between Apess text is the confrontation with their own actions and contradictions, even using examples from documents such as the Declaration of Independecy. “But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States (…).”
The streghnt in Fourglass speech is shown in every word he uses and courage to point what is wrong “What to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is constantly victim.”
There are many similarities between William Apess's "An Indian's Looking-Glass for the White Man" and Frederick Douglass's "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July", so a comparison between the two can easily be made.
Both of these texts were written by men of colour, who aimed to show white people their hypocrisy. In doing this, they use arguments that are connected to white people's ideology or religion. This gives strength to their arguments, because white people, in order to counter argue, would have to contradict themselves.
When appropriating the white man's rhetoric, Apess focuses primarily on Christianity, arguing that, while white people claim to follow a religion that says you should love your neighbour, they do not do this. Douglass, in his speech, appropriates the white man's rhetoric, not through religious arguments, but rather through the origins of the United States of America as an independent nation. Douglass accuses white Americans of profiting of off their founding fathers' legacy, without recognising that this legacy is based, not on submission, but on rebellion.
Apess says that those who profess religion would, however, be quick to shut their doors to Jesus Christ, due to him not being white. Similarly, Douglass accuses white Americans of considering abolitionists dangerous men and forgetting that the founding fathers of America, that they glorify, were, in their time, considered dangerous and rebellious too.
While Apess mentions and quotes the Bible several times throughout his text, basing many of his arguments on this book. Douglass, instead, uses the Constitution, another text that is fundamental to the American ideology, as a basis for some of his arguments.
Both of these texts use pronouns to establish a separation between white Americans and people of colour. This is a very significant aspect of the text, considering the main intention of both these texts is to denounce white people's discrimination of people of colour. In fact, it would not make sense for them to include themselves in the America that preaches freedom when they are actively excluded from this freedom.
In spite of accusing white people of being indolent and hypocritical, both Douglass and a Apess have hope in a better future.
The first aspect that theses three essays have in common is the topic about Slavery, even though each one of them has a different way to describe it, and also propose different methods to end with it.
If one reads the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson, one will realize that not only America had a extremely contradictory position towards slavery but it also had a tendency to fail to mention this topic in official documents such as the Declaration. The first notion we have in the essay is:" That all men are created equal; that they re endowed by their CREATOR [inherent and] inalienable rights;" (page 1158). In this case, Jefferson's perspective on slavery was, of course, not personal since he himself was not a slave whereas in An Indian's Looking-Glass for the White Man, by William Apess expressed the point of view a former slave.
William Apess expressed the truth behind the cruel actions of the American, and also refers the fact that since the Americans are the minority, why should they(the slaves) have to be treated poorly, and he also expresses his thoughts on religion, since the bible believed that everyone was sons and daughters of God, and therefore should be treated as equals, but that was not the case, something that the Declaration also mentions.
In the case of the Resistance to Civil Government, Thoreau really puts to light the fact that even thought there are people against slavery, they don't have the courage nor the will to don something in order to change the current situation. He will explain that it is possible to don something and he incites those people to make a revolution together, since that is the only way they can make themselves heard.
In What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?, by Frederick Douglass, as in Apess' essay we have an particular expression to "speak" to the reader in Douglass' case being: " Mr. President, Friends and Fellow Citizens", giving the idea he considered himself as a citizen and not a slave; the same technique can be found in Apess' essay:"(...) to place a few things before my fellow creatures(...)" ( page 1868).As it also seems, both of their essay show a certain hope for a brighter future, even thought Apess describes the effects of slavery mainly from the point the perspective of the consequences on the majority and seldom by his own, Douglass right from the beginning refers his experience as a task that had not been by no means easy.
Reading the text, what I find strinking is the use of "I". It is repeated throughout the text, but in the first paragraphs it seems like a device to establisha sort of distance between who's talking - the I, the good man - and the audience that has to realize the bad things done by "their fathers". It reminds me the distance Apess tries to establish when he calls the audience "White men".
Another similarity is the use of questions, even if Douglass' text isn't built on a series of question though the device of the anaphora - as Apess, instead, did.
O discurso proferido por Frederick Douglass, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July” e a Declaração da Independência dos Estados Unidos têm vários aspetos em comum.
Em primeiro lugar, ambos visam a emancipação de um grupo do seu opressor. Ao declarar-se independentes, os americanos procuraram libertar-se da submissão ao que considera ser a lei injusta do rei inglês, “A prince who character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant in unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Da mesma forma, Douglass pretende a abolição da escravatura, aproximando a situação dos escravos à dos colonos americanos que lutaram pela sua independência. Para Douglass, a escravatura é tão, senão mais, opressora e violenta como a tirania de Inglaterra. Falando nos pais fundadores, Douglass diz que “With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final”; not slavery and oppression”.
Outro aspeto que aproxima os dois textos é a utilização dos deíticos para demarcar a distância entre um lado e o outro. Na Declaração da Independência, utilizam-se os determinantes e pronomes “their”, “them”, “he”, em oposição a “us”, “our”, “we”, para caracterizar os ingleses e os americanos, com vista à criação de uma identidade nacional que separa os americanos dos seus antigos conterrâneos ingleses. Da mesma forma, Douglass faz questão de vincar a diferença entre ele e os que o ouvem ao referir-se a “your fathers”, “your nation”, “your political freedom”, chegando mesmo a afirmar “This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine”. A esta afirmação segue-se uma lista de antíteses entre o “you” e o “I”, que vai em certa medida ao encontro da enumeração de crimes do rei inglês presente na Declaração da Independência, todos começando com “he”.
Porém, a Declaração da Independência não é o único texto com o qual é possível fazer uma comparação. Existem aspetos em comum com o texto de Apess, “An Indian’s Looking-Glass for the White Man”, que levanta a questão da discriminação com base na cor da pele, procurando sensibilizar o seu público para o sofrimento dos nativos americanos. Uma aspeto em comum até entre os três textos é a demarcação da distância entre quem fala e o seu público através dos deíticos, pois Apess também distingue entre “they” e “we”. Outro traço que Apess e Douglass partilham é a invocação do seu público diretamente: Apess utiliza as expressões “friends”, “reader”, “white man”, ao passo que Douglass exclama “Americans!” e repete várias vezes a colocação “Fellow-citizens!”. Existe ainda outro aspeto que me parece pertinente, que é a denúncia da inconsistência dos argumentos utilizados pelo poder para continuar na injustiça. Para Apess, a questão surge no contexto dos casamentos inter-raciais, proibidos. Refere que os índios devem ter tanto direito a escolher a mulher com quem casam como os brancos, que até escolhem mulheres índias em muitos casos. Assim, remata a ideia dizendo “I would ask you if you see any thing inconsistent in your conduct and talk about the Indians? And if you do, I hope you will try to become more consistent”. Douglass, depois de afirmar “Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent”, faz uma longa lista de comportamentos antitéticos que demonstram a inconsistência dos americanos em relação aos seus valores, como ficar chocados com a tirania da Rússia e da Áustria, ao invadirem a Hungria, mas aceitarem a tirania do estado da Virginia e do estado da Carolina; ou o facto de aceitarem de braços abertos fugitivos de outros países, quando ao mesmo tempo perseguem barbaramente os escravos fugitivos. Um último aspeto que aproxima estes dois textos é o facto de ambos, até certo ponto, utilizarem os argumentos dos opressores contra eles. Apess fá-lo, por exemplo, ao pegar no estereótipo do índio engenhoso no sentido negativo e torná-lo positivo, falando nos seus talentos. Douglass fá-lo pegando no exemplo dos fundadores, que não aceitaram a opressão e lutaram para se libertar dela, mesmo sendo considerados rebeldes e criminosos, tal como os escravos o são nesta altura.
Considering of those two different texts which are William Apess's "An Indian's Looking-Glass for the White Man" and Frederick Douglass's "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" they have many similarities. First of all when we read these texts we can easily see the way of addressing to the readers. In “An Indian’s Looking-Glass for the White Man Apess addresses the audiences in very calm way and he says the audience “Fellow creatures” like “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July”. In this text, Douglass begins his speech by addressing "Mr. President, Friends and Fellow Citizens." Also, the purpose of those two texts is same. Apess and Douglas advocated equal justice and rights, as well as citizenship, for blacks. The fundamental reason of Douglas’ text discourse is not to give acclaim and on account of these men, because he says that the deeds of those nationalists are well-known. Rather, he asks his audience members to proceed with the work of those extraordinary progressives who conveyed opportunity and majority rule government to this land. Douglass then asks rhetorical question: "Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?" He carries forward his thesis: "This Fourth July is yours, not mine". In fact, he says, to request that black man greet the white man's freedom from mistreatment and oppression is "brutal joke and blasphemous incongruity.” Douglass believes that future generations will presumably consider his anti-slavery just, and reasonable. Douglass also praises and respects the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In Apess’ text, Apess tries to enroll, his white people in the Indian cause without implicating them. With comparative object this text is the foundation of a pronoun-pattern. "We" are the Indians; "you" are the audience; and "they" are the racist. The "you's" are situated between the "we's" and the "they's," individuals from neither camp, yet urged to adjust to the "we's" against their color. Douglass argues that the church is "superlatively guilty" superlative, meaning even guiltier because it is an institution which has the power to eradicate slavery by condemning it. In contrast, Apess highlights the importance of following Christianity in his text. He believes that white people had better follow the Christianity in order to reach the truth. You should love your neighbour if you love your neighbour, you love yourself and you do not discriminate people according to their color. Apess sometimes uses the reference of Bible. The Christian church which permits such a king of this law which is The Fugitive Slave Law to stay basically, Douglass says, is not so much a Christian church. Douglass closes on an idealistic note. He trusts that anti-slavery sentiment will in the long run triumph over master subjugation strengths. Douglass closes his essay with a poem by Garrison entitled "The Triumph of Freedom," stressing the inevitable arrival of freedom and the abolitionist's promise to fight slavery "whate'er the peril or the cost."
KANSU EKİN TANCA
In the texts, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth July” and “An Indian’s Looking-Glass for the White Man” the use of rhetorical questions are dominant. These rhetorical questions are getting much more direct and harsh as the texts proceed. Apess combines his insistent questions with the word “now”, and deliberately develops his ideas in every following sentence (p.1869). On the other hand, in “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July”, Douglass repeats the word “must” in his questions, but his use of anaphora is less visible than Apess.
Whereas Apess clarifies his subject and makes his outline in the beginning, Douglass directly refers to his subject towards the middle of his argument where he explicitly says “My subject, fellow citizens, is American Slavery” (p.1825) Since they are both intended to be read in front of an audience, they are addressing a particular group of people. Like Apess, Douglass also refers to his audience as “fellow” citizens and uses “ladies and gentlemen” which can also be seen in “An Indian’s Looking-Glass for the White Man.” Not less importantly, both Apess and Douglass are relying on their own experiences, and thus differentiating themselves from the white population. However, Douglass includes more of his own biography in his speech than Apess does. In addition to this, Douglass also draws attention to the details and sometimes gives specific names while he is discussing.
Both Apess and Douglass are creating metaphors derived from the word “black.” For example, while Apess talks about “the black consistency” he comments that it “is ten times blacker than any skin.” (p.1869). In a similar way, after he mentions his subject, Douglass says “this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July” (p. 1829).
Apess points out Christianity, and puts emphasis on the fact that the Indians also belong to the “Christian society” (p.1871). He quotes from Bible and his main arguments are based on their unity in belonging the same religion. Douglass, while addressing to the “young nation” adds quotations from the “Declaration of Independence” and makes his arguments hugely relying on this document (p.1821). However, like Apess, he also draws attention to Christianity. While he is defining the “negro race”, for instance, he also adds his definition that they worship “the Christian’s God” as well.
While analysing the texts, we can also find some structural similarities. Since “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July” is longer than Apess’s text, Douglass has divided the text into different parts according to their subject matter. Although Apess’s text does not consist of separate parts, they both follow a logical order created by the writer. The flow of the arguments thus appears in an organised manner, and eventually makes a greater effect in the minds of the readers.
The text "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" (Frederick Douglass) presents arguments against black slavery. The text "An Indian's Looking-Glass for the White Man" (William Apess) presents arguments against American Indian slavery. Both texts, by condemning slavery, use similar arguments.
By far, however, the most well-noted similarity is the usage of biblical arguments. In fact, "An Indian's Looking-Glass for the White Man" rests mostly on biblical passages to argue absolutely against slavery. Most are passages that talk about love: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"; "By this shall all men know that they are my disciples, if ye have love to one another"; "If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar." Apess makes it clear that slavery is incompatible with love; they are mutually exclusive, because slavery implies such harsh mistreatment that it cannot be said that a master loves his slave. But Apess goes on to passages condemning any form of discrimination: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free — but Christ is all and in all"; "God is no respecter of persons." The Bible is a strong basis in Apess's defence of abolitionism.
The same basis is used by Douglass, although to a lesser extent (since he also goes to pick arguments from, for instance, the Constitution). But he quotes a passage which says that the "pure and undefiled religion" is "first pure, the peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." This is incompatible with discrimination and slavery.
Finally, another common basis is logic. Douglass uses logic when he says: "What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue?" (p. 1825). He then proceeds to detail aspects which should be self-evident: "Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man?"; "Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty?"; and so on.
Similar forms of logic and rhetoric are used by Apess, although with slightly different arguments: "I would ask you if you would like to be disenfranchised from all your rights, merely because your skin is white, and for no other crime? I'll venture to say, these very characters who hold the skin to be such a barrier in the way, would be the first to cry out, injustice! awful injustice!"; "If black or red skins, or any other skin of colour is disgraceful to God, it appears that he has disgraced himself a great deal — for he has made fifteen coloured people to one white, and placed them here upon this earth."
In conclusion, we can find structural intertextuality here in two aspects: the Bible as a basis against slavery and logic as a basis against slavery.
Douglass is a brilliant orator. In his plain and raw manner, he exposes the hypocrite, foul, white, powerful, free man.
He starts by praising the fight and strong mindset of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Stating that these men were brave, bold and fierceless in their resolution to be free of opression and tiranny. This first part of the speech is filled with irony and the word "your" or "you", because the present gained by the acts of these men is only given to white men, to Douglass' audience. In one paragraph, the orator shouts for his fellow-citizens and calls upon them to see how wrong they are: "Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent." Throughout this paragraph, on page 1833, Douglass compares what the Americans do and say that is proper and gives an idea that they are defendig liberty, but in fact, when all those things are set aside with everything they allow in their own country it means nothing! The paragraph ends with the famous quote in the Declaration of Independence: "That all men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain inaliable rights; and that, among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Douglass denounces this hipocrisy and stupidity. How can you defend such ideas and support slavery?
One of Douglass main targets is the Church and Christianity. William Apess writes about the fact that idians are ignored, killed and arrested, sold and disregarded as things, just like Douglass presents the Black are too. Apess is, in fact, a northern minister who never seizes to defend and to support anti-slavery and anti-racism laws and policies. Both of these writers use, quote and paraphrase the Bible. Being the biggest corner stone in america society, the Church and the Bible had a great influence. Both these writers excell in utilizing psamls, prophets and the Gospels to show and illustrate just how wrong everything that is happening in the US is wrong. The idea that the Church supports and invites the slave-traders, and that does not support the Indians, shocks the writers and lead them do denounce the idea of an unfair church and of hypocrites ministers.
Douglass has this idea of using the Declaration of Independence in the 4th of July agaisnt the Americans, in order to show them the repugnant idea and situation that they are alowing in their country. The intertextuality between "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" and "An Indian's Looking Glass for the White Men" is obvious: both defend and argue the liberty and rights to their own race.
Post a Comment