Comment on one or more of the reading prompts:
1. What can you interpret from William Apess's use of deictics (you may compare this with the use of pronouns in "The Declaration of Independence")
2. Choose 2-3 rhetorical questions from the text and analyse them in terms of effect.
2. In chapter VIII of Huckleberry Finn, Huck decides to side with Jim even if for that he is accused of being an Abolitionist. How moral or contradictory with the Church of the time do you find that decision, having in mind the "sermon"/speech given by William Apess to his audience?
15 comments:
Questions 2 and 3 - first part of the comment:
William Apess, the earliest major Indian writer of the nineteenth century, focuses on the history of oppression and discrimination towards the Indigenous community in his speech “An Indian’s Looking-Glass for the White Man” (1833). Being of Pequot ancestry and, possibly, the son of a “Negro” woman, he explores the treatment of white people towards non-white, from a religious perspective. Both Apess’ “sermon” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” take place in a Pre-Civil War Era where slavery was still an ongoing practice, as well as the mistreatment of Native Americans.
In Chapter VIII, Huck Finn, who had fled from his abusive father, finds Jim, who had run away from Miss Watson in other to prevent being sold in New Orleans. Huck Finn decides to side with Jim, even if he would be considered an Abolitionist, a position that would be criticized as Missouri was a slave state. However, both of these texts are also set in a time where the discussion over slavery between the northern and southern states was intensifying. Such debates would then lead up to the Civil War (1861-1865). Although Apess first focuses on the “reservations in the different states of New England”, we can argue, also by looking at the “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”, that discrimination and violence towards ethnic minorities was still an ongoing issue in America. Throughout his speech, Apess relies on religious precepts in order to prove his point – that all men are children of God and that people should not be judged based on the color of their skin, but based on their principles and morality (“I am not talking about the skin, but about principles”). He calls out the hypocrisy and unfaithfulness of “those who profess to have pure principles”, as they are accused of not following God’s precepts. He quotes directly from the religious text, in order to give more legitimacy to his arguments (“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”; “By this shall all men know that they are my disciples, if ye have love one to another”). Moreover, throughout his speech, he employs various rhetorical questions, with an accusatory tone, addressed to the “reader”. He wishes to emphasize the wrongs and deprivations made upon the “black or red skins” and the absurdity and immorality of these actions.
We could, then, say that Huck Finns attitude towards Jim’s situation could be considered as rare, especially in the American South. According to Apess discourse, Huck Finn’s attitude would be deemed as moral and according to the real precepts of religion, in contrast to all of the unfaithful and hypocritic religious men who do not truly follow God’s word. Although Huck Finn’s decision to side with Jim might not have been fully selfless, as he was feeling lonesome and appreciated the idea of having some company, we could say that Huckleberry Finn’s attitude represents, to a certain extent, the anti-slavery mentality that was starting to emerge in the minds of many of those who later fought in the Civil War.
- Beatriz Bicudo Cunha
It continues...
The rest of my comment:
I would like to highlight a set of questions that I believe showcase very well the argumentative and persuasive rhetoric of Apess’ speech. Apess says “Let me ask why the men of a different skin are so dispised, why are not they educated and placed in your pulpits? I ask if his services well performed are not as good as if a white man performed them? I ask if a marriage or a funeral ceremony, or the ordinance of the Lord’s house would not be as acceptable in the sight of God as though he was white? And if so, why is it not to you?”. In this paragraph, Apess begins by quoting St. Peters, invoking his authority in order to prove his argument (“I will refer you to St. Peter’s precepts—Acts 10. ‘God is no respecter of persons’”). He then proceeds to ask a number of questions, showcasing the absurdity of the discrimination of whites against non-whites, purely based of skin color. He advocates for the education of non-white men, and how they could perform as well as the white, mentioning common tasks and rituals, that all the readers are familiar with, like a marriage or a funeral. And lastly, he talks directly to us, asking “why is it not to you?”. Here he is pointing directly to the reader, making it impossible for it to run away from his responsibilities and own preconceptions and beliefs. The use of religious authority, common/ familiar examples and the direct reference to the “you”, makes this passage impactful and persuasive, forcing the reader to (re)think about these issues. Moreover, I found interesting the way Apess makes reference to the principles in the “Declaration of Independence”, such as how all men are endowed to unalienable rights, given them by nature and God (“while these very same unfeeling, self-esteemed characters pretend to take the skin as a pretext to keep us from our unalienable and lawful rights?”; “and then depriving the remainder of their lawful rights, that nature and God require them to have?”).
In the last paragraph, Apess finishes by, once more, advocating for the rights of “many poor Indians” and for the end of the prejudices from “every American heart”. As I read this last paragraph and looked back at William Apess speech, a part of me wanted to believe that all that Apess was advocating for - equality of rights for all - had become a reality, but another part of me knew that it was not true, that hatred and prejudice still consume the hearts of many Americans. George Floyd’s assassination and Lakota Nation’s history are only few of many examples that shows us how what many have been claiming for centuries has not yet been achieved. Apess’ “sermon” reminded me of Martin Luther King’s famous speech “I Have a Dream”. Despite the social and historical differences that mark these speeches, I can see similarities in the way both advocated for the rights of non-whites, in how they invoked God’s power and the “Declaration of Independence”, how they spoke to the American people and for the American people and how both had one common dream – a more equal and freer America for all.
- Beatriz Bicudo Cunha
1. In “An Indian's Looking Glass for the White Man,” William Apess uses deictics such as “we,” “you,” and “they” to highlight the moral contradictions of his followers. He uses “we” to appeal to the participatory values of equivalence and Christianity, creating a sense of concinnity. However, “you” shifts responsibility to his white followers, accusing them of insincerity in their treatment of Native Americans. This resembles the pronoun used in the Independence Protest, in which the collaborative “we” (the pioneers) demand freedom while forbidding others to enjoy it. Apess exposes the moral inconsistency in these ideals.
3. In Huckleberry Finn (Chapter VIII), Huck chooses to side with Jim despite social condemnation. This choice is consistent with Apess's warning about Christian insincerity, as Huck rejects the ingrained racism in society, even if that makes him an “abolitionist.” Apess would probably see Huck's decision as innocently correct, differentiating it from the church's conspiracy in ethnic injustice during the period. Huck, like Apess, questions the gap between Christian training and real-world behavior.
3. Huck has an atypical relationship with slavery and the racism of his times. Whilst most people would believe an enslaved person is not worthy of their attention and care, Huck has a different relationship with Jim, contradicting the established prejudice. To understand Huck’s decision as contradictory, we must take in consideration the Christian atmosphere of the Century: God is in the center of everyone’s values, whether they have faith or not, and the weight of Church is over everyone’s shoulders. “Those who profess to have pure principles, and who tell us to follow Jesus Christ” follow His values and scriptures such as “He who loveth God, loveth his brother”; “See that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently” or “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, and no murderer hath eternal life abiding him”, but as Apess says in his speech, they do not follow it entirely.
Although the Christan values move society, this “love” the scriptures preach is not applied, because it excludes enslaved people and people of color. Slavery is, not only permitted, but encouraged, therefore, white people do not recognize enslaved people as people; freedom and love is exclusive to them as individuals while the “others” are just machines. As Apess asks his audience, is the “love” in the scriptures the same that white people profess? (Now if they who teach are not essentially affected with pure love, the love of God, how can they teach as they ought?) Whilst the Lord said to love one another with pure heart, white people not only do not “love” people of color, but they exclude and persecute them, just like Jesus was persecuted. Apess asks the whites if they would like to experience discrimination and “to be disfranchised from all your rights, merely because your skin is white, and for no other crime?” and this question could also be applied to Jesus himself: would these Christian followers persecute Jesus like many others did because he was a Middle East man?
Huck contradicts this when, not only promises Jim to not talk about his escape, but teams up with him to survive in the woods, even admitting he is less lonesome than before (I was ever so glad to see Jim. I warn’t lonesome now). He not only sees him as a human being but as a companion also. I think this shows that when Huck contradicts the prejudice of the society he’s inserted, he is the purest Christian in the novel. Unlike Miss Watson or the Widow, he feels God’s love in a closest way to His word; independently of Jim’s skin color and being an enslaved person, Huck promises to keep Jim’s escape to himself, even if people call him “a low-down Abolitionist”- something terrible to be called back then. Huck, as he rebels against his father prohibiting him to go to school, or the Bible because it is boring, he also rebels against the Christian contradictory norm.
In conclusion, Huck’s decision of keeping Jim’s secret and staying with him, not only challenges the ingrained prejudice of his society but it also shows the true essence of Christian “love” Apess references in his speech. Huck chooses to see Jim as a companion rather than an enslaved person, embodying the principles many profess but fail to practice: loving one another with “pure heart fervently” regardless.
Mª Beatriz Oliveira
The decision of Huck to side with Jim (a slave) when he found him running away from the Widow’s house has moral and contradictory factors according to the power of the Chuch in the time.
First, it was believed that any person who had a different color/race from white should be considered inferior, therefore, subjugated (as Jim). According to the Church, those individuals did not have the right to be as respected and equal. Could one say this was right? Based on the speech given by William Apress, it is considered somewhat contradictory, since he states that the teachings of Jesus in the Bible were completely the opposite of what the religious people were doing to other races (“Did you ever hear or read of Christ teaching his disciples that they ought to despise one because his skin was different from theirs? Jesus Christ being a Jew and those of his apostles certainly were not whites … What then is the matter now is not religion the same now under colored skin as it ever was? If so I would ask why is not a man of color respected; you may say as many say we have white men enough. but was this the spirit of Christ and his apostles? … but we find that Jesus Christ and his apostles never looked at the outward appearances. Jesus in particular looked at the hearts in his apostles through him being discerns of the spirit looked at their fruit without any regard to the skin color or nation.). Therefore, we could say that Huck’s decision was, in fact, moral.
On the other hand, we might say that his decision was contradictory to the church morals and beliefs, because he supported the abolitionist cause, helping Jim on his runaway journey. Therefore, we could say that he was also an abolitionist of slavery, even knowing, at that time, it was a crime to go against the Church. So, we can say that he acted immorally according to the religious rules. In fact, it seems like Finn did not care if he was going against society, he was conscious that what he was doing was the right thing to do. This was also because he was too running away from the society injustice and prejudice (he did not want to be forced by justice to live with his abusive father, or to live with the Widow’s repressive environment). Therefore, he supported Jim because he was also trying to escape from the deturpated morals of the current society (being enslaved for no logic reasons).
With that said it is possible to believe that huck Finn’s decision was somewhat moral, because he's the one who truly behaves according to Jesus’ teachings. Contrary to the Church that, in same way, adulterated the Holy Scripters, affirming that it was moral to differentiate races giving them no equal rights but treating them by their imposed inferiority. Therefore, it could be said that Finn was moral for helping an enslaved escape from the racist religious society.
Ana Beatriz Gonçalves.
2. Apess uses rhetorical questions in order to directly appeal to the readers morals and to press them to question their own ideas as well as the points and connections that he is making. By directly addressing the reader with “you”, Apess creates a connection to the reader and makes his argument more personal, seeking an emotional response. By connecting faith and religion with race and inequality, Apess highlights the paradox and injustice of principle: “I would ask if there cannot be as good feelings and principles under red skin as there can be under white?” A few paragraphs later, he stresses this paradox and call for self-reflection even more directly with the question “I would ask you if you would like to be disfranchised from all your rights, merely because your skin is white, and for no further crime?” By reversing the narrative, Apess encourages the reader to question their own identity and the evaluation of justice. This paradox enforcing oppression and segregation is explored from a religious perspective, and emphasized through the authors use of rhetorical questions: “Or have you the folly to think that the white man, being one in fifteen or sixteen, are the only beloved images of God?”
2. William Apess, throughout his text “An Indian’s Looking-Glass for the White Man”, frequently uses rhetorical questions and, in doing so, achieves different goals.
The questions he asks are personal and make the reader pounder and reflect on their own personal faults: when he asks “Or have you folly to think that the white man, being one in fifteen or sixteen, are the only beloved images of God?”, he is directly targeting the reader’s ego. He asks if the reader does not have “folly” as it is good sense to understand that God’s beloved images don’t only include the white men. Apess invites the audience to reconsider their biases.
The rhetoric questions are also deeply emotional and somewhat uncomfortable. They force the audience to face the dark history of their country. Apess highlights how white people colonized North America by asking if one could charge the “Indians” with the same crime: “I will ask one question more. Can you charge the Indians with robbing a nation almost of their whole Continent, and murdering their women and children, and then depriving the remainder of their lawful rights, that nature and God require them to have?”. This is highly effective as it presents not only the truth about the history of the country, but it also underlines the injustice treatment and innocence of the indigenous people.
Matilde Ribeiro 161233
Huck's stance on slavery (and his treatment of Jim) is extremely fascinating. Huck grew up listening to his abusive father and the way he repudiates everything to do with the abolition of slavery. Later, this also happens with Miss Watson and her lessons.
This is fascinating, because despite the environments in which he lived, Huck treats Jim as an equal, in the same way he would treat Tom Saywer. He even says that he doesn't care if they despise him for doing so, that he won't betray him.
Taking Apess' sermon into consideration, Huck is precisely what he was referring to, human beings having respect and equality.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that Huck's position is contradictory to the teachings of society and the church, which used the word of God to justify slavery.
Maria Costa
3- In Chapter VIII, Huck's decision to side with Jim, despite knowing he could be accused of being an abolitionist, resonates with the themes of justice and equality found in William Apess’s work. Huck, a white kid, is aware that society, and particularly the Church, would view aiding an enslaved person as criminal and very contradictory. Nevertheless, he follows his conscience and sense of right, placing human decency above the racist laws beliefs of his society. His decision, when considered alongside the sermon "An Indian's Looking-Glass for the White Man," written by a Native American preacher and abolitionist, reveals that both are on the same page, despite of that being a contradictory position for the time, Apess’s argument challenges the idea that true Christianity could ever justify racial discrimination and slavery (“I ask if the word of God justifies the white man in so doing.”) The author adresses the hypocrisy of white Christians, who stand for equality and brotherhood while incentivising the oppression of people of color, both Indigenous and African American.
William Apess uses deictics in such a manner to unify the white man and the Indian, by using euphemistic words in his way of addressing both parties. For example coining his (probably) predominantly white audience 'friends' and using familiar terms for Indians like 'red children' rather than the stereotypical description of the Native communities of that time as being savages. Multiple times, Apess describes himself and his audience as 'we', something that we recognise from The Declaration of Independence, as it creates a sense of community. He goes on to address his reader very directly, using words like 'you, reader', with which Apess - after painting an image of community - directly seeks to confront every single one of his readers about their own responsibility and stance on the emancipation of indigenous people. Alongside, he poses rhetorical questions about how his white public, who he has addressed very intimately and directly, would feel if they were to be treated similar to black or indigenous people in America. By doing so, he not only confronts his readers but also tries to make his audience identify with these marginalised groups, potentially bridging the immense sociocultural barrier and aiming to create a sense of community throughout these different social classes.
In “An Indian’s Looking-Glass for the White Man” Apess uses a lot of different deictics, but “we” and “you” seem to be the most interesting for me. These two are usually used as antonyms, as the author distances himself from white people and highlights differences and barriers which were imposed by them. Apess says “we who are red children have had to suffer” and “which skin do you think would have the greatest (national crimes)”. When commenting on the same topic skin colour, the author creates two different poles.
However, in the Biblical excerpts he uses, deicticts have the opposite, reuniting function. In “Let us not love in word but in deed” and “Let your love be without dissimulation” the deictics “us” and “your” are addressed to all the people, of all skin colours.
- Anna Holovina
The first rhetorical question I found very striking can be found pretty much in the beginning of the text. Thus, it already serves as a foundational challenge to the Christian reader, demanding introspection on the contradiction between Christian values and the treatment of indigenous people. The question is the following: “Is it right to hold and promote prejudices?” This has been asked after pointing out that indigenous people have faced so much degradation and that God will judge righteosnessly. By framing the question in such direct and unequivocal terms, Apess creates moral dilemma. The effect is a reality check for Christians who are suppoesed to question their own morality and hypocrisy at the time. While preaching equality and the love of God for every chrisitan, they were exploiting and murdering indigenous people for their own profit and legitimating it with christian faith at the same time. The question is so simply and clear to answer that there is no possibility to affirm it as Apess basically asks whether their prejudices align with their professed faith, which teaches love, equality and justice for all. Thus, the Christian is forced to reflect about his own prejudices and in what way they are promoted and maintained. The effect is disarming since the readers moral failings are already exposed, and thus sets a confrontational tone for the rest of the text.
Post by Elena Kieschke (1st part)
The second question asks whether “[…] religion [is not] the same now under a coloured skin as it ever was ?” Following this question he also says that “if so I would ask why is not a man of color respected”. This brings up a Christian value of respect and again emphasizes that there is not anything else that distinguishes a colored person from a white person in his worth also according to the Christian religion. By bringing up very banal questions that rationally are very easy to answer according to simple moralities, the author gives the reader no other opportunity but to think about why then colored people are not respected in their religion when it actually contradicts their beliefs. And again with only a slim sense of rationality there is no way to argue against the affirmation of the question that in religion.
The last question is “what is all this ado about missionary societies, if it be not to Christianise those who are not Christians?” This makes the questioning of hypocrisy inevitable and works as a critique of Christian missionary efforts and highlights their inconsistency. If the true goal of missionary work is to convert and save non-Christian’s, then all converts would have to be seen as equals before god, regardless of their race. By asking this, Apess exposes hypocrisy of spreading Christianity while denying basic human dignity to converted indigenous people. The effect is to intensify the sense of moral contradiction within the readers worldview, particularly if they view missionary work as noble or righteous.
These questions leave the reader with the question what it actually means to be a good Christian.
Post by Elena Kieschke (conclusion)
1. William Apess uses deictics such as 'you' and 'we' to confront his white Christian audience with their responsibility for the oppression of indigenous peoples. By using ‘you’, Apess directly challenges those who perpetuate injustice, calling them to reflect on their behavior. On the other hand, ‘we’ seeks to unite his audience under shared Christian values, highlighting the equality of all people before God. Finally, in comparison to the Declaration of Independence, which excluded groups such as indigenous and enslaved people, Apess expands ‘we’ to include everyone, criticizing that initial exclusion.
2. First question: "If you can see the natives in the degraded situation in which you have placed them, will you not seek to restore them to the position God planned for all?" - Effect: He appeals to Christian morality, pointing out his audience's responsibility for indigenous suffering. It prompts them to reflect on their obligation to redress it.
Second question: "How can you say you are a Christian and treat others with such injustice?" - Effect: Attacks the hypocrisy of Christians who justify racism. It invites an examination of the contradiction between their professed faith and their actions.
3. In Huckleberry Finn, Huck helps Jim even though he feels he is sinning, as Southern society and the church justified slavery. Huck's decision goes against the morals of the time, but reflects a deep empathy. This aligns with the message of Apess, who condemned the hypocrisy of racist Christians. According to Apess, true Christianity stands for justice and equality, which makes Huck's decision morally right, even if the church of the time would have seen it as a betrayal.
(post by Claudia Roldán)
Post a Comment