Month: September 2019

The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano is a powerful memoir documenting the life of a slave in the mid-eighteenth century. Olaudah Equiano tells the story of his abuses–from his kidnapping and separation from his sister, through the loss of his close friend and abuses of each master. His story is painful to read, even with his almost jovial writing style. The abuses he faces are harrowing, and yet delivered dispassionately as if his experiences were not traumatic and disturbing in the slightest. The way he found the bright side of each situation he was in–feeling close with and unwilling to leave the captain who literally beat him to strip him of his African name and identity, to the point of feeling betrayed when sold; being grateful for the occasional “kindness” from his masters and abusers, who were participating in a system to oppress Olaudah to begin with–challenged my emotions constantly. It leaves me to wonder whether he actually believes that small acts of kindness were all that he was entitled to from his white oppressors as an African man.

Recognizing the context of the time period this work was created within, I can only guess at Olaudah’s intentions without further research into the matter. But it’s not difficult to ascertain that this book was written with the purpose of humanizing black people to an audience of white people. Olaudah’s story had to be told within a framework of white saviorship in order to remain palatable to white readers. Kindness and recognition of slaves as somewhere on the spectrum of “human” was all that was required to not be the villain of Olaudah’s story, a small step given that the enslavement and disenfranchisement of his people and all who still share any semblance of his skin color is entirely due to the direct action and complicity of white people then and today. His story could not be too real, because then it would have been rejected before it could impact the masses. He was unable to be too angry, or else he would be written off as another hyperaggressive (“savage”) black man. And in this way, Olaudah was partially invisible.

But as we learned from our reading on intersectionality, black men were not the only ones made invisible. The traumas experienced by Olaudah were most frequently shared, as it is the stories of black men that were recognized by white people throughout history in comparison to black women. We fail to hear the personal accounts of black women, who were not only objectified as laborers, but also as tools for sexual gratification. And recognition of that reality is what makes accounts like this even harder to read and to attempt to bring to life within our imagination. Those stories are likely too dark for people now (particularly white people) to fully comprehend.

1 Comment

Olaudah Equiano’s retelling of his life’s events is an interest account, not just because of the nature of its contents, but because of the way in which it is written. As I was reading, I was surprised by how unemotional his writing felt. Of course, there were moments when he described to us his feelings of fear and sorrow and other negative emotions, but overall, for an autobiography, it felt very polished and almost manufactured. As a reader of this piece in 2019, I found myself feeling disconcerted at how calmly Equiano comes across, and how easily he gives praise away to the people who enslaved him. In today’s society, I think it’s very commonplace for people to worry over themselves and their situation and then possibly tack on “well, it could be worse,” but in the case of Equiano, who saw horrible things very frequently, he definitely focuses on that “it could be worse” mentality. He accepts his position in life because he knows first hand that his life could be far worse off. Towards the end of his writing, he does talk about his excitement at finally being free, and to me it almost feels like it’s a freedom from that “it could be worse” mentality. After receiving his freedom, he can safely say, “it was worse.”

The part of Murray’s work which really spoke to me was, “Are we deficient in reason? We can only reason from what know, and if an opportunity of acquiring knowledge hath been denied us, the inferiority of our sex cannot fairly be deduced from thence.” This speaks to me, because I think it’s so relevant today. Not specifically about a disparity between men and women, but because of the way we talk about “equality” in America. People like to think that everyone in America is equal because they can, theoretically, do whatever they want, just like everyone else and that, therefore, makes them equal. However, in our country there is a lack of equal opportunity, which does not allow people to behave in equal ways with others. People say that if poor people want to have money and food and shelter, they should get a job and work harder. But those same people may have been born into a neighborhood which has a poor education system. So they were unable to go to college and receive the education necessary for a better paying job. I just think that Murray really touches on something very key. People do not control their circumstances. Her point is that it’s not women’s fault that they were born women and therefore weren’t educated in the same way their male peers were. Their lack of knowledge or understanding does not come inherently, it’s a lack of access to the resources used to acquire those skills. I believe we have similar issues today.

2 Comments

Upon reading excerpts from The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, I couldn’t help but think about how the identity of the author, and how the author identifies themselves, affects the context of whatever work of culture that they bring into the world. Equiano didn’t define himself as African American nor Anglo American, despite spending significant parts of his life in both England and what would be the United States. Instead, he identified himself simply as “the African,” bringing about a new meaning to his narrative and affecting the ways in which it is interpreted today.

In the short biography on Equiano before the chapters, the author brought up The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, another harrowing autobiography written by a freed slave, exposing the atrocities that were bring committed against African Americans as a result of slavery. Last semester, I read The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass for my statesmanship class in Jepson. As I was reading the chapters from The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, I immediately noticed similarities in the horrors that both men endured as slaves, making both works truly eye opening and sobering. Why is it then, that The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass is still one of the most renowned works of American literature, and Frederick Douglass himself has been immortalized into one of the most important figures in American history? Timing is important to consider here, as Equiano’s autobiography was published much earlier than Douglass’ narrative. Douglass’ campaign for abolition in conjunction with the Civil War made his message much more difficult to ignore.

I also think that it is important to consider identity, though. Douglass undoubtedly an American statesman, and the rhetoric that he used in his autobiography and his speeches was important in his lifelong fight against the institution of slavery. Equiano, however, just identified himself as “the African,” which I think significantly alters the way in which his work is read and understood in today’s context. Identity is an incredibly important factor when talking about a work of cultural resistance.

2 Comments

Isaac butler’s article titled, “Did Richard II Provoke an Elizabeth Rebellion,” discusses the possibility of its’ use as propaganda as the ruling monarch at the time, Elizabeth wasn’t performing well and many of the people thought her illegitimate and wrong for the throne. The play Richard II depicted Richard with close similarities to Elizabeth such as their common over-priced/ failed wars in Ireland as well as their lack of legitimacy, and effeminate characteristics. There are questions of the correlation between Richard II and the Earl of Essex’s rebellion against Queen Elizabeth. It has been thoroughly researched and hypothesized that the Earl of Essex’s men watched Richard II the day before overthrowing Elizabeth as a sort of justification enhancement of their planned usurping. Solidifying the Earl of Essex’s reasons to fight, Richard II was the perfect antidotal play in explaining why Elizabeth’s power wasn’t legitimate and the Earl’s would be.

The play follows the downfall of Richard II as Henry IV rebelled through the years, building allies and creating legitimacy. The play seems to signify a political historical cycle in which the people of England were supposed to relate to their existing situation and do something about. As Henry IV was successful in his usurpation, the people of England would assumingely gain the same confidence the Earl and his men had by watching Richard II. They would believe what they were doing was right and with the knowledge that it is possible.  

The historical cycles which Shakespeare alludes to raises tons of questions. Was Henry good or bad? Did Richard deserve to be usurped and if he did was Henry acquiring the crown in a legitimate way? In a similar fashion, Shakespeare’s political commentary can be applied throughout time as the political cycles continue. As the play ‘Richard II’ was considered pop culture, it was a way to relay a message to every common person. As common folk didn’t read or write, plays were the ultimate way of spreading propaganda. Communicating such feelings to the common people is crucial in order to assemble some kind of political movement. 

Today, with Trump as our president, America is in an extremely two sided political world. Is his power legitimate? There are solid grounds for both yes and no but is either side right?  Similarly to Richard II, the common folk are made aware of the ‘behind the scenes’ in the political world which very many long term processes and strategies have to be applied in order to obtain ultimate ‘legitimate’ power. Resemblances of current president Trump to such leaders as Hitler are scary, especially as we find that political history is cyclical. What is even scarier is the fact that once any leader, especially monarchs or presidents are very hard to impeach because of their tentacles of influence, whether legitimate or illegitimate. So how do we discuss legitimacy seems to be the question. In a world of media, there is not much left out of the public eye. So how far can certain groups go, holding convictions of legitimacy with so many examples of illegitimate acts. It seems that with political historical evidence that this might not matter as the current ruling leader usually has influence reaching to every political realm preventing any justified rebellion.

1 Comment

Isaac Butler’s “Did Richard II Provoke an Elizabethan Rebellion?” examines the influence of Shakespeare’s Richard II on the second Earl of Essex and his men. The day before the Essex’s rebellion against Queen Elizabeth, some of the Essex’s men organized and paid for a performance of a play. Most likely, the play was Shakespeare’s Richard II which recounts the “usurpation and murder of an unpopular ruler” (Butler, 2018). In addition to a fee for service, Essex’s men provided the actors with additional compensation. Despite the fact that Butler postulates this extra money accounts for the play’s unpopularity, this act demonstrates the men’s support of the play’s central message. Furthermore, the gratuity given to the actors highlights the relationship between money and leadership. Money influences individuals, and leaders can use this to their advantage. Although the men’s decision to commission the play was not corrupt, Richard II arguably contains ideas that fueled their rebellion against Queen Elizabeth. In this scenario, monetary reward served as a tool of affirmation.

This discussion parallels the controversy surrounding donations to political campaigns by CEOs’ of corporate America. Specifically, a CEO’s financial support to a political candidate and subsequently their platform. Most recently, the chairman of the parent company that owns both Equinox and SoulCycle, Stephen Ross, hosted a fundraiser for President Trump. Subsequently, both companies received tremendous backlash from their consumers who interpreted Ross’ act as affirmation of these companies of President Trump’s politics. This recent situation suggests that the relationship between leadership and money remains complex.

3 Comments

In Issac Butler’s article entitled,“Did Richard II Provoke an Elizabeth Rebellion,” Butler discusses the implications stemming from Shakespeare’s play, Richard II, and their effects on the second Earl of Essex’s rebellion against Queen Elizabeth in 1601. The day prior to Essex’s attempted rebellion against the queen, his men had paid to present and attend a showing of Shakespeare’s play Richard II. Richard II tells the story of Henry IV’s rebellion against King Richard II, who was a corrupt and unfavorable king, and how Henry managed to take over the throne for the betterment of the nation. Some argued, including the crown, that this act of attending this particular play was meant to signal to the nation of England that corrupt leaders, whose actions paralleled the actions of their current queen, were successfully overthrown in the past and that they should support Essex’s efforts to do it again. 

This kind of propaganda that Butler discusses is enacted in the form of a comparison between Queen Elizabeth and a formerly disliked leader. This kind of comparison of a present day leader to a previously disliked leader in history is something that still occurs today. Comparing a leader to a widely disliked historical figure is an effective way to prove a point of why a present day leader is “bad.” During the 2016 election of Donald Trump, comparisons between historical leaders, tyrants, and dictators and Trump were frequently made in the media. Articles illustrated parallels between Donald Trump and Hitler, Stalin, and other unethical and disliked public figures throughout history. If an article proves a few strong points of comparison between Trump and Hitler, for example, then the only conclusion that can follow, given one accepts this premise that these two are in fact very similar, is that Trump is just as terrible of a leader as Adolf Hitler.

Although some of these comparisons may seem far-fetched and some people may not accept the comparisons made, resulting in additional rejections of the conclusions made, this can be an effective method to rally support against a leader. Having seen these kinds of articles during the election myself, I know personally that I was shocked by the comparison points demonstrated in these kinds of articles, and I was fearful of what this could mean for our country. This shock and fear left with the readers of these articles may resonate with them when thinking of President Donald Trump thereafter; therefore, it is a strong form of propaganda to employ. The Earl of Essex’s method of using it continues on throughout present day, and maybe one day a future leader will be compared to President Trump in a similar fashion.

4 Comments

Clearly, Shakespeare had a deep knowledge of historical and pop-culture events that allowed him to write in-depth and thought-provoking plays during his time. One of these was Richard II, a historical play about Richard II (clever title, right?). What is unique about this play is that it seems to be relevant during all time periods. There is always the problem of establishing legitimacy for leaders, and there will always be dissatisfied a dissatisfied public (at least partially). 

I immediately noticed a connection between the content in Richard II and the 2016 presidential election. In both, there is a power grab from an outside individual, whether that by Henry, who was not initially in a position to grab power, or Donald Trump, who had no previous experience in politics. Both leaders were viewed as a solution to problems that fell under both of their previous leaders, and both found legal ways to become a formal leader, despite possible opposition from the public. It is true that legitimacy and popularity are tightly connected since both mentioned leaders became large debating points. Trump’s ability to win the presidential election, despite losing the popular vote is a partial reason why his legitimacy may be questioned. One of the main differences between the leader-follower relationship in Richard II and America today is that it is much more difficult now to overthrow a leader. Legally, Trump is a legitimate leader, but if he begins to lose popularity, then there is the option to elect another more popular leader.

This relationship between legitimacy and popularity has another recent example with the election of George W. Bush. Like Trump, Bush also lost the popular vote but was still able to win the electoral college. Over time, like most presidents, Bush’s popularity declined, but he was able to improve his popularity with the start of a “war” – the War on Terror. There is a clear connection between this and Henry’s grab for power. When Henry’s legitimacy was questioned, he started a war as well. This constant connection between popularity and legitimacy gives rise to leadership practices that might not be in the best interest of the public. History seems to be a constant cycle between ruler and usurper as the legitimacy of leaders ebb and flow with time. This poses the interesting question of leader emergence vs effectiveness and their relationship, but that might be for another class.

2 Comments