Equiano and Rowlandson: Captivity Narratives

            Equiano's writing reminded me in many ways of Mary Rowlandson's captivity narrative.  Not only is the subject matter pretty much the same, but they also write with the same style.  Some of the main characteristics of their writing style are that their works are both mainly descriptive and they talk about the facts without relying a lot on emotion.  Their own emotions can be seen throughout their works, but what makes their writing so powerful is not their own emotions, but the emotions that their vivid imagery and detailed descriptions evoke in the reader.  The almost dispassionate tone that they use only strengthens the reader's own reaction to the horrors that they describe.

 

           

          One example of this is shown in Equiano's description of the slave ship that he was on, where he talks about the horrible conditions that the slaves were kept in, saying that "[t]he stench of the hold while we were on the coast was so intolerably loathsome that it was dangerous to remain there for any time . . . [t]he closeness of the place and the heat of the climate, added to the number in the ship, which was so crowded that each had scarcely room to turn himself, almost suffocated us" (pg 394).  However, instead of focusing on his own horror at seeing this, he distances himself from the situation and merely describes it in a way that allows the readers to feel the horror of it for themselves.

          Rowlandson also uses this same style to narrate her own experiences in captivity.  When she talks about the attack of the Indians, she doesn't even mention her own reaction, but instead describes the attack in great detail and leaves the emotional response up to her readers.  She states everything very calmly, like when she describes how "[a]nother their was who running along was shot and wounded, and fell down; he begged of them his life, promising them Money (as they told me) but they would not hearken to him but knockt him in head, and stript him naked, and split open his Bowels" (pg 119).  

          Instead of detracting from their works, the straightforward and dispassionate way in which Rowlandson and Equiano relate their experiences actually increases the emotional impact of their stories, and that is because the details and imagery that they used in their narratives were specifically meant to create an emotional response in their reader.

                       

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature.
      12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston. McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

Red Jacket and Tecumseh

 

            For me, one of the most interesting similarities between Red Jacket and Tecumseh's speeches was that they both focused on the fact that white men were not the original inhabitants of America.  They gave their speeches for different reasons - Red Jacket protesting the introduction of Christianity and Tecumseh arguing for war against the "white people" - but they both support their argument by pointing out that this land was originally theirs.

            They both give a narrative of the Americans (relatively short) history in the new world, pointing out the horrible conditions that the Americans first faced when they arrived here and clearly implying that this land was, and still is, not theirs.  Tecumseh states that "[w]hen the white men first set foot on our grounds, they were hungry; they had no place on which to spread their blankets, or to kindle their fires" (pg 516).  His referral to "our" grounds and his portrayal of the help that the Americans needed from the Native Americans just to survive shows that he still viewed the Americans as trespassers on what was their land.

            Even though Red Jacket tried to maintain a more ambivalent tone towards the Americans on the whole, his speech shows the same feelings that Tecumseh's does.  He also narrated the Americans history, talking of the "evil day" in which the white people arrived in America.  Like Tecumseh, he refers to America in terms of "our" land, but he goes even farther, saying that the Americans "fled from their own country" (pg 514).  This statement was his way of drawing a clear line between the two countries, implying that the Americans already have a home country, and emphasizing the fact that they are guests in this new country, which is the Native Americans home.

            Red Jacket and Tecumseh's speeches were given to different audiences, for different reasons, so it was really interesting to me to see that their views were so similar when talking about the Americans history and rights in the new world.        

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature.   
        12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston. McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

The Federalist Papers

           Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, of the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties, respectively, are both well renowned historical figures who are best remembered for their writings: in Jefferson's case, the Declaration of Independence - in Hamilton's, the Federalist Papers.  Even today, their opposite viewpoints on government provide the basis of our own political parties' viewpoints.

 
    

          Jefferson's view on the role of government was extremely similar to the modern Republican viewpoint.  He saw government as needing to have a laissez-faire approach, stating that "a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement" (pg. 381).  He believed that as long as government provided the freedom and opportunity in which to grow, the people would be able to pretty much govern themselves.

 

          On the other hand, Hamilton's ideas of government were what we would now term Democratic, as he believed that government should play more of an active role instead of just providing a few basic protections.  In The Federalist Papers, Hamilton wrote that "the vigour of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government" (pg. 409).  He felt that a strong, more involved government was the only way to protect the people and insure freedom.

          The one thing that these two political enemies had in common was that they both wanted what they thought was best for the people.  They had no other working constitutional governments that they could use as a role model for their own.  This was still in many ways the "American Experiment."  They both wanted this to work, and realized that it would not if the government failed them.  I think their differences can be best summed by a quote that I found online: "Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom" ("Hamilton vs. Jefferson").  

Works Cited

"Hamilton vs. Jefferson."  United States History.  Country Studies.  Federal
     Research Division of the Library of Congress.  Online book.  Accessed October 4, 
     2012. 

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins.  The American Tradition in Literature.   
     12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston.  McGraw-Hill, 2009.  Print.