LITR 4232: American Renaissance
University of Houston-Clear Lake, spring 2003
Student Presentation Summary

Thursday, 13 February 2003: Harriet Ann Jacobs, from Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, 1960-1985.
Reader: Simone Rieck
Discussion notes: Doug Carey

In my presentation we will focus on:

Objective Three: To use literature as a basis for discussing representative problems and subjects of American culture (New Historicism), such as equality; race, gender, class; modernization and tradition; the family; the individual and the community; nature; the writer’s conflicted presence in an anti-intellectual society.

            Harriet Ann Jacobs wrote her “life story as a weapon in the struggle against chattel slavery” (1960).  She originally released her story using the alter ego Linda Brent because she was uncomfortable with the idea of exposing “her own sexual history and [revealing] herself an unwed mother” (1961).  Incidents offered a new narrative voice to an under-represented portion of society.

Examples for Question One:

1. “In complexion my parents were a light shade of brownish yellow, and were termed mulattoes” (1962).
2. “When I was six years old, my mother died; and then, for the first time, I learned, by the talk around me that I was a slave” (1963).
3. “She was the foster sister of my mother (mother’s mistress); they were both nourished at my grandmother’s breast” (1963).
4. “My grandmother could not avoid seeing things which excited her suspicions.  She was uneasy about me, and tried various ways to buy me; but the never changing answer was always repeated: “Linda does not belong to me.  She is my daughter’s property, and I have no legal right to sell her.”  The conscientious man!  He was too scrupulous to sell me; but he had no scruples whatever about committing a much greater wrong against the helpless young girl placed under his guardianship, as his daughter’s property.  Sometimes my persecutor would ask me whether I would like to be sold.  I told him I would rather be sold to any body than to lead such a life as I did.  On such occasions he would assume the air of a very injured individual, and reproach me for my ingratitude” (1967).

I see a connection between these passages.  In each statement, we see a blurred line drawn between the slave and the master.  The first describes Jacobs’ parents as “mulattoes,” showing that they had white blood in them; the second describes how a young girl could live as a slave without knowing it up to the age of six; the third illustrates a sisterly relationship between a slave girl and a mistress to the extent of sharing breast milk; and the fourth shows how the master wants to be thought of as a friend, but still maintains control.  I find it interesting that the master and mistresses could tolerate the slaves as people when it was convenient for them, but could quickly return to thinking of them as property.

Question One:

·        Why do the white slave owners seem to have more tolerance for slave children than for adult slaves?

·        In addition, since slaves are usually not even considered human by slaveholders, how can they justify allowing their white children to drink milk from a slave woman-the same slave woman that nursed a slave child?

Examples for Question Two:

1. “But, O, ye happy women, whose purity has been sheltered from childhood, who have been free to choose the objects of your affection, whose homes are protected by law, do not judge the poor desolate slave girl too severely!  If slavery had been abolished, I, also, could have married the man of my choice; I could have had a home shielded by the laws; [ . . . ] but all my prospects had been blighted by slavery” (1969).
2. “Pity me, and pardon me, O virtuous reader!  You never knew what it is to be a slave; to be entirely unprotected by law or custom; to have the laws reduce you to the condition of chattel, entirely subject to the will of another.  You never exhausted your ingenuity in avoiding the snares, and steps, and trembled within hearing of his voice.  I know I did wrong.  No one can feel it more sensibly than I do.  The painful and humiliating memory will haunt me to my dying day.  Still, in looking back, calmly, on the events of my life, I feel that the slave woman ought not to be judged by the same standard as others” (1970).

In these passages, I believe Jacobs reveals her inability to control her own life.  However, she seems almost apologetic for the things she was forced to do.  She is ashamed of the many “impurities” that she performed while enslaved, and Jacobs seems worried that the public will blame her.  Perhaps this is a sign of the times, or maybe not. Women have been made to feel ashamed of crimes committed against them for years.  Luckily, society has begun to progress (“No means No”). 

In her presentation last spring, Brenda Upton used the second passage and used it to justify a mother’s love.  She stated, “We can take two word: ‘Morals and Mother.’  Harriet had morals and she was a mother.  She was not going to let anyone deprive her of her morals and she was determined to free her children.” It is almost entirely accepted in today’s society that parents can go to any length to protect their children.   

 Question Two:

In connection with both mine and Brenda Upton’s analysis of the passages… Jacobs did what she had to do to protect herself and her children; in modern society, women have had to discover new ways to protect themselves and their children. 

·        At what point does the law become over ruled by a mother’s love (ex.  Eye for an Eye)?

·        And do you believe Jacobs’ show of embarrassment in the passages lessens the message she is sending at all? Does it strengthen it? Or Neither?

 Discussion:

 Question 1: Why do slave owners tolerate slave children more than adult slaves?

Also, since slaves were not generally considered human, how did slaveholders justify having black wet nurses?

 Prof: Children are generally harmless and do not always know that they are slaves.  Men can fight and women become desirable. 

 Student 1: Also, some owners were more tolerant than others.

 Student 1: Slaves were only considered to be 2/5 human, lacking spirit.

 Student 2: Slave owners did not always believe all of what they practiced.

 Prof: Their behavior was irrational.  Whites were supposed to be superior, but they still took advantage of black women and had black wet nurses.

 Student 3: Household slaves were generally treaded better.

 Question 2: Through the eyes of the northern white women of Jacobs’ time, do you believe her show of embarrassment in the passages lessens or strengthens her message?  What about through the eyes of her fellow slaves or ex-slaves?

 Prof: Sexuality was not explored in this time.  So she was trying to fit herself into contemporary society by saying “I’m so embarrassed about this.”

 Student 2: She had a different sympathetic effect on the upper class as well.

 Prof: She used this style as a dramatic set up.  Most of her examples are biblical, which are meant to be heroic actions. 

 Student 1: Her grandmother symbolizes conservatism about sexual actions.

 Question 3: When does the law become overruled by a mothers love?

 Prof: Mothers are usually given more leeway when acting on behalf of their children, they are usually forgiven, but a mother’s love never really overcomes the law.

 Student 3: It is not rational, but it is worth doing.