True Christianity

Harriet Jacobs writes about how Christianity has many different influences on different people. First, she portrays how Christianity can be used to reinforce slavery: " After the alarm caused by Nat Turner's insurrection had subsided, the slaveholders came to the conclusion that it would be well to give the slaves enoough of religious insturction to keep them for murdering their masters." The slaveholders used Christianity to justify slavery and used it against rebelling slaves.Simultaneously, Christianity is also hope for the slaves: "The congregation struck up a hymn, and sung as though they were as free as the birds that warbled round us. ... Precious are such moment to the poor slaves. If you were to hear them at suck times, you might think they were happy. But can that hour of singing and shouting sustain them through the dreary week, toiling without wages, under constant dread of the lash?" Christianity maintained the slave's sanity and ironically slavery itself. While many slaves relied on Christianity for freedom, Harriet did not seem to be dependent on religion. Instead, she was guided by the religion. There is no part of the book that shows her reliance for God's miracle. She is somewhat cynical about Christianity. During her conversation with Flint, after he joined the Episcopal church, she says: "There are sinners enough in it already [...] If I could be allowed to live like a Christian I should be glad." When I read this line, I questioned, what is the Harriet's definition of Christian? I thought she was saying that Christians are unconsious sinners. They sin but it's justified by the religion so they are not spiritually disturbed by what they do; they can live freely. But she, herself, is a Christian. So then I thought that she distinguishes her spiritually with those of the whites. Her Christianity is being morally just like the people who save and helpr her to escape. All the other Christians are just church goers. I thought that it was interesting that she distinguishes herself from her fellow slaves and from the slave masters with Christianity. She doesn't rely on spiritual miracles but she learns from it. She even clearly writes that "there is a great difference between Christianity and religion at thes outh. FI a man goes to the communion table, and pays money into the treasure of the church, no matter if it be the price of lboo, he is called religious. If a pastor has offspring by a woman not his wife, the church dismiss him, if she is a white woman; but is she is colored, it does not hinder his continuing to be their good sheperd." Its fascinating how the slaves know about this and still believes in the religion.

Read more »

Love or Hate- Harriet Jacobs

There is very interesting relationship between Harriot Jacobs and Dr. Flint. Although that is clear that they verbally abuse each other, it is also obvious that they effect each other postively and negatively. If you think about it, Dr. Flint's abuse is what drives Jacobs to run away. The other way around, Jacobs give Dr. Flint a purpose in life. These two people are very much involved in each other's world. Dr. Flint goes out of his way to get Jacob's emotional and physical attention and ironically, even when Jacobs escapes, she manages to write to Dr. Flint. Although there is abuse, it seems to give each of them a purpose in life, which is a positive affect. However, the relationships itself is quite negative.

Read more »

True Love or Contemporary Propaganda?

(This post is for the week of February 7)




I thought it was interesting that the people who commented on the article from "La Solidaridad" by Jose Rizal seem to agree that Jose was a great figure. I, too, do not doubt that he was a hero to many but I question his motives in writing this article. When I first read this article I thought he was promoting violence and I was shock to hear in class that he advocated non-violence. He is very dramatic, descriptive, and poetic in this article and I believe he uses these writing techniques to cover or even justify the violence used for the country. He starts the article by elaborately describing the beauty of the land, mesmerizing the readers. He writes: "Could we not dedicate to her something -- those of us whose only failing is that we were born later? Shall the nineteenth century have reason to call us ungrateful?" He is challenging the reader; he is telling the people that they are obligated to the land. Then the article becomes even more intriguing. Rizal sets up, in chronological order, a method that subliminaly reveals the importance of fighting for the country. He writes, "We are born thus; we grow up, we get old and we die with this pious sentiment. [...] as a father, we see the children die and time erases our grief like waves wash the shores when they recede. But in contrast, love of country is never erased once it gets to the heart, because it has a divine zeal which keeps it ternal and imperishable." I am assuming that children are dying for the counrty; such as fighting in a war or maybe starving because of impoverishment due to the war. Whatever the reasons, he writes that the memory of one's children dying can be replaced with one's love for the country. This is where I questioned why he would write that. First of all, a child's death can never be forgotten. Secondly, if Rizal is so adamant about non-violence shouldn't he say that children shouldnt be dying for the country? Furthermore, right after that paragraph he continues to write, "It has always been said taht love has veen the most powerful force behind the most sublime acts; well then, among all kinds of loves, that of country is what has produced the greatest, the most heroic, and most unselfish acts." These "unselfish acts" can be many things including killing (war) for the the country. He statements are ambiguous. He does not clearly say people should be non violent and because he is unclear I think he is leaving a way for people to intrepret the violence is okay.

Read more »