Will Smith

Will Smith, a giant in the world of TV, Film and maybe less so music. His catalogue of accomplishments speaks volumes and there is no doubt that he will go down as on of the best and well rounded actors of all times. Emphasis on the word "actor"  not "black actor". The reason I put emphasis on this is because even til now, African-Americans have found it difficult to shake of the tag of "black" and just be known as simply a star in their profession. This may not all together be too important as the recognition is still there, however this tag highlights a distinct lack of progress for African Americans and blacks even today in crossing over that barrier.

An article by Lorrie Palmer examines this concept particularly pertaining to the career of Will Smith and how he is able to appeal to all factions of society. He looks at two pictures of Will Smith and 3 other African-American men, in order to look at the sexual symbolism portrayed in the pictures. In doing so I presume he is able to look at the appeal of Smith's photos in comparison with the other's who are not said to have "crossed over" racial barriers. Similarly the author also notes that reactions from men and women were recorded to Smith's nude scenes in  Irobot In this way it is possible to examine his appeal to those outside the African-Caribbean society which is relatable to his ability to "transcend race".  I think it is also noteworthy that many members of the black community have achieved this sensation known as cross over, Usain Bolt being another example, however extents are paramount in this ongoing discussion and the extent to his transcendence is on a much lower level than that of Will Smith although he is also a mega star in his profession. Time is a fundamental aid to this, and is therefore clearly essential in becoming appealing to all segments of the population.

I'd like to finish my blog on a particular note. Donald Glover aka Childish Gambino is a actor/comedian/rapper whose career very much began like Will Smith and he said something very interesting about how they maintain Smith's ability to cross over race. He says "The reason they say I'm nothin' what they seen or heard, is the same reason Will Smith always opposite latino girls" essentially the message he is sending  is that if Will Smith is in a movie with a black girl, it’ll be “too black” and alienate white audiences however putting him with a white girl is threatening to white audiences and he risks losing his fan base. Latina therefore is just right in order to maintain this balance. Many take this comment as animosity towards Smith and the fact that his career, although promising did not reach the same trajectory as the former. Similarly, I'm sure that those reading this will be confused as to Donald Glover is....... well I guessed he hasn't "crossed over" then.









Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal of Film & Television. Spring2011, Issue 67, p28-40. 13p.

American Studies Blog 6

Historical aspect of race in the USA – Beyoncé

Beyoncé is a global icon. She was born in Houston Texas, in 1981. ‘The New Yorker’ described Beyoncé as “the most important and compelling popular musician of the twenty-first century.”

The article I have chosen to look at looks to identify her as whether she is an icon because of her career or her body. The journalist presents her view that Beyoncé is successful in her career. She performs a range of ‘Black femininities’ and can relate to every time of audience in class and color. She continues by stating how her body portrays a ‘spectacular Black female body.’

To me, Beyoncé is an icon for what she gives back. She has taken part in many campaigns all over the world to help benefit others and contribute in any ways possible. She wants to empower girls to make them feel better about themselves and more confident. She has many feminist and anti-poverty campaigns. Her new song in particular called ‘flawless’ has created controversy due to some of the lyrics, however she wants to inspire women to believe in themselves. She believes a feminist is ‘the person who believes in the social, political and economic of the sexes.’

Beyoncé is the third most honored woman in Grammy history. She has had a total of 46 nominations and 17 awards. She has overall, won 497 awards and is TIME’s most influential person. In addition to being called the most powerful celebrity in the world by Forbes magazine. These high statics demonstrate the extent of which Beyoncé is a successful global American singer, actress and businessperson.

To get to this position Beyoncé worked hard in her career, entering many talent shows in dancing and modeling. Her own father managed her, and her band ‘Destiny’s child’ for a time. This demonstrates how hard Beyoncé has had to work for her success and why to me she such an icon with what she is giving back to the world. Therefore, in regards to the article, it is just in saying she is much more than a ‘Southern hip hop booty shapes.’

<http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/winchester-ac/items/eds/aph/71115495?query=beyonce+icon&resultsUri=items%3Fquery%3Dbeyonce%2Bicon%26target%3Deds%26offset%3D0&target=eds>

Barack Obama

When Barack Obama first ran for the presidency he had to make the decision on whether or not to play on his race or act 'color blind', the decision he made for himself is debatable but no matter what he decided his race would become an important factor in the race for the presidency. his race is an inescapable factor and this is where the article 'Barack Obama and the new politics of race' comes in.

The new politics of race, as claimed by this article, is one of predominantly color-blindness, in the sense that one needs to ignore factors of race in order to give truly equal opportunities, effectively leading to the notion of ethnicity becoming obsolete and ignored by all participants, which although sounds effectively good does lead to people becoming disjointed with their racial past and even separate them more so due to perhaps children being taught as if there were no difference in skin color and then upon noticing that there is they may feel excluded as america, in this case, is still, for the time being, mainly white and so its likely that the color-blind theory is more an 'everyone is white' approach to things, and this is not the way to approach race; diversity needs to be celebrated rather then suppressed.
although the article states that new race politics is mainly color-blindness it does also state that things have and are running deeper than simply that. the author argues that the new age of race politics is defined also by class, that Obama is one of the good black people, he has the advantage of being relatively well-off, a good education, and a history as a lawyer, before he even went into politics. this leading to his positive image where he was loved despite, and perhaps even because, of his race.
Obamas race is claimed to have helped him succeed in nomination and in the presidency, African Americans had the appeal of one of their likeness to an extent in the White House, and white people had a sort of self awarded forgiveness for their racism so they 'loved' him rather than talking about their real feelings toward him which was, at the time of nomination, most likely indifference.
 

Article: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/command/detail?sid=0cced61c-44bf-475c-8381-c71518e6f310%40sessionmgr4003&vid=4&hid=4113

Sometimes one of the effects of putting an assignment back is that you have to put the others back too, or else the sequence of marking and returning work gets snarled. 

This has happened in AM1111. Because we put the first assignment back to help late arrivals to the class, we think it is best to put the others back too.

The next assignment is the iterative essay. That's an essay that you write twice. The first time we grade it, the second time we grade the improvements you make to it in response to our comments. It's a way of trying to get students to understand the importance not just of essays but of feedback and drafts. As you are required to re-write it, we need to make space for you to consult with us. That all pushes things back.

So, here is the change to assignment schedule:

The Iterative Essay is now due Week 9. 

We will return it to you three weeks later, Wk 11. 

That leaves you time to have a tutorial (in person or by email) in Wk12, which also gives you a chance to review your progress with us.

That inevitably means the rewrite now has to be due on the first day of semester 2.

Oprah Winfrey

Oprah Winfrey is a talkshow host who is famous worldwide for the issues she raises in her television show The Oprah Winfrey Show, which was first aired in early 1983. The article I found called 'Talk About Racism: Framing a Popular Discourse of Race on Oprah Winfrey' by Janice Peck talks about the way in which Winfrey has managed to 'transcend race', implying that the notion of race goes beyond biological presumptions, that seem to be set deep in the history of the Africans and other people of colour in America. It is interesting to note that in Peck's article, her research shows that the fact that Oprah is black to white viewers made no difference to their interest in watching the show, whilst black viewers have commented saying 'it is central' to the success of the show. Oprah is the wealthiest black American woman in North America, which is significant because, as mentioned in the article, he was able to, and has 'transcended' the boundaries set by racism, and gender discrimination. The attention drawn to this is significant, as when Oprah's show was first broadcasted it was a difficult time for not only women to become involved and successful in the entertainment industry, but black people as well. So that fact that she was able to become the most successful female in showbiz in North America shows a huge step forward in terms of race equality given her skin colour.  However, whilst a majority of her viewers are white females, Peck talks about how research on the viewers shows that her while they were not bothered by her colour, they felt inclined to watch the show because a black women is supposedly 'less intimidating' than a black man. This shows that with race discrimination is not just about skin colour, but it involves gender as well. 

Pecks states 'it is aligned with the social psychology concept of stereotyping, seen as universal tendency to reduce cognitive uncertainty by organising the world into manageable categories.' From this is can be inferred that the categorisation of different groups of people in to a minimal number of racial types (e.g. black, Hispanic, Latino etc.) is more of a natural coping mechanism for humans, in order to try and understand what is new to them. This reiterates the idea talked about in Tuesday's lecture, that race is indeed, not biological or physical but mental. When Oprah talks about the issue of racism, she says how racism is 'ignorance personified', which is a valid statement, when it is evident that so much in regards to racism, is merely down to people not knowing another persons ancestry when they make a judgment based only on what they can see.  Therefore, in order to overcome this simplicity of race, people must be better educated when looking at race and origins.  This is something that is very relevant when looking at America after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, even through to 21st Century America, as throughout all this time, race has been, and still often is, defined by the colour of a persons skin. 

Source: https://www.academia.edu/1117060/Talk_About_Racism_Framing_a_Popular_Discourse_of_Race_on_Oprah_Winfrey

Carol Moseley Braun

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1300/J501v27n01_04

From the Journal of Women, Politics and Policy, the article 'Gender and Black Presidential Politics From Chisholm to Moseley Braun' talks about the current political environment for Black female candidates and focuses on how Carol Moseley Braun's entrance into the Democratic Presidential primaries in 2003 shone the spotlight onto gender and race issues in America.

One of the issues that the article looks at is the political life of a black women and why that affects their success in politics. The article states that 'black women live in the intersection of race and gender', suggesting that the difficulties that are faced by female politicians, such as Carol Moseley Braun, is firstly due to their race and then their gender. The article then looks back to times when it was said that there were 'no room for black women' because 'all women were white and all the blacks were men' so they had to fight to become acknowledged, which then gave them the image of being
a 'strong black woman' as they were able to stand up against men who tried to supress them. This suppression is also said to be with white women as well and that black women had to 'deal with White women's racism', which caused black women to abandon movements to better themselves. The argument the article makes is that the position of black women in political positions aren't seen to be taken seriously as they aren't respected by their white counter-parts or others from the black community as black women are seen by men as only to be of help to them and the home.

The article also raises the issue of the lack of work and research that has been done on female black political candidates. The article argues that 'although research has been done on female political candidates and on Black (i.e. male) political candidates, there has been virtually nothing done on Black women's political involvement and much less on Black women as candidates'. However, the work that has been done on female black candidates shows that they have to take a different and more difficult road into politics as they are 'rendered invisible in political life' and have to fight to be noticed and to be appointed into and political position. The lack o research done on female black candidates make it hard to understand how they campaign and how voters perceive them even with the stereotypes that are associated with African Americans and women.

The focus drawn onto Carol Moseley Braun in this article is due to the fact that she was one of the first black woman to actually become successful in the political world, but lose out on an opportunity to run for President because of her race and gender. Even with little name recognition, she was said to 'represent an important demographic within the Democratic Party and the anti-Iraq war movement' and 'articulated a much needed voice'. She was see as the most credible candidate to be able to represent the issues and concerns of the black community, and women in general. This was evidenced by an early poll which said that 46% of Democratic voters said there was at least some chance that they would vote for her. Unfortunately, despite all the support from women's groups, black Americans appeared 'more willing to support a Black man unfavourable to 70% than a Black women with the skills and credentials to move forward issues of concern to blacks'. This shows that gender had a great deal to do with her unsuccessful run to Presidency and also shows the prejudice felt even within the black community towards black women as it goes against their perceived and traditional views that their role should be within the home and not within influencing politics.

12 years of Slave

Most people talk of historical dramas being emotional roller coasters. For me it was anger....annoyance, more anger.....more annoyance. There was no straying from these sets of emotions, no happiness, no relief, nothing. I won't deny that an in-depth adaptation of Solomon Northup's story was provided, it was thought provoking, well thought out and presented most key issues that needed to be expressed. Even still, despite what my sister had informed me about the story, it could never had prepared me emotionally for such.

The first thing I recall from the film was how Solomon was sold back into slavery following being lured in under false pretences. His benefactors, Brown and Hamilton, epitomise from the beginning the foul nature that manifests within some human beings. Selfish, without remorse or conscience for such an indecent act as selling someone to be a slave. It really reaffirms from the off what we talked about in the previous lecture, that slaves were regarded as no better than animals. As every well rounded film does it also attempts to perpetuate that feeling of "they're not all bad" and that within a bad crop, they are still good seeds, Ford is the first of these figures in the film. However I do not necessarily co sign the fact that he treats Solomon "well" he just treats him better than other people do. He provides to him what should generally be afforded to someone of his ilk and hard working nature, he pays him compliments and eventually saved him from an unjust punishment. Such actions, should not necessarily mean that such a figure represents a heroin as what was  afforded to him was what should be afforded to any human beings. Similarly it can be said that he himself subjected him to one of his most heinous tenures he had to endure and that was being transferred to Epps farm. In my opinion  both Epps and Ford represent the same thing, Evil. The fact that they both purchase and sell slaves is evil in itself and the simple fact that one is more brutal and less accepting than the other does not change this. Those that believe one is better than the other, are in my opinion, sadly mistaken and not fully grasping the movie as a concept.

The treatment of the slaves throughout is gory, graphic and all out brutal. To think a human being was subjected to such is frankly a joke and just evokes more anger on my part. Regardless of whether or not I subscribe to the theory of whether men and women should be treated as equal, beating a woman like the way Epps beat Patsy was painful to watch. It is paramount to someone beating your mother or your sister, and all I could think about was, what if I, and my family members lived in that time. After her ordeal, Epps stated that where his property was involved "there is no sin". I'm sure God would be shaking his head at the sight of such ignorance. It just serves to highlight the attempts made to legitimise his actions which are without justification. 

One point of interest in the film that disappointed me, was the lack of real resistance posed by the slaves. In the same way I believe that the film provides a well rounded account, I think in this area it fell short. From our lessons we know the kind of opposition that was ongoing, a visual portrayal of this therefore would have made the film complete. However this does not take away from the fact that the movie was  success on many forms. I hope it serves as an eye opener to all creeds alike, and particularly those that think prejudice is acceptable or appropriate in the society we live in today.

12 years a slave

12 years a slave 

It is widely known that this film, although widely controversial, is one of the best films to come out in the last five years. This may be partially because of its novelty in the film industry as it is not only based on a story written by an ex-slave –as opposed to the traditional written by either historians or white slave owners - but it also discusses an often overlooked reality of free black men and women being captured and sold as slaves for profit. I think this is often forgotten because it portray  the white person as a villain but it is more about the racist attitude of the villain that defers directors from choosing the topic.

I personally felt that was quite fast paced however, I feel that Solomon Northup's years as a slave had passed too quickly and I feel like the true strain, effort and monotonous routine that went into doing the exact same thing day in day out for months wasn't really portrayed as well as it perhaps could have been. instead the film went for the shocking aspects such as the beatings and other punishment of slaves, which granted was a large part of the slaves every day lives I feel the living conditions (where they slept, where they went to the toilet perhaps, how long they got in the day to do such things, free time they had if any) could have been examined more.

The reality of this film is a harsh one the shock at the life slaves lead to most people is what makes it so fascinating, as I mentioned previously. Many people see this film as the most accurate portrait of slavery, but it is a film and thus it's accuracy is limited because it's profit relies on success, it's important to remember that some parts may have been overdramatised (however this is less likely) and others may have been left out for the sake of time, and/or because they weren't interesting enough.

Overall the film was in my opinion excellent however should not be rendered the only experience of slaves or the only source to refer to as the experience of slaves because there was so many different circumstances for different people that went un-documented because the slaves that experienced it never learned to write it down.

American Studies Blog 5

Critical Review of 12 Years a Slave

’12 Years a Slave’ is a personal account of Solomon Northup’s journey of being a slave during the 19^th Century. Watching the film for the first time I wasn’t truly able to captivate the depth of which the director ties the key concepts of slavery. However after some research on the film and some time to ponder the films contents it is clear that director, Steve McQueen, illustrates a most accurate portrayal of Solomon's story. However, respectfully stays close to Solomon’s story; “This is no fiction, no exaggeration.”

It is clear that the slaves in ’12 Years a Slave’ have an accurate representation. It is known that slavery was maintained by the fear of punishment through violence.  This is presented through all the slaves on both Ford’s plantation and Epp’s. There are no differences between treatment with black men and black women. They share communal living spaces and both get beaten. Depending on the plantation, both men and women work on the farm, especially the cotton plantation that Epps owns. It portrays the image that slaves did see themselves as less than human. Slaves were compared to cattle and this is seen when Joseph Russell and Alexander Merrill kidnap Solomon and sell him on. Again when Ford sells Solomon onto Epp’s. And is further reiterated with Epp’s showing no remorse with Patsey having gone to get herself a bar of soap. He states “there is no sin where his property is involved.” To me this gives the impression that he has no morality and doesn’t see his slaves as people; that they were created for his personal gain. The noun ‘sin’ is particularly interesting to analyse, as Ford knows that God would have been watching and yet he still shows no guilt or shame in his actions.

The film can be seen as an authentic representation of slaves during this period. Solomon, although a free man is committed into this lifestyle and there is nothing he can do about it. The broken culture is evident in this film as Solomon is torn away from his family which shows sever consequences for both enslaves Africans and Americans. He is stripped from home cultures and is put into a completely different environment. A key moment in the film that reflects this is when Ford gives him a violin, an instrument that he played from his old life as a free American. Interestingly, he takes this instrument with him when he is moved on to Epp’s plantation. The violin is almost a symbol of hope and three quarters of the way through the film this is suggested to have fallen when he smashes the violin up. It is not until Solomon meets the character Bass, who was in fact an actual gentleman the real Solomon spoke to in the early 19^th century, that his hope is regenerated. Steve McQueen doesn’t hold back with the violence in the film, it is vivid and raw, and the emotion behind it is one of astonishment. It portrays the trueness of how slaves have described their treatment whilst being captured.

The character of Bass is interesting to analyse. He is written about in Solomon’s story and so is in fact a true character. He is anti-slavery and speaks openly and honest about his opinion. Many white people in American and globally for that matter believed that they were better than black people and even if not, many would not have spoke their opinions aloud. Bass openly states to Epp’s about how wrong he believes slavery is; “all wrong – all wrong Sir.” The word “sir” is intriguing as he still see’s Epp’s as higher in position than him, yet is not afraid to speak his mind. In addition to this, Epp’s is a rather strong and violent man who doesn’t care about his treatment towards his slaves. He continues and the passage is rather long. He questions a white’s person’s rights on owning a slave and continues to say he would never own a slave even if he were rich. He states the law should be “abolished.” Linking to previously in my essay about how Epp’s states that there is no sin in violent actions towards his slaves; Bass states, “In the sight of God, what is the difference.” This gives the impression that Bass believes that God would not allow these actions.

Captivatingly, the two slave owners that Solomon encounters are rather different in their treatment towards their slaves. This is critical when looking at the slave period. Although the stereotypical slave was beaten, there were a few slave owners who had more respect for their slaves than others. There are many sources to look at which suggest this, not only Solomon’s personal story. At the beginning of Solomon’s slave period, we witness Ford trying to keep a family together and although he isn’t successful in this, he takes the women in and allows her to morn her children. He reads the bible to his slaves and listens to their ideas. Although the people working for him aren’t as understanding, he looks after his slaves. This can be seen when Solomon is beaten by a slave driver and retaliates; “Platt, said he, you will sleep on the floor in the great house tonight.” In contrast to this and unfortunately, to which most slaves had to live their lives, not all were as respectable as Ford can be viewed. Epp’s is a prime example of this. His rough and violent treatment towards his slave is sickening and horrific. McQueen does not hold back when presenting how violent and extreme some slave drivers were of their slaves. Solomon describes Patsey’s treatment as “she had been literally excoriated.”

McQueen’s portrayal of Solomon’s story is undeniably remarkable. It captivates its audience and makes them think of a subject that is usually a dismissed topic of conversation. The way he draws attention to these unnerving, violent times is spectacular. I would suggest that this is one of the best films ever made about the slave trade.

Sources:

Solomon Northup ’12 Years a Slave’ 1853

< http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/12-years-a-slave.php>

Critical review of 12 Years a Slave

In my opinion, 12 Years a Slave is one of the best representations of life in America for a slave, as a factual account of Solomon Northup’s time in slavery, from his perspective.  There are many other films around that are touch on the issue of slavery and servitude of black Americans, such as the 2011 movie adaptation of The Help. However,  this is the first of its kind looking at the issue directly from the perspective of an African American, who actually had to live the harsh life of being a slave. I believe that because of the perspective of the film, it shows a great step forward in terms of accepting the horror of the history of the US. This must be the first film about African-American slavery that has truly had an impact on me, and the same probably goes for many others, who, for the first time, have seen the American slave trade exposed for it’s true nature. 

One of the first thing that shocks me in the film is the nature by which the African American slaves are treated. It is as though they are thought of as lesser beings by the slave-owners and sellers, like animals. This can be seen through the way in which they are sold to new owners, stripped of their clothes, and forced to stand naked in front of the judging eyes of slave traders, who have are seen to show no care about splitting up a family. When Solomon arrives with Eliza and the other slaves at the plantation,  the mistress says ‘with a little rest and sleep, your children will soon be forgotten’, which I think is very significant, as it goes to show just how little the white people in the south thought of the slaves. From this, it can be seen that the slave-traders want to degrade the slaves as much as possible by treating them no better than cattle at an auction.  Throughout the film, Solomon is seen to have a truly awful experience as a slave, violence and cruelty aside, the living conditions are dreadful, with men, women and children sharing what can barely be called living quarters.  The standard of the quarters can very much be likened to that of a stable, with no beds, or anything that would give the slaves any kind of comfort. 

However,  throughout the account, Solomon does not lose hope that he will one day be free, this is first seen when he attempts to confide in his kindest overseer, William Ford, played by Benedict Cumberbatch.  Solomon is also given a fiddle by Ford, which is evidence that not all slave owners were awful people, like Epps is shown to be in the film. Ford is the only slave-owner who appears to show compassion and kindness towards his slaves, and this can be seen through the way that his slaves are able to laugh together, without fear of being beaten. Though this point still stands, it can not be ignored that despite his kindness, Ford is still unable to help Solomon regain the freedom he is rightfully owed, and ultimately is not distancing himself from the slave trade by actually owning slaves, and participating in the trade.  On Ford’s plantation, his slaves are seen to be accustomed to the violence that goes on around them. One of the most powerful scenes in the entire movie is when Solomon is left hanging by the masters, barely being able to touch the ground, and though one of the other slaves gives him water, they do not even attempt to help him, and go about their work as normal.  This could either be evidence of the slaves having become nonchalant in regards to situations like this, or it could have been that they felt if they tried to help Solomon, they would end up the same for going against their master. 

The film does not hold back at all when it comes to the violence and cruelty that Solomon was forced to endure on the various plantations. Right from the first moment we see Solomon as a slave, the language used is not only harsh but unnecessarily cruel, followed by the unforgiving brutality of his first captor,  of which is certainly enough to make anyone watching the film wince. This is something that carries on for the duration of the film, with Solomon’s encounter with his master, who is never happy with the work Solomon carries out, resulting in him almost being hanged, to him being forced to mercilessly beat Patsey by Epps, in his final plantation. In these scenes,  not once is the focus averted from the reality of what is happening, and what actually happened according to Solomon. Though the overseers are portrayed as unforgiving and cold-hearted towards the slaves, and perhaps a bit far-fetched for effect, the ferocity of the actions carried out, is so much so that it is enough to make the audience realise that this was the kind of thing that actually happened to slaves, quite probably, on a regular occasion. 

This unblinking portrayal of slavery is so significant as it does not shy away from the truth, and because of this Steve McQueen has created a truly remarkable film, that really makes you think, and personally, I found my self finding it hard to actually comprehend the events of the film, such as how the slave owners appeared to have so little humanity. McQueen has made a film that has a long lasting impact on its audience, with the unflinching visualisation of the horrifying reality that was the American slave trade. 

‘What is true and right is true and right for all, white and black alike’ -quote from Bass

Source: <http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/12-years-a-slave.php>

Review of 12 Years a Slave

Seeing this film for the first time, I don't think I was able to take in the magnitude of what this film has to offer. The truth in the story, a personal account written by Solomon Northup, was a real insight into the horrors of the period where slavery was as normal in the south as eating breakfast. This film is probably the first of its kind to show the experience of a slave from their point of view instead of the slave owners, which can be seen as a huge step towards realising and accepting the events that occurred before, and arguably even after, the Emancipation Proclamation.

The way the film was scripted, it doesn't shy away from the reality of Solomon's experience as it leaves in all of the violence as well as the day to day work that the slaves had to endure. This can be seen from the very start of the film, where it shows the women and men slaves having to sleep on the floor of their bunks on the plantation and overall showed how bad the conditions were for them. They had to wash and clean themselves naked together outside and had no privacy, there was no gender segregated areas to wash.

12 years also surprised me as it portrayed most of the white people as being the 'bad guys', which isn't normally seen in films staring African-Americans about slavery, which shows another leap forward in the filmmaking industry. This can be seen throughout the film in the way that the slave kidnappers and the slave owners acted as if the slaves were seen more as cattle and that they felt they had ownership of them, even if they were free like Solomon. The idea of slaves being property is most significantly portrayed in the scene where Patsy is whipped by Epps and afterwards he says that 'there is no sin where his property is involved'. This line alone portrays the mindset of most of the white people in the south; that black slaves were merely seen as profit and they felt that they could do anything with them as they owned them. This line also shows how the slave owners tried to normalise and numb themselves from the horror of slavery by blocking out the idea that the slaves had feelings or were even human. The scene where Solomon was nearly hung by one of the plantation workers after he attacked him while children played behind him and other slaves walked past without looking also shows how slavery was also, to some extent, starting to become normalised in the eyes of the slaves themselves.

The mindset of the slaves is also well portrayed and told truthfully in the film. The scene where a slave owner reclaims his slave from the kidnappers as he wants his property back is a good example. When the slave sees his master has come to reclaim him, he runs towards him and thanks him for getting him back. This shows how the slave owners tried to portray themselves as parental figures and how some slaves did see them that way, almost like Stockholm Syndrome. This idea is supported by Stanley Elkins, who argued that slavery infantilised slaves which meant they looked up the their owners like parents and obeyed them like children as they thought they didn't have the strength to fight back. This phenomenon can also be seen when the slaves are seen to be able to roam the plantations freely without supervision as it shows how the authority asserted by the slave owners through violence meant that the slaves were too scared to run away or do anything wrong as they had the fear of the beatings as well as the mindset of being captive and no chance of being free.

The violence towards the slaves was a huge factor in the film that made it a true portrayal of slavery. The extent to which the violence was shown seemed appropriate as to fully show what the film was trying to get across. The merciless beatings which Solomon had for trying to plead his case of being free when he was captured, the slave that was stabbed to death when he tried to get free when they were being transported on the boat and the countless whippings of the slaves who, most of the time, did nothing wrong although the masters thought they did. Showing these events paints a true picture of what slaves had to endure, and what they were afraid of, for the majority of their lives.

Overall, I think 12 Years a Slave is an excellently made and scripted film and it isn't afraid to tell the truth and tell the whole world about the tragedy that occurred and was overlooked for hundreds of years. This film needed to be made as the idea of such a story being told had been supressed for nearly the whole of the time film had been invented. It not only shows the violence, but it also shows the impact that slavery had on future generations of African Americans and shows some of the roots of the hatred that is felt by people to this day towards people of a different race. To conclude, 12 Years a Slave deserved all of the praise and recognition it got, and still gets, because it tells the brutal honest truth about a time that is sometimes forgotten or ignored.

For further info


If you have time, have a browse through this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnQqSlWHHgQ

American Studies Blog 4

Louisa Davis.

Winnsboro, South Carolina.

I choose to look at Louisa Davis, an ex-slave of supposedly 106 years old. Louisa Davis was bought buy ‘Marster Jim Lemon’. What at first fascinated me about her story is how literate she was. Although some of her spelling is spelt phonetically, her grammar and vocabulary are rather advance. Another intriguing factor of her story was that Mr Lemon, bought ‘us all’.  I feel this is interesting as typically when you think of an American Slave, you think of a physically fit male who can work hard in the field. However, in contrast to this stereotype, Mr Lemon buys them all; he keeps the family together. Arguably this can be seen as self gain, women too were important in keeping a house running and most importantly fertile women were important in order to keep reproducing. Noticeably, Louisa inform us she was seen as a ‘pretty gal’ and ‘ain't so bad to look at now’ as slaves were compared to cattle, the most attractive and physically able would have been the most popular. However, it could be viewed, as Louisa is literate and as we learn from reading her story further, that Mr Lemon can be seen as more humane in his treatment towards his slaves; allowing them to an extent some some aspects of normal life and isn't violent towards them.

Interestingly, it looks like Louisa managed to live a half normal life. She was able to get married, have a husband and have a son. She spent time in the garden, watching the flowers bloom in ‘springtime’ another example of where we see her as intelligent. Some slaves wouldn't have known their age, family's well-being and in some cases probably didn't have a name and here Louisa is knowledgeable about the different seasons. Although she was just a housemaid, she ate the ‘same meals as my marster’s folks did.’ This can be seen as a huge privilege. Louisa continues to comment on how she knows how to cook and talks about a rather complicated ‘pumpkin pie’, which she was able to eat too. She also went to church and had aspirations, ‘I sho’ like to dance when I was younger’. She even mentions a specific instrument. She also knows her President at the time and calls him a ‘blessin’’. Either showing her lack of knowledge about  politics or even she knows, even to a small extent, something outside her life she is living with Mr Lemon and everyone else on the plantation.

However, although most of her language is rather positive and she seems happy within her story, there are arguable times when she is reluctant to the system. For example, she didn't like that she saw little of her husband. This is in fact the only mention of violence included in her story being enforced to keep slaves regimented.; ‘run Sam many a time.’ She continues her negativity with Sam’s story with his death, ;when she simply states, ‘he dead now’. The monosyllabic word choice suggests detachment from the emotion involved with this. Although, she does blame the ‘white folks’ for it, the generalising of her accusation could be viewed as she doesn't want to blame Mr Lemon personally, as she herself is greatly of his service and instead continues to talk about Sam’s pension, rather than get emotional about Sam himself.

The ending itself is rather ambiguous, we are left wondering what happens to Louisa, her family and the plantation she lives on. Personally, I get the ideas that she is happy. The last we are informed by Louisa herself, is that she was still with her family and her grandson was an aspiring soldier in the war based in North Carolina. He visited with his bonus and they make jokes with each other and we are portrayed a strong family feel. Louisa sums her story up by calling her grandson ‘warrior, loyal and brave’ and to me I feel this sums up her story.

Louisa Davis. Ex-slave 106 years old.

Davis, Louisa

Winnsboro, South Carolina

NOTES: Interviewer: W. W. Dixon

SOURCE: WPA Slave Narrative Project, South Carolina Narratives, Volume 14, Part 1

COLLECTION: Federal Writer's Project, United States Work Projects Administration (USWPA); Manuscript Division, Library of Congress

DIGITAL ID: mesn 141/302299

The Story of Jennie Small

Jenny Small is the name of an ex-slave. 

The name Jennie Small is very interesting as despite originating in Africa it is very clearly not an African name. Although this is not a huge surprise that slave owners would rename their slaves with names that are perhaps more memorable to their English mind it’s the second name ‘Small’ that interests me, the slave owners making their slaves seem as insignificant and as ‘Small’ as possible. This isn't dissimilar to Malcom X’s original name of Malcom Little; 'Little' being a common slave name and Malcom X wanted, as I imagine many ex-slaves and their dependents would also want to, distance themselves from their slave histories.  

Jennie herself was born in Pocahontas county, Virginia, where she was born into ‘the drab and awful surroundings of slavery'.  She opens with talking about the whipping post and its violent impression that has stuck in her mind ever since. She talks about the wrong sized clothes she and her siblings as they worked in the boiling sun under the cruel watch of the whip. The first paragraph generally describes the awful atmosphere she was brought up in and its unwelcoming nature. The second paragraph, however, begins with the words Pappy McNeal  in reference to her master. This man was cruel and wasn’t afraid to throw sharp, hard and heavy things at any random slave under his control, and all slaves, including Jennie feared him very much; yet they still called him Pappy. This shows how the slave owners would try to appease their own conscience with forcing these terms of endearment onto themselves. It is likely that failure of the slaves to call their master ‘Pappy’ would have resulted in some form of punishment, so in reality these terms of endearment are born of nothing but fear.

Later we find that Jennie has ‘a tender spot’ in her heart for the masters son, and the only reason she gives for this is because the son once said ‘Do not call Mr. McNeal the master, no one is your master but god, call Mr. McNeal, mister.’. This act is not one of particular kindness, one could even view it as forcing Christianity on the slaves (although this is unlikely because by that time most if not all slave families would have already adopted the Christian faith, this statement would be simply reaffirming their beliefs). This shows however how well slaves took to simple acts of humanity; More to the point how little the slave owners must have given them for a simple phrase such as that to be comparably lovely.

On the second page of her story she talks of how she was her masters favourite. She claims to have had better sleeping quarters than her brothers, other favourites were allowed footwear; this is obviously a luxury for slaves.

The slave owner’s weapon of choice was the whip and post, he would rub salt and soap into the wounds he left because he didn’t want scarring, as this would lower the value of the slave should they be sold on (despite Jennie claiming to have never seen it).

When the slaves were emancipated she says her master was very apologetic. Jennie thinks this was because the slaves had always worked hard and deserved it and while this is true in reason, I feel that the slave owners thoughts were more centered on fear of revenge. this is a fact that Jennie remained ignorant to for the rest of her life.

Jennies words as written by Rev. Edward Knox

Analysing a slave narrative - Harriet Miller

I decided to look at the interview that was carried out with an elderly lady who went by the name Aunt Harriet who was mixed race, with a Cherokee father and a white mother, and for this reason she lived a hard life because of her race. The fact that she was a child of mixed race is quite significant, as during the 19th century it was almost unheard of for people to have a relationship with someone of a different race, especially not someone who was black or a native American. However this is probably the reason Harriet was not able to stay with her parents, as it would have been seen as shameful to the white mother for people to know she had a child with a Cherokee man. She says about how her 'whitefolks tried to send [her] to school but de whitefolks wouldn't receive [her] on account [she] was mixed'. This quote is interesting, firstly, because of the way she used 'my whitefolks', showing that she acknowledged she was more of a possession to the white people that took her in, than family. However, it is worth noting that her 'whitefolks' had an interest in providing her with an education but that is all that is spoken of education in the narrative, and it is evident that she did not go on to be taught to speak properly given the frequent use of the words 'de', 'deirs' and 'dey' in place of 'the', 'theirs' and 'they' throughout the narrative. Whilst Harriet was allowed to mix with white children growing up, she was no longer afforded this in adulthood, and 'had to turn to negroes for companionship', which is when she became a slave.

It becomes evident that Harriet knew her place-so to speak- as a slave saying that 'if slaves stayed in deir places dey warn't whipped or put in chains' and that she remembered 'but three whippings in [her] life', showing that she had learnt that where she worked, she knew how she must behave if she were to avoid getting beaten by her master. However, because she was only beaten three times in her life, it is clear that she was not under the control of such a strict overseer as many African Americans and Indians were at the time. Another thing that is worth noting is that she belonged to a church, though 'de back seats was what de slaves set', so despite the clear segregation very much prominent at the time,  it can be inferred that the white slave-owners felt it was important to educate their slaves in western Christianity. This is something that happened a lot before the abolition of slavery, especially with the native Indian slaves, as the white people did not want them to practise their traditional Indian rituals and beliefs. 

Source: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mesn&fileName=043/mesn043.db&recNum=130&itemLink=S?ammem/mesnbib:@field(AUTHOR+@od1(Miller,+Harriet))