reuschd


In exploring Frederick Douglass’s writing, I am astounded at the level of clarity and the level of complexity in which he wrote. For a slave to write in such manner contradicts his role as a slave. The most astonishing aspect of Frederick Douglass’s writing was his status as a slave. “How a slave, deliberately kept illiterate, came to be able to write his own story so eloquently in an important part of the process of a slave becoming a man which the book chronicles.”(995) If Frederick Douglass taught himself knowledge and literacy, then he proved himself to everyone that he was not a “slave” but a man. Also Frederick Douglass was an eloquent spokesperson for African- Americans during his time. In Frederick Douglass’s text, as he told his story of his life and described his journey to the north, his writing spoke for him. Because Frederick Douglass was a black man escaping to North during the Civil War time, he personally could not bring reform. However, Frederick Douglass’s words could. He then established several newspapers such as Douglass Monthly and The New National Era. Douglass now turned to a life as a black journalist using his words in such a way to bring about justice and reform. In looking at Frederick Douglass and his status as a African-American, he has some similarities with the great Anne Bradstreet and her time. Anne Bradstreet was silenced primarily because of her sex just like Frederick Douglass was insignificant because of his race. However, both these people in their respected times required literature as a way of expression. Also Frederick Douglass and Anne Bradstreet both realized they had extreme opposition. Anne Bradstreet wrote in a modest tone while Frederick Douglass fled to the North.

In exploring the Simon Bolívar reading, I found several comparisons to Thomas Jefferson and Viscardo. Like Jefferson and Viscardo, Simon Bolívar is an idealist. His political statement like Jefferson and Viscardo was optimistic about the future of South America. Like with the British and American colonies, Bolívar used the tone of victimization. He viewed Old Spain as corrupt while New Spain as Eden. Bolívar like the men before him articulated Spain was a tyranny. He favored a sovereign government for New Spain, but not like the British American colonies. Bolívar claimed that democracy was an ideal idea, but unlike the Americans, this idea and concept was beyond their capacity. He along with almost everyone at his time was opposed to monarchy due to the tyranny that came with it, but what made his argument about government unique was his belief that New Spain was an infant compared to American colonies. Bolívar grasped the idea that New Spain could not govern themselves to the extent that democracy would allow; Old Spain never allowed them any freedom, so the people of New Spain would not be successful if given major freedom without some familiarity of sovereignty. Bolívar also declared that New Spain would provide Old Spain with a legit trade market. He claimed that it would help Spain’s economy and ultimately help their relationship. I do not know if Bolívar was ahead of his time like Jefferson, but he sure did have the mentality like the greats before him. Bolívar should be considered among the most influential men of his era.

I wish to explore the intelligence of Thomas Jefferson. As I read and interrupted Thomas Jefferson’s’ writings, I was astonished by his level of thought. Not only did Thomas Jefferson recognize slavery was wrong, but also this unjust manner would lead to a civil dispute. I do not believe Jefferson envisioned a civil dispute as great as a civil war, but he identified the concern among the United States in the future. Despite Jefferson’s writings implied he was in opposition to slavery, he contradicted himself and his true values by possessing slaves. Whether he truly was opposed to slavery is uncertain. Many people consider Thomas Jefferson was in support of slavery. They proposed that Thomas Jefferson knew slavery would eventually be frowned upon in the future. Knowing this, people deemed that he tried to justify himself by writing about how he believed slavery was immoral. Despite his unclear motives for his writings, if Thomas Jefferson truly thought slavery was morally wrong and could not transform slavery in America due to his social order, then like Anne Bradstreet, he was before his time. Thomas Jefferson is very similar to Anne Bradstreet; both wrote about a subject relating to freedom. Anne Bradstreet was a woman who became aware of the potential for women outside of their residences. Because of her sex status in her social order she could not express the full potential women had. Eventually she wrote poetry to illustrate her thinking of the nature of women. Anne Bradstreet could not transform womanhood ultimately because of social status. Thomas Jefferson wrote about how slavery was unjust yet he could never really transform slavery in America because he did not want to anger his neighbors and jeopardize his political status.

Next Page »