One subject I never had the opportunity to touch on in my Kindred response paper was the importance of family in slave culture. Kindred as a hole seems to value a strong family connection like one brought on by the slave culture. The family that Dana becomes a part of welcomes and shelters her from judgement by other slaves on the plantation. Family really is important to the slaves, its what kept them together and the strong bonds of love made slavery a little more bearable.
As with all things that may bring some joy to the slaves, it is used against them. As the Weylin family shows us one more aspect of what slave life really meant. The people you love may be sold off if they become to close to certain people. Isaac and Sam are both sold off after they pursue a closer relationship with the people near to Rufus, whose childlike attitude selfishly demands he gets everything he wants.Margret Weylin sells off Sarah's children for the sake of having more spending money, the concept of which is so morally unjust that it hurts to even think about it. The pain one would go through from being permanently separated from your kids so the person who owns you could have some extra spending money is really expresses and captures the true tragedy of slavery, that not even your own children can be considered yours rather they belong you tour master.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Environmental influence
Throughout Kindred we continually see this theme of change brought on through the gain of power. Mainly through Rufus. When we first come into contact with Rufus he seems to be an innocent child that, while somewhat aware of his white status, is still good friends with the freed blacks and slaves he comes into contact with. When he was young his conscience led him to believe that he should treat these black people with some respect. Although this soon changes, as we jump through time Rufus becomes increasingly aware of his status, and this respect diminishes. Rufus's mind set slowly changes as he slowly adopts the belief that he is meant to be treated in such a manner by black people much like his father demanded. His status is natural to him and the only way, their becomes this no other alternative mindset going on in Rufus's mind. I see this as a direct result of the amount of power Rufus is granted, as he ages he is given more rights to control Dana and other slaves as he begins to fill into the role of his father as the next slave master despite Dana's efforts to stop the transformation.
I think Kindred may be presenting this idea that most humans, even those who seem immune to such behaviors at first, like Rufus in his early days, can easily be corrupted by circumstance. While many of us believe strongly that we would abhorred the violent acts of the slave masters and reject the cultural norms if we too found ourselves in the situation Rufus is in, we can never prove that we actually would. Maybe it is human nature to become accepting of such practices after coming up in an environment that so easily accepts this social hierarchy. I believe that Butler is attempting to look at this argument from a new angle rather than simply saying, "oh I would never be OK with slavery!" and ending the discussion there, it seems to be more of a starter for thought about an a discussion about how susceptible we are to our environment and how little control we may actually have over our own conscience since so much of it is enforced by our peers and a general cultural identity that often boxes in our way of thinking.
I think Kindred may be presenting this idea that most humans, even those who seem immune to such behaviors at first, like Rufus in his early days, can easily be corrupted by circumstance. While many of us believe strongly that we would abhorred the violent acts of the slave masters and reject the cultural norms if we too found ourselves in the situation Rufus is in, we can never prove that we actually would. Maybe it is human nature to become accepting of such practices after coming up in an environment that so easily accepts this social hierarchy. I believe that Butler is attempting to look at this argument from a new angle rather than simply saying, "oh I would never be OK with slavery!" and ending the discussion there, it seems to be more of a starter for thought about an a discussion about how susceptible we are to our environment and how little control we may actually have over our own conscience since so much of it is enforced by our peers and a general cultural identity that often boxes in our way of thinking.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Returning to the present for good
Last week we had a bit of a long discussion about Kevin and Dana's final journeys to the present and how they are left scared from their travels and experience. Dana, looses an arm after it materializes into the wall and both Dana and Kevin are left with mental scars from their extended times in the south and long separation from both each other and their time period. However, we are left questioning for what reason Butler decides to take Dana's arm away.
The way I see it, there are several possible explanations, the concept I most agree with is the idea that Rufus has taken part of Dana away, leaving his own mark on her. As she has taken away his life, he takes away a part of her by clinging to her until the end, forcing her to remember her murderous act that she performed. This murderous act that seemingly had to occur. With this explanation I am left wondering why Dana is materialized into the wall instead of her arm staying with Rufus. We are told that her arm goes into the wall at the exact point at where Rufus was holding her. So why have her arm go into the wall why not just leave it in the past instead of materializing into the wall and having the imagery of her violently yanking her arm in two? I also question why Dana's arm needs to serve as a reminder? Was her life spent in Maryland not already burned into her memory in a way she will never forget? Dana already is covered in scars from her brutal whippings by Tom Weylin, is this severing of the arm Rufus's own way of leaving his mark on Dana, a much more prominent and memorable one at that. While I highly doubt it is just a plot device is it possible that the materialization into the wall at the beginning of the novel was a good graphic manner to draw the reader in and to foreshadow some type of time travel in the early pages of the book before Dana goes back in time. Even with this possibility I feel that it was necessary to take something away from Dana in her final exchange with Rufus so this conclusion wouldn't entirely make sense. The murder of Rufus is something Dana seems reluctant to commit, but fate forces her; Dana doesn't have a choice, Rufus has overstepped his bounds and Dana must end his life based on her own principles even if she may not really want to see him dead as she definitely holds some lingering connection to Rufus as evil as may seem at times.
I think it would have made an interesting sequel story if instead of forcibly yanking her arm and tearing her arm's connection to the wall as painfully as possible, she found some way to cut around her arm, remove it from the wall and become some type of time traveling wall armed super hero. Butler is a sci-fi writer, I can't imagine why she would have ignored this possible conclusion when she wrote the ending and set up a great sequel. (It must be getting late if I'm writing something this dumb at the end of my blog post.)
The way I see it, there are several possible explanations, the concept I most agree with is the idea that Rufus has taken part of Dana away, leaving his own mark on her. As she has taken away his life, he takes away a part of her by clinging to her until the end, forcing her to remember her murderous act that she performed. This murderous act that seemingly had to occur. With this explanation I am left wondering why Dana is materialized into the wall instead of her arm staying with Rufus. We are told that her arm goes into the wall at the exact point at where Rufus was holding her. So why have her arm go into the wall why not just leave it in the past instead of materializing into the wall and having the imagery of her violently yanking her arm in two? I also question why Dana's arm needs to serve as a reminder? Was her life spent in Maryland not already burned into her memory in a way she will never forget? Dana already is covered in scars from her brutal whippings by Tom Weylin, is this severing of the arm Rufus's own way of leaving his mark on Dana, a much more prominent and memorable one at that. While I highly doubt it is just a plot device is it possible that the materialization into the wall at the beginning of the novel was a good graphic manner to draw the reader in and to foreshadow some type of time travel in the early pages of the book before Dana goes back in time. Even with this possibility I feel that it was necessary to take something away from Dana in her final exchange with Rufus so this conclusion wouldn't entirely make sense. The murder of Rufus is something Dana seems reluctant to commit, but fate forces her; Dana doesn't have a choice, Rufus has overstepped his bounds and Dana must end his life based on her own principles even if she may not really want to see him dead as she definitely holds some lingering connection to Rufus as evil as may seem at times.
I think it would have made an interesting sequel story if instead of forcibly yanking her arm and tearing her arm's connection to the wall as painfully as possible, she found some way to cut around her arm, remove it from the wall and become some type of time traveling wall armed super hero. Butler is a sci-fi writer, I can't imagine why she would have ignored this possible conclusion when she wrote the ending and set up a great sequel. (It must be getting late if I'm writing something this dumb at the end of my blog post.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)