In Black Skin, White Masks, Fanon writes in first person, provides a historical critique stating the detrimental consequences of racism and colonialism in the psyche of the black man. In chapter five, ‘The Fact of Blackness’, he describes the ways in which black people are objectified and the ways in which he realized that he was just an object in the middle of other black objects. The black man’s identity would simply be reduced to a “dirty nigger” or “a Negro”. He goes on to explain how the very glance of the other fixes him in a predominantly white world. When the black man is amongst his own people, there is minimal scope for him to face any internal conflicts when he recognizes himself on the basis of his experience of being through others.
As, Abraham Lincoln said: “When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” Mark Twain, in his book continually criticizes the cruelty of human beings. One of the main themes that Mark Twain worked in his novel was the cruelty involved with Slavery. The life of a slave depicts that human beings are not always as benevolent as they appear to be. Twain in this novel exhibits the perfidious ways of slavery in America by ridiculing slavery’s outlandish ways. Satire is once again used to portray slavery in this novel.
That would be best. Like a man without a name. Or, to be more precise, a man whose name has been stolen.” (1.2.191-193) reinforces Cesaire’s post-colonial perspective and his endorsement of negritude. Caliban finds himself continuously ill-treated; he has it the worst of all of Prospero’s slaves. The conditions of hard-labour that were subjected to black people by white supercilious people during colonization are mentioned by Cesaire were Prospero “forgives” Ferdinand and excuses him from his afore imposed state of slavery on the basis that they are of the same race and rank and the manual labour that was intended for Ferdinand is passed on to Caliban.
E. B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington debated whether to confront or appease racist attitudes in the United States. As segregation regimes took hold in the South in the 1890s with the tacit approval of the rest of the country, many African Americans found a champion in Booker T. Washington and adopted his self-help autobiography, Up from Slavery (1901), as their guide book to improved fortunes. Washington portrayed his own life in such a way as to suggest that even the most disadvantaged of black people could attain dignity and prosperity in the South by providing themselves valuable, productive members of society deserving of fair and equal treatment before the law. A classic American success story, Up from Slavery solidified Washington’s reputation as the most eminent African American of the new century.
They wanted to do something to help the slaves but there was nothing to do, so they moved away to Philadelphia to live with the Quakers, a society that also believed slavery was a sin. Angelina Grimke was invited to speak against slavery in New York and that was the point in her life where she was interested in becoming an abolitionist. Sarah was there to support Angelina through everything. In 1837 Angelina and Sarah went to New York for training sessions. The sisters accomplishments and hard work came out for the best, in 1864 slavery in the U.S was banned.
In fact, the title of this book draws attention to Caroline’s African origins. At one point in the novel, Johnny tells Caroline that “people who cast two shadows are very special and that they have the best qualities of both races. Throughout the plot, we learn about Caroline’s unresolved family issues: how her enslaved black mother was sold to the West Indies by Caroline’s father and the rough journey her grandmother faced when she was taken into Charleston from Angola, a country near the Congo River. Historically, plantation owners in the South were the wealthiest men in the country. The British thought of slavery as a potential weapon to use against plantation owners – who, for the most part, were patriots –, so the British army promised freedom to those slaves who fled their plantations and stood up to their owners.
One of these happens to be the everlasting argument between good and evil, more specifically whether man is born basically good or basically evil. Thomas Hobbes has based his work on proving that man can be classed as basically evil while Jean-Jacques Rousseau has quite strongly argued the opposite saying, rather, that man is basically good. However, the greatest motivation for this literature piece is to evaluate, to a degree, where the African man can find himself in this argument. Perhaps a different view should be brought into perspective, one that does not discredit the other i.e. according to John Locke, man is tabular rasa and in layman’s terms man is born neutral.
In the Rochester city’s celebration for the National Day of 1852, the famous abolitionist Frederick Douglas gave a speech in which he severely criticized the citizens’ hypocritical actions of celebrating their independence, ignoring the oppressive and unjust slavery that millions in the nation were suffering to. In his speech, Douglas achieved the audience’s agreement on his claim by employing commonly admitted allusions, contrast of two subjects and subtle but efficient word choices. In the speech, Douglas discloses the contradiction between the normal citizens’ gratification and the slaves’ expulsion from this happiness to aim a provocative satire on the national day, which carries the white’s pride and ecstasy and the black’s suffer and
Douglass would claim “I could not reconcile the relation of slavery with my crude notions o It was not color, but crime, not God, but man, that afforded the true explanation of the existence of slavery; nor was I long in finding out another important truth, viz: what man can make, man can unmake goodness (Douglass n.p)”. Frederick completely reveals the inequality, by crime, of man arousing the unmaking of goodness. Likewise, Frederick refutes the societal standard of superiority. Expressing “Neither to the wicked, nor to the idler, is there any solid peace: “Troubled, like the restless sea.” superior and inferior here, but equals at the bar of God (Douglass n.p)”. By communicating equality at the eyes of God display the hypocrisy and opposition of the notions of the current state of the nation.
The views of these three philosophers will be carefully analysed and compared to one another in order to answer the key question: “what is the African man?” I will argue that the African man is neither good nor evil but is instead neutral. This argument will be developed by referring to the provided short stories and articles, factual and fictional, as well as real historical events in Africa’s incredibly turbulent history. Jean-Jacques Rousseau hypothesised that man is basically good in the state of nature and that man has been corrupted by society. According to Rousseau, man once lived in peace and harmony with nature without a sense of morality and man was essentially good before society was formed, (SparkNotes Editors, 2005). Society has made man competitive and consequently selfish; however Rousseau believed that man is still good at heart.