(no subject)
1. ) In summary, the book starts out in Kentucky in 1852 and tells the story of three slaves and their experiences while being enslaved before the Civil War times.
2. ) Her argument for the slavery was that it was only kept in line due to the punishment inflicted on slaves by their masters, and the fear that fueled the violence.
3.) I believe she portrayed both the harsh and benevolent slave-master as the same. Although slave-masters would house and look after their slaves and try to teach them their way of life which they deemed as right, it was no more better than abusing them because both treatments were for only the betterment of the slave-masters. Once they would instill this fear of being punished, the slaves would act usually more docile towards them.
4.) In comparing the North and South to the home as a "refuge", the Northern home was considered one of complete virtue and would not think the acceptance of slavery a useful enterprise. The Southern perspective never considered that they actually had "slaves", but rather unfortunate people that were passed on by birth into servitude and a necessity. Since the rest of the Southern families felt closer to God with their own interpretations, the Bible clearly states that the master is to be followed, as was seen with the slave-masters picking and choosing certain stories to apply to their slaves to bring about docility, as mentioned in the previous question. In short, the Northern home was tended by their virtue and the Southern home was tended by duty.
5.) The author used emotion to embellish the graphic nature of slavery. With the often reference to discipline, one can understand the stark reality of slavery. It was apparently successful and one can guess it served as a rallying point of an already intensely-debated issue. My emotions were pragmatic; I will only take the novel for its' value. Authors can, and will, be only stating their mere opinions and interpretations. However, I personally would not condone slavery of humans, nor would I support economic slavery.
6.) The author's attitude towards slaves was sympathetic, if not patronizing. I do not believe it was acceptable at that time, nor was it even deeply-held by Northern factory owners and politicians. Certainly if the book was to be changed, the word context would be affected, but knowing todays' political-correct terms, it would not turn out to hold the same meaning as it did when it was initially written.
7.) I do not believe reading the novel is a necessity, no more so than reading Mein Kampf, to describe a jaded view or racial superiority. Ms. Stowe's own roots may or may not have been served by slavery. This history should be put behind us, and should only serve as an example of human behavior and what we should not let happen. Uncle Tom's Cabin characterized gracious people in the South as the solely responsible; however, without slavery, the demands of the North and around the world would not been met. Thus, a hypocrisy has been formed. The father of this country, as well as many other founding-fathers, owned slaves.
2. ) Her argument for the slavery was that it was only kept in line due to the punishment inflicted on slaves by their masters, and the fear that fueled the violence.
3.) I believe she portrayed both the harsh and benevolent slave-master as the same. Although slave-masters would house and look after their slaves and try to teach them their way of life which they deemed as right, it was no more better than abusing them because both treatments were for only the betterment of the slave-masters. Once they would instill this fear of being punished, the slaves would act usually more docile towards them.
4.) In comparing the North and South to the home as a "refuge", the Northern home was considered one of complete virtue and would not think the acceptance of slavery a useful enterprise. The Southern perspective never considered that they actually had "slaves", but rather unfortunate people that were passed on by birth into servitude and a necessity. Since the rest of the Southern families felt closer to God with their own interpretations, the Bible clearly states that the master is to be followed, as was seen with the slave-masters picking and choosing certain stories to apply to their slaves to bring about docility, as mentioned in the previous question. In short, the Northern home was tended by their virtue and the Southern home was tended by duty.
5.) The author used emotion to embellish the graphic nature of slavery. With the often reference to discipline, one can understand the stark reality of slavery. It was apparently successful and one can guess it served as a rallying point of an already intensely-debated issue. My emotions were pragmatic; I will only take the novel for its' value. Authors can, and will, be only stating their mere opinions and interpretations. However, I personally would not condone slavery of humans, nor would I support economic slavery.
6.) The author's attitude towards slaves was sympathetic, if not patronizing. I do not believe it was acceptable at that time, nor was it even deeply-held by Northern factory owners and politicians. Certainly if the book was to be changed, the word context would be affected, but knowing todays' political-correct terms, it would not turn out to hold the same meaning as it did when it was initially written.
7.) I do not believe reading the novel is a necessity, no more so than reading Mein Kampf, to describe a jaded view or racial superiority. Ms. Stowe's own roots may or may not have been served by slavery. This history should be put behind us, and should only serve as an example of human behavior and what we should not let happen. Uncle Tom's Cabin characterized gracious people in the South as the solely responsible; however, without slavery, the demands of the North and around the world would not been met. Thus, a hypocrisy has been formed. The father of this country, as well as many other founding-fathers, owned slaves.