The
Known World
shows how individual perspectives can vary so much, even in a small uneventful
county like Manchester. William Robbins is a man at the one end of the
spectrum. He is the stereotypical southern plantation owner who sees no
problems with owning people as slaves, and treating them like a piece of
property. While there are multiple occasions when Robbins shows his callous
view towards slavery, it is quite well exemplified when he bans Augustus and
Mildred from seeing Henry for a month. After learning Augustus pushed Henry to
the ground, Robbins says, “I heard you did something to my boy, to my property”
(19). Despite Robbins’s great affection towards Henry, he is a piece of
property at the end. Robbins doesn’t know the names of most of his slaves as
well, and they are often described by their physical characteristics, similar
to how furniture or animals are described. Rita is simply known as the slave
with “noticeable mole on left cheek with grey eyes” (18).
Being
a southern county, one would expect that all whites would most likely have
similar view points as that of Robbins; however, John Skiffington proves
otherwise. He promised Winifred on their weeding night that “he and his father
had sworn off slavery before they left North Carolina” (33). However, he
willingly sets up slave patroller positions around Manchester, which seems
contradictory to his beliefs. His flawed map of America created by “a German,
Hans Waldseemuller, who lived in France three centuries before” sold by a
Russian best symbolizes his view (174). He knows that it wrong, but it is what
he has and what he know. He draws comfort from the sense of
familiarity/normality of his everyday life, and being a man from the south,
slavery naturally falls in that category. He perhaps even experiences some
degree of pleasure from “believing” that slavery is wrong, similar to how he
enjoys his map of “The Known World,” even though he is aware of the mistakes on
it.
Henry
perhaps carries the most interesting view point. He is a black, yet being
raised alongside Robbins, he doesn't necessarily believe that slavery is evil.
Rather, he thinks he could be a “gentle” slave master, kinder than any other
white slave owner. It is interesting how he fails to see how oxymoronic his
statement is. “He did not understand that the kind of world he wanted to create
was doomed before he had even spoken the first syllable of the word master” (64). Even when confronting
Augustus about owning slaves, he takes the stick from his father’s hands and
breaks. He then says, “Thas how a master feels” (138). It is also interesting
to note how he says such statement in a “non-white” pronunciation, highlighting
the statement’s irony.
I
maybe stretching this too far, but I see a parallel between these flawed
individual perspectives, and how Christopher Columbus “found” America,
especially with how Skiffington’s map is described in such detail. Columbus
thought he reached the East Indies he set out for, and because that was his “known
world,” he called the native inhabitants “Indians.” Instead of the location of
the continent, slavery is the topic of discussion, and the characters in the
book offer varying view points, despite the fact that slavery is inherently
wrong, just as America were never the East Indies under no circumstances.
I completely agree with your observation that there are such a wide variety of perspectives in this novel, and they raise lots of questions as to what is morally acceptable within the context of each character. I commented on Kacey's post earlier and said that I see the characters as being part of a spectrum that includes different definitions of right and wrong. I also think you are definitely spot on in drawing connections between the flawed "The Known World" map and the characters' viewpoints. Both obviously have errors and are not as accurate as they seem. However, I think that even though most of the characters are somewhat aware of the flaws in their thinking, they find solace in knowing that they have at least tried to think the right thing. In Skiffington and Henry's case, they both feel that slavery is wrong and unjust, but they continue to own slave(s) and pardon their own behavior simply because they feel that their intentions are pure.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when William Robbins is about to buy Moses he threatens him saying "I will buy you just to take you out in the street and shoot you" (172). Skiffington simply stands by and in his head thinks "I arrest you for the murder of this n***** right in front of my eyes" (172). At this point it is clear that if Robbins actually did kill Moses, Skiffington wouldn't do a thing about it. In my opinion, this attempt to compensate isn't successful for Skiffington or Henry. Henry dies a drawn out death and doesn't receive the house in heaven he always dreamed of. Skiffington eventually loses control and kills Mildred right before he is murdered himself. It is a bad ending for both characters, and it exposes their flawed thinking and how it impacted their life in the long run.