The use of the word "right" in The Known World is a confusing
concept. We, as children in a twenty-first century American society, are
generally raised to believe that slavery is bad. Slaves were treated
maliciously. The concept of slavery as a whole is an aspect of American
history that us as a country would rather just forget about. However, in
The Known World, slavery isn't seen as so. It's seen as a
normalcy, because servitude was normal during those times. We, as a
society, see the issue of a slavery as a clear-cut, black and white
issue: slavery is "wrong" and the concept of freed slaves is "right".
However, in this novel, the concept of "right and wrong" with slavery is
a gray area. Is it right that a black man "owns his family"? Is owning
other human beings as your slaves okay as long as they are treated with
compassion? The use of "right" in The Known World is substantial (and even a little ironic) because the line between "right and wrong" is so blurred.
We
see this in how slave owners treat their slaves throughout the novel.
Robbins is talking about a slave named Sam, who disobeyed and had his
ear chopped off. However, after he suffered the pain, he became an
obedient slave and, therefore, Robbins treated him with compassion.
"'Once he learned right from wrong, he game me good work,' Robbins said
to the overseer" (93). The ideal of "right and wrong" is construed here.
Robbins believed he was in the "right" by chopping off the ear of his
servant and teaching him a lesson. After the slave was obedient, Robbins
treated him with overwhelming compassion, giving Sam a cabin to
himself. Because of the different time period and our knowledge gained
from American history, the audience may believe that Robbins was most
surely in the wrong by cutting off another human beings ear. However,
Robbins believed he was in the right, by teaching a lesson and then
granting that compassion with a reward.
The prevalent
use of the word "right' is symbolic throughout the novel because of how
often the morality of "right and wrong" is questioned. It almost as if
the author wants the audience to compare and contrast the "right and
wrong' of the 1800s plantation times and today.
I find your observation that right and wrong are so blurred in this novel very interesting. I noticed the same pattern throughout the book and I think that our modern values and standards of life definitely harden our perception of right and wrong because none of us were placed in the situation of owning slaves or treating human beings as if they were property. I also wanted to add that I feel like every character in this book is characterized by their view of right and wrong. I had a hard time deciding which characters were protagonists simply because their moral views varied so much and didn't coincide with my personal views. For example, I really enjoyed John Skiffington as a character. At first, he seemed to be a kind-hearted man who did his job to the best of his ability and didn't agree with slavery. However, as the story continued my support for John lessened because although he held moral values and knew "right" from "wrong," he never acted out or stopped slaves from being treated poorly. Ultimately, he ended up being just as bad as the men who illegally sold Augustus because he stood by and allowed other people to act immorally. At the end of the novel John's moral values completely disintegrate and he becomes the exact same type of violent brute he hated his entire life. None of the characters in the novel seem to be completely black or white when it comes to their views on right versus wrong. I viewed everyone as fitting into a sort of spectrum between right and wrong, where even though some characters may disagree with slavery, they do own slaves but try to counteract this fact by treating the slaves with kindness and compassion. The balance that most characters sought out between right and wrong was a complex one, and I'm not sure that any one character achieved that balance.
ReplyDeleteKacey, I think you’re definitely correct that the frequent use of the word “right” was used in some ways to point out the irony of the situation in the book. This post reminded me of the New York Times review of the book written in 2003 by Janet Maslin. In the review, she refers to The Known World as “penetrat[ing] a realm of contradictions,” which stems from the situation of a black slave-owner. In the article, Maslin says, ''The Known World includes the usual and unavoidable blunt indictments of slavery. (One year's rainy slave market is remembered sadly because so many white people caught colds.) But in no way is Mr. Jones's work morally black and white.” This goes along perfectly with what you were saying about the concept of slavery and right and wrong being a “gray area.” It’s a generally confusing and controversial topic, and I think the fact that Jones wrote about a black slave owner begs the question, is that situation better or worse than a white slave owner owning black slaves? On page 138 of the book when Henry is talking to his father about owning his own slaves, he says “’Papa, I ain’t done nothing I ain’t a right to. I ain’t done nothing no white man wouldn’t do.” We know it’s wrong to own slaves, but the uncomfortable irony of the situation makes things even more disturbing. In this way, I think you’re right about the novel constantly making the reader question the morality of “right and wrong.”
ReplyDeleteBook review: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/14/books/books-of-the-times-his-brother-s-keeper-in-antebellum-virginia.html
Kasey, I think you provide an accurate assessment on the use of the word “right” in this novel. Personally, I found it difficult to discern the literary significance of the word, but perhaps this was intentional on the part of Jones to confuse the reader about the actual definition of the word. By doing this, Jones is able to reach the reader on a deeper level to compare the gray area that the reader experiences and the metaphorical gray area present within the main characters’ own moral deliberations. The confusing way in which the word “right” is used is present when Maude discusses with Caldonia the decision on whether to sell her slaves, “‘I don’t want you to be like your father, mired in so much grief he didn’t know right from wrong” (180). In Maude’s eyes, Caldonia maintaining her slaves and therefore her legacy would be “right”. The reader also sees a terribly misconstrued definition when Travis talks to Barnum on the kidnapping and sale of Augustus, “Why a man, even something worthless like you, sees what is right and still refuses to do it” (217). To the patrollers, the right thing to do would is allow Augustus to be sold. In this passage, Jones proves the meaninglessness nature of the word “right”. In both of these passages, no values can inherently be ascribed to the word “right”, instead it is only defined by the person actually using the word. The reader can infer from there that the only reason slavery is acceptable, or “right”, is simply because of the preponderance of people who use the word “right” to describe slavery. Just like a reader finds it difficult to describe exactly what “right” means in this novel, so does the reader struggle to identify what is so “right” about slavery. Jones challenges the reader to critically think about what is actually right, instead of accepting traditional definitions of morality, especially when seeming bastions of morality (the preacher) are corrupt themselves.
ReplyDelete