Just a little more on Oroonoko

After reading the first portion of this story, as Oroonoko was on the boat headed for the plantation, I remember thinking that I would be very upset if he didn't find Imoinda over there.  Needless to say, when they found each other and finally got to be together I was pretty happy.  Unfortunately the story just goes downhill from there.  I don't quite get why people thought Oroonoko would simply sit around and let the promises made to him be delayed forever; I was more surprised that he waited as long as he did.  And seriously, "we have to wait until the governor gets back" is a pretty shoddy excuse considering the entire point of a deputy governor is to fill the governor's shoes while he's not around.  There's no reason he couldn't have made the call himself, which means he was just being (as we found out later) a major asshole.  I guess maybe they were used to dealing with slaves who had been captured in battle and felt, culturally, that their fate was deserved.  Whatever the case, things took a sharp turn for the worse after he led the mass escape.

(www.quickmeme.com)

I was heartened to hear in class that I was not the only one who approved of his killing Imoinda.  At that point it was obvious they were not going to get their freedom, even though they could have given the colony a hundred other slaves as a ransom.  (From a pragmatic point of view, why the people in charge wouldn't trade two troublesome slaves for a hundred more docile ones is something I'll never understand.)  I agree with his determination to live free or die, as did the founders of this country under much less harsh treatment than he suffered.  What's more, the manner of his death justified his choice to me fully; if they would go so far as to cut off his genitals and other parts of his body and burn them in front of him, I cringe to think what they would have done to his wife and unborn child.

Oroonoko's death scene, to me, was the ultimate revelation of who is "civilized" and who is "savage."  Part of why I view Oroonoko and Imoinda as so high on the "civilized" scale is because of where they started in relation to where they ended up, in terms of morality and personal growth and character.  If you are raised in a civilized culture, with an emphasis on right and wrong, a strong moral code, and a high degree of organization, I think it is far worse for you to sink to the barbarous level of Oroonoko's grandfather than it is for someone raised in a less civilized culture.  Basically, I think you should be measured by the culture you were raised in.  Of course, the natives in this story present an interesting dilemma.  They have a strong moral code and a good understanding of right and wrong, but they don't have a lot of organization.  Does this make them more civilized or more savage?  The definition you use has a great effect on how they are categorized.  Personally, I consider morality to be the most important product of culture, so I consider a highly moral society to be a civilized one.  How about you?

(4 out of 5)

Oroonoko: Civil or Savage?

When we discussed the civility and savageness of the characters in Oroonoko a few classes ago,I think that most of the groups agreed that the king and captain were savage, and that Imoinda was one of the more civilized of the characters. Oroonoko's place on the chart in all of the groups seemed to fall in the Most Civil to Neutral range. I forgot to write it down and my memory is hazy, but I believe that my group placed Oroonoko closer to the most civilized end of the spectrum.

After our class discussion, it did not seem so clear to me where all the characters should be placed, especially Oroonoko himself because he has changed so much by the end of the story. By our society's standards, it would be agreed that slavery is bad, and therefore the English should be considered savage in this story as they are trading, and killing, African Americans as slaves. But in the time period that this story takes place, slavery was a common and mostly accepted thing, wouldn't the English be considered civilized as an organized society?

In Oroonoko's case, he at first seems to be one of the most civilized characters, and one of the reasons being that he fell in love with Imoinda and decided that he wanted to be with her and only her. Though this appears to be civilized to us, in his culture, it was common for men to take many girlfriends, so Oroonoko was actually going against his society's standards. At the end of the book, when he realizes that he will never escape and that his son will be born into slavery, Oroonoko decides to, with her permission, kill Imoinda and later allow himself to be killed. By the end, Oroonoko seems to have lost all civility, but when you look at it from his perspective, he did the only thing he felt was right in his situation. He did not want his child to live his life enslaved, and felt that it would be better to die than live a life without freedom. This may come across as selfish, for taking the lives of not only himself, but also Imoinda and their unborn child, however, he genuinely believed that there was no other way out. Imoinda also agreed with Oroonoko's plan, so he did not commit these acts without her consent, so he cannot be definitely described as completely savage towards the end. It is difficult to clearly define a character as civilized or savage in this story, because it really just depends on the perspective of the reader, as well as the characters.

Brutal Civility?

Just what does that mean anyways?

"Brutal", according to Google, means "savagely violent". "Civility" means "formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech." or "polite remarks used in formal conversation."

These are the two terms that came into my mind when reading the end of Oroonoko. On both sides of the story, there were perfect examples of those being "brutish" or "barbaric" and of those being "civil". However, even though there were plenty of disturbing images throughout, it was the end that sent chills down my spine.

I'm sure you all know how this went by now. Oroonoko is lied to about being returned to Africa with his family. He is brutally whipped and had pepper poured into the open wounds by Byam. After the beating, Oroonoko realizes he will never be free and his unborn child will never be free as well. He decides to kill his pregnant wife and then himself and...well...the rest is fictional history.

But here is what disturbed me:

Just imagining someone being whipped like how Oroonoko was whipped sends goosebumps up my arm. Tack on the fact that pepper is poured into the open wounds and I am visibly cringing. In my head, I'm imagining something along the lines of The Passion of the Christ with an extra guy in the mix just adding some spices to the newly tenderized meat that was a human being.

And all of this came from someone who was a member of those who are considered "civil". This brutal and apparently unwarranted (at least in my personal opinion) punishment is terrible enough, but to have been doled out by someone of such a prim and proper class is just downright scary.

I have no idea who this gentleman is, but I do know he is dressed appropriately for the time that Oroonoko was set. This guy is in military gear fitting of the time and, even though he is obviously a military guy, this guy doesn't look to be the kind of guy who can whip a man as brutally as Oroonoko was whipped and then proceed to pour pepper into the broken skin. Imagining this man doing what he did and then probably going off to enjoy his afternoon tea with blood still on his face, gloves, and fancy clothes just sends chills up my spine.

 

Yet, he is a member of "civilized" society.

 

Oroonoko, on the other hand, is "brutal". Somehow, this former African prince turned slave turned whipping post is the one who is the brute. Even when he informs his pregnant wife that he is going to slit her throat and then kill himself, he is the one who is still in chains like some kind of animal.

 

Also, it is even creepier that his wife basically replies with "Do what you must and thank you for letting me die with some dignity." He then slits her throat and CUTS OFF HER FACE?! I'm surprised we didn't open that can of worms in class. Or maybe we did...it's been a while since we all discussed this as a class.

 

However, he doesn't go into a brutal rampage against Byam. He does not engage in any further violence at all. Instead, he stays by his wife's side until her decomposing corpse alerts Byam's men of their location.

 

From there, Oroonoko is basically cut apart like some two year old's Ken doll. Yet, he still does not react violently. He just stands there, smoking his pipe while his nose, ears, and one leg are chopped off. This is a man who, unlike Byam, has every reason and right to unleash unholy Hell upon them. He lost everything, but remains calm and, dare I say it, civil?

 

However, he may have been calm and "formal", but slitting his pregnant wife's throat and then cutting off her face hardly seems like "civil" behavior (that's the key word).

 

 

I think that through these two characters, Aphra Behn made a very poignant declaration about humanity as a whole: "we are all brutally civil". Yes, of course, not all of us would turn to violent words, actions, or thoughts as a way to attain some kind of personal gratification, but it is the ones who do that make society this way. And through the actions of both the white and the black characters of this play, Behn shows that this "brutally civil" society is no just limited to one race or another. Every human being is victim to it.

 

To me, this is a very stunning revelation, especially during a time where the white man was considered to be the epitome of all that is good, right, and proper in the world. And to be made by a white woman?! Now, you're just talking crazy.

Measures of Civilization

Though it's been a while since our last discussion about the correlation and fluidity of how we define 'civilization' and 'savagery', the wide spectrum of opinions differing as to where each character stands has kept turning back up in my mind. There is no question that "Oroonoko" is meant to be a morally grey short story, but can any of the characters in there really be ranked in measures of civility? 

Take Oroonoko for example. The reason that my discussion group ended up splitting him into 'post' and 'pre-slavery' Oroonoko was because of just how drastically his character ends up fluctuating throughout the story. He almost ends up going through a circle of stages that all lead up to his sanity completely shattering. 

At first, he's easily the most civilized out of everyone, including the narrator herself. Upon imprisonment, he still manages to keep a little bit of his wits about him, but not for long. 

After killing Imoinda, that title of civility is taken away. Or is it? 

Before Oroonoko slices Imoinda's throat, he explains that he must kill her in order to have his revenge. Barbaric as this may seem (and it most certainly is), Imoinda responds not with resistance, but with pleadings for him to do what he must. She consents to her own death, and never once is there any mention of her resisting Oroonoko's treatment of her.

Now, by saying that, I'm not in any way condoning Oroonoko's actions as 'right'. However, can we argue that this very action of killing his wife as a means of protection is civilized it its own right? Certainly not by our own standards, but by the standards of a culture that Behn is trying to hammer into our heads is 'different', such behavior could be considered the most noble and 'civilized' around. Imoinda herself is always portrayed as being excessively passive, which is certainly a desired trait for both the white and black cultures that seem to clash on almost every other subject. Her kind and timid demeanor makes her the most neutral of the characters in the story, as well as the most civilized for her own culture.

Oroonoko's life ends with a pipe dangling at the edge of his mouth, and his limbs carelessly hacked off, yet still he smokes it. In that death, he proves that he is the most civilized in both polarizing cultures, his own and that of the narrator. He is born into of society, and dies in another with just as much dignity. 

We can't discuss such complex matters of civilization and savagery as being so black and white, because in the end, it's all a matter of perspective based on our own societal experiences. 

Determining Civility

Determining who was savage and who was civilized in Oroonoko was a difficult task for the class. This was primarily because there seemed to be a struggle to figure out how to define a savage or civilized person. Our group questioned whether to classify someone as civilized based on the progressiveness or primitiveness of their culture, or the moral and behavioral traits the people use to treat themselves and members of society. It was interesting that, based on progressiveness, we thought that the English were the most civilized, and the Indians the most savage, but when evaluating moral behaviors, we thought the opposite. All of this has made me curious as to why we would even consider progressiveness as a mark of civility? How does progressiveness determine the civility or savageness of a group of people? Why do we not only judge civility and savageness based on moral behavior?

Post 4/5

Savage Civilization

The class discussion yesterday, was uncomfortable for me. It was not because of the topic, although the discussion of slavery and inequality is inherently uncomfortable because it is so fundamentally wrong, but because the criteria felt fuzzy. My problem was and continues to be in the subjective nature of the terms “civilized” and “savage”, and perhaps that was the point.(?)  Even the interweb is conflicted:

A lack of scary masks determine civilization?

Or is it simply the ability to manipulate?

We felt like before we could begin to categorize the characters of “Oroonoko” by level of civility, our group had to establish criteria for what exactly constituted each and what we arrived at was a level of organization and technological prowess –the more developed a country was, the more civilized its society. And while our definition worked, in a way, it prevented us from making the sliding scale of douchebaggery that we really wanted to. If we had categorized in terms of civility toward fellow humans, then I feel the native “Indians” and Britons would have swapped sides on the scale with the “Indians” taking the place for most civil and the Britons at the opposite end of the spectrum. But to minimize this, the author subtly suggests that the only reason the natives are so kind is because of their collective naiveté – they just don’t know any better or they would be just like “us”. This assertion is unsettling as it insinuates that the natural state of a civilized human is dishonest and cruel, and I’m just not buying it. Perhaps this was a ploy to soften the indignities presented to the reader by what would have been their own nationality, but it feels an awful lot like rationalization to me.

Yeah, there’s just no rationalizing this.

            I don’t think even after class that I’m any closer to reconciling my feelings on this and it bugs me – and I think that it should. Rereading the last few pages, and keeping in mind Jordan’s comments about how O’ is really the only character that evolves during the piece, I wonder if he isn’t meant to be the example of civilized man. Behn gives him dignity in death that is usually reserved for Stoic Philosophers who were portrayed as the perfection of humanity. Should the ability to recognize injustice and wrongs and to change because of it be the mark of civility?

 Post 4 of 5

Civilized or Savage???

Today's class really had me thinking about the ideals that define civilized and savage. Both have normal connotations, civilized seems to always have a "good" feeling when savage always has a "negative" one.  Those who are civilized are normally at the top of the pyramid while those who are savage are more like animals just surviving.
The actual definition from the Oxford English Dictionary are as follows:

Civilized: At an advanced stage of social and cultural development, usually marked by the existence of organized communities and an adherence to established conventions of behavior; highly developed; refined and sophisticated in manner or taste; educated, cultured.
Savage: That is in a state of nature, wild

Now, in order to get a feel of who is really savage and civilized in Oroonoko it takes a little thought with those definitions. Of course when I thought of savage, I thought of the African people in the story. They seemed like the most wild and lacked the "ideals" of a civilized nation. But then again, I thought of the Indians. Actually they are those most savage only because they are so obvious to the ideals, morals, corruption, and evil that always seems to come with those civilized. The Indians are indeed ones with nature. They don't sell their people for slaves in hope of gaining benefits in the end. The people don't even have a word for a lie. 
As for the Africans, I would then place them to be in second to most savage. Their lifestyle is one that is scary and far from something that would be considered civilized. This leaves the English to be the most civilized. Out of the three, yes, they are most civilized, but I feel some of their actions towards the natives and especially the Africans make them savage bullies. They use their whits and position on the hierarchy to take advantage of all those below them. The Africans only do what they do because they don't know any better nor could they comprehend another lifestyle. The English however do know, yet they still play dirty. On a connotation level, I would put the English and Africans most savage only because the two play so dirty in the slave trade. Even though the natives are so oblivious to outside culture, that lack of knowledge makes them more civilized. 

What's wrong with these people?

Oroonoko really got to me.  I was actually mad after the ending, which in my opinion means that at least the author succeeded in her goal of making people care about this issue.  But reading a story so heavily saturated with slavery made me think of a quote by one of my favorite authors, Terry Pratchett.  He speaks through the character of Granny Weatherwax, saying, "A sin, young man, is when you treat people as things.  Including yourself.  That's what sin is" (Carpe Jugulum).  And that's exactly what happens over and over again in this story.

First off, I don't think I have to tell anyone that slavery is the most literal example of treating people as things.  Slavery takes a human being and makes him a salable commodity, preempting his free will and self-determination.  But it's far from the only example of this definition of sin.  Oroonoko's grandfather treats Imoinda as a thing, there for his pleasure alone, and when he decides to punish her, he sells her to slavers with barely a second thought.  His actions also show how little he regards his own grandson when he steals away his betrothed, the woman he loves alone and who loves him in return.

Again and again in this book, white men are proven to be faithless liars.  These men treat everyone around them as things, justifying their manipulation and deceit by telling themselves they're just slaves, or just natives, or just subjects, not worthy of respect or consideration.  In fact, these men are even lying to themselves, not respecting themselves enough to maintain their honor.  The worst thing, in my opinion, is that they leave honest people looking like liars if they trust their words.  For someone in a position of power, such as a deputy governor, such behavior is despicable  and an atrocious example to set for his subjects.

I also get the sense that the colonists view the natives from the same dehumanizing perspective.  The author says that they don't dare take the natives as slaves because they are so numerous.  This implies to me that if they could get away with it, they would just enslave the natives; after all, they're just godless heathens, right?  I think this is the exact reason the author makes such a big deal of the innocence and morality of the natives compared to the whites.  In fact, the disparity between the religious tenets of these liars and their actions makes me think they see God as just another thing, something to use to calm the masses but which means nothing to them.

So what do you all think?  Did Terry Pratchett get it right, or is there more to the story?

3 out of 5

Gruesome Ending to a Tragic Tale

    It was hard for me to read the ending of Oroonoko. Being from the twenty-first century, it is hard for me to imagine people enslaving other human beings and treating them so poorly. It moved me emotionally and made me cringe while I was reading that, but because of that stirring of emotions, I could not seem to stop reading. I wonder if this was Behn's point all along. She wanted people to realize that slavery was going on in the world, and it was affecting families and even royalty of other cultures in a very real way.
     Knowing some about slavery and what all it entailed, I was not as shocked at the cruelty as I believe someone during Behn's time would be. Sure, there were prisoners of war and public executions, but slavery was not the norm. The way that Oroonoko was killed was worse than how animals were killed for food. To wrap ones mind around it is unthinkable, and I cannot imagine the other ways in which slaves were killed.
    To Behn's original audience and to readers today, the reality of slavery is revealed in a gruesome and emotionally stirring way. Behn makes one think about slavery in a way that slave owners would never wish people to know. Her bluntness and the way she elevates Oroonoko at the beginning, stirs empathy within the reader as Oroonoko comes to a tragic end.



Blog challenge: 4 of 5!

On Oroonoko's Looks

While I'll be going into just how messed up and twisted the ending to this story is in another blog post (because, believe you me, it deserves it), I thought I might backtrack a bit and touch upon the curious matter that is how Oroonoko's (excuse me, 'Caesar's') appearance is presented to us, the audience. It's probably the one thing outside of the ending that I find really fascinating and unique about this story.

It''s hard for me to keep in mind Behn's audience when reading "Oroonoko". At the time, they knew little to nothing about even the bare concept of slavery, let alone how to feel about people who just so happened to carry a different skin tone from their own. I can only imagine how conflicted many of them probably were when reading this story in particular, especially with the way in which the protagonist himself is illustrated.

Make no mistake, Behn clearly wants her readers to look at this seemingly 'alien' and utopian world as something completely different from their own, yet she never seems to go so far deep that she turns them away. Oroonoko himself is described as having traces of European or 'Roman' descent, and in such a way that he ends up being elevated over the rest of his people as the sympathetic protagonist.

I can only imagine that Behn's readers might have clung to these few physical similarities that Oroonoko has to themselves, for the sole reason that those skin-deep features automatically make him easier to warm up to. Yes, it's a shallow way to judge a character, but it seems like appearances were a lot more important in judging a person then than they are now.

The frustrations of Oroonoko

I don’t know why but I find this reading for Oroonoko, by Aphra Behn  to be one of the hardest one’s yet. A month or two ago I would have been so happy to read a bit more prose and now I’m just like holy moly there is so much text on one page. Aside from the length though it’s still a hard read for me and I think it is because this story is further away from religion and closer to the nasty nature of human beings. Slavery is a topic that I both hate and love to learn about as a history major. I get extremely passionate about it so it may be clouding my judgment somewhat while I read Oroonoko. I’ll have to work on that.

            I have been trying to think about what Dr. Mitchell-Buck said about if there was a hierarchy…who would be the nicest or morally good characters and I’m just like um none of them. So far though, into the first reading, I would say that Imoinda might be the nicest one. She seems the most innocent and obviously the most beautiful since everyone wants her. “On the other side, the old king, who had many wives and many concubines, wanted not court flatterers to insinuate in his heart a thousand tender thoughts for this young beauty, and who represented her to his fancy as the most charming…” (2189). They all seem pretty awful though, especially their views on slavery, Oroonoko included. The main character himself sold slaves to people and then he later ends up becoming a slave as well. Oh the irony.

From poem to prose

     Paradise Lost is an amazing poem that requires much analysis and trying to figure out what the subject of the sentence is can be tough, but the close reading we did in class really helped me grasp the meaning of it as a whole. It would be neat if we could continue reading it, but alas there is not enough time in the year. Now as we are reading Oroonoko, it seems easier to read than especially the poem of Paradise Lost.
    Taking a step back from the prose though, I have to think that it cannot be as easy as it seems. There seem to be a bunch of hidden meanings that one has to keep an eye open for, and I cannot wait to see how we analyze this in class.
     However interesting prose can be, I sometimes find more enjoyment in the analysis of poetry because there can be so much more depth within one line of poetry than sometimes one book itself. Poetry is rhythmic and beautiful and although harder to grasp, it is easier to memorize when rhyme scheme comes into play. I love poetry, but I also love reading prose as well.
     As a general consensus and as a poet on the side, I want to ask the class your opinion on which is easier to read: prose or poetry?
    And... does that opinion differ from what you enjoy reading more: prose or poetry?





Reference: http://www.poetrysansonions.com/2012/11/a-post-title-without-prose.html


Blog Challenge: 3 of 5 :)