Loading Likes...
one of the things I’ve found most interesting while reading Incidents is the way Jacobs describes characters as both kind and cruel within the same breath. Often times she’ll describe the apparent “kindness” of slaveowners, while still describing them as slaveowners. This really contributes to the irony in the book.There were a few times I found myself scoffing out loud at something I read. Another example would be her description of the jailor as a good man who lets her and family see her brother, however while he is helping them, he only does so much, letting them see him for a very short period of time and doing nothing to actually help.
It becomes very easy to draw connections between Jacobs’s argument here and Douglass’s argument in his own narrative. I think the common notion that slavery was damaging to the moral character of everyone involved. (particularly white people) is really interesting and likely a good argument if one were appealing to a white reader who didn’t want to be corrupted by slavery or perhaps didn’t see the truth of the evils being committed. I know I’ve mentioned this argument before in my blog posts but it always stands out to me for some reason. I think because its a point that is relatable to readers, most everyone has witnessed someone become power hungry in some way. But at the same time it’s almost depressing that an argument like that every had to be made. The fact that the argument must be framed as trying to save potential slaveowners from the damage of slavery instead of for rescuing the people who are actually suffering is incredibly sad.
3 thoughts on ““kindness” and atrocity”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree with you that Jacobs often portrays characters as both kind and cruel. One example of this is in Chapter 14, where Jacobs describes the baptism of her daughter. Her father’s old mistress comes to the baptism, and she “clasped a gold chain round my baby’s neck. I thanked her for this kindness; but I did not like the emblem. I wanted no chain to be fastened on my daughter, not even if its links were of gold” (70). Here, one can see that her father’s mistress intends to be kind in giving the gift. But at the same time, the mistress doesn’t understand the symbolism of the chain, and is unaware of how much it reminds Jacobs of the burdens of slavery. I think this demonstrates that even if the white people in the story are sympathetic, they can never fully understand what Jacobs and her family have to go through because of slavery.
I agree about how depressing this understanding of Jacobs’ text is. She understood that she had an audience she had to play to. Like Douglass, there is an implicit undertone to the entire affair where both of them recognize the precarious position they’re in and must delicately thread the narrative together without completely driving off a white reader. There is very little kindness exhibited by the white “characters” in her book. Even those that do assist her rarely do all they can for her, and almost invariably they end up taking advantage of their respective social statuses in some way. But the average white reader of her day would not be willing to empathize with a Black protagonist, so some measure of sympathetic characterization must be extended to the “characters” whom they can project onto. White people must be damaged by slavery in some way in order to ensure they see it as an undeniable evil.