BLOG!

I feel like Equiano was not as great of a figure as many of the writings about him make him appear to be. I just wonder how effect he is able to communicate the argument for the emancipation of slaves when much of his writings seems to cater to his British audience. Though his work can be interpreted in many different ways and arguments can be made both for and against his writings as a valid and definitive piece for "Afro-Futurism," Equiano may have tried too hard or been even too naive in his arguments for it to do slaves justice. The whole argument that we went over in class in which he suggests viewing Africans more as consumers than commodities seemed just a tad too ideal. Given that he is indeed and master stylist, he must have had enough smarts to know the improbability of such a drastic change occurring. People generally don't like changing something that is bringing benefits to them, especially if it means an effort on their part to make the new adjustment. Overall though, I get the feeling that this is all leading back to a giant question mark just like Androids. Are we to assume that everything Equiano wrote, including the more ridiculous or romanticized portions are all intentional? Or did he write it in an seriousness, which would greatly affect the argument for his work as a true champion for the cause of slavery since some of it seems to play directly into supporting the opposing side. With so many dimensions and possibilities, it seems like Equiano's work in the end is more like a work that is left unfinished, leaving the final message to be taken away up to the reader's own interpretation of the book. Or maybe I'm just confused. Either seems to be a strong argument.