Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to finish the Equiano reading until recently. I know Equiano is known for playing a leading role in the abolition of the British slave trade, but I feel as if his intentions shifted by the end of the narrative. The moral issues surrounding slavery involve the idea that the slave owner possesses the individual and has the right to impose his own beliefs, unquestioned, onto that person. Free Equiano in the beginning of the book – a simplistic life in Africa, dependent on the earth and governed by superstition- stands in stark contrast to free Equiano at the conclusion of the book- a European civilian devoted to Christianity. It seems that Equiano’s freedom was dependent on the condition that he was converted into European religion. While Equiano appears to have whole-heartedly accepted the teachings of Christianity, he has lost the freedom of thought he once possessed. Even though Equiano fights for the physical release of the Africans, he shares the same sense of moral superiority that the Europeans used to justify enslaving the Africans in the first place. Granted, accepting Christianity humanized the Africans according to Europeans standards. For a white reader, Equiano’s narrative is convincing of a proper and moral individual, deserving of freedom. However, if I were a member of Equiano’s native village, his fight for freedom would still seem a betrayal to his origins.