Equiano isnt the greatest mind of our time but of his own time. I think it was revolultionary to stand up against the idea of slavery. Slavery was the norm of that time, and to have a man stand against it is huge. Its big to suggest another idea...the idea of labor in africa. though this isnt the best idea due to the fact of possible exploitation of labor but its definetly a step up from slavery. But at the same time if you want to suggest a higher form of larbor, then why suggest the that you would put your ear to a book in hopes of learning something. Equiano seems to contradicy himself.
Heather

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.

Equinano: giving V 2.0 of the truth

Is Equiano the greatest possibility of our time? I want to go into more depth about the final idea Equiano had regarding slave trade, as discussed in class, I understand he wanted, instead of people trading people it would be people trading the things people were forced to make. I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea. It would not solve the problem of slavery but make it different in a way that would eliminate chances of improvement. Europeans would keep it out of sight and thus out of mind also now since its not "slavery" there would be no moral objections to it, when it is in fact morally object. Now Africans would be stuck in this place with hardly a chance for change and in an only slightly better place than before. Another reason for my disagreement would be because Equiano, as his main point of argument uses economics and money to solve the problem, when the problem isn't monetary it's moral. Europeans should not ban slaves because it is economically smart, which would not change the views of Africans as inferior, but be persuaded to do so by showing how morally unacceptable it is. So is Equiano the greatest possibility of our time? No. Equiano's muddled version of the truth is written so intently for the English that I can't tell whether it's the truth or the exaggeration that I'm reading. Back then, however I understand this narrative made a big impact on the direction of the abolitionist movement, but reading it now to gain understanding of that time seems hard to do with so many clear untruths. Who has heard of Equiano anyway?

I was kind of late in starting the Equiano reading, but as I was reading through the chapters, especially the first two or three, it felt more like an ethnography from an anthropologist, rather than some exciting narrative/autobiography-that-isn't-really-autobiographical (assuming he wasn't originally from Africa). The whole thing seemed too structured, too matter-of-fact-ly. Plus, assuming he was born in Africa like he supposedly said he was, his English seemed incredibly immaculate. The whole thing gave off a sense of being very objective and scientific... well, as scientific-ly sounding as anthropology can get.

So he's not really African born...? So he really didn't experience his sister getting torn from his arms, he didn't really suffer the exchange from one master to the next? Then it just makes his whole story seem even MORE objective. Keeping his origin in mind, I couldn't get a sense of truth behind his supposed emotions, his gaining and losing of friendships, his dumbstruck fear of a painting that seemed to always watch him, his paranoia of being eaten by the white folks. It seemed to kind of mock the trials and tribulations of the slaves that were pillaged from their villages and put to agonizing work against their will. Yes, his descriptions of the treatment of slaves was horrific, and yes, it was shocking, but it was more like from the eyes of a witness rather than a participator. I just didn't get a sense of legitimacy, and it's probably because an autobiography that isn't autobiographical just loses its credibility with me.

I TOTALLY don't mean that the whole slavery ordeal is nonsensical. I just feel like his story was falsely advertised.

So... I'm just here, in my friend's suite alone. I don't even live in this city, and I'm watching The X-Files and Alias and listening to KALX and also doing anything but my physics homework, which includes blogging. Good stuff. Other good stuff: Equiano being the "grandest possibility of our time." I still do not understand how that could be so. While it is certainly noble that Equiano was able to make a name for himself through pure ingenuity, gain freedom, though it was threatened many times, and even rise up to be a person with enough authority to join the abolitionsit cause, he seems to be taking on a purely white European stance. Even on my edition of the book (I don't have the Classic Slave Narratives-- only Equiano's story), he has a powdered wig (only slightly gray) and he's wearing the English dress. But, that's only superficial. Clothes don't make the man, of course. It's Equiano's actions that count. He did go against the popular opinion by attempting to trade slavery with nonhuman trade, and I do admire him for promoting complete freedom for all people, but the "grandest possibility of our time" is one mighty title. For all that he did for the abolitionist movement, I feel he should have done something more than write a book of his life. Galvanizing more people to achieve a wider slavery ban would probably do it. But, at that time, he still didn't have enough authority to successfully motivate those who were entirely in agreement with slave owners and those involved with the slave trade. In any case, anyone who has been through hell only to come back alive, and on top, truly deserves recognition. Just making it against all odds merits grandness.

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.