Holocaust Survivors: Alive or Undead?

Survive a disaster and all is good... right? Wrong. As the protagonist in Day by Ellie Wielsel testify, escaping inevitable death does not mean the end of suffering. And with the Holocaust being one of the worst calamities one could survive, the subsequent tormenting ones mind is subjected to following the event would be excruciatingly painful. Here, Ellie Wiesel is trying to dispel the notion that somehow the holocaust ended when it ended. That it is not simply an event that can be given a time frame, but a horror that will continually live on with those connected to it.

Day is the story of a man dead to the world,  a man who has yet to come to terms with having survived. For him, even the simplest of tasks become related to that which he wishes to forget. When he eats his mind wanders to a time where eating was part of survival and not pleasure. This occurs when he attempts to enjoy a burger but is trifled by this though: “Once I had seen a man eating with great appetite a slice of meat without bread.” Here he is referring to a starving man eating human flesh.

For our troubles protagonist, thought itself is painful, every thought inducing action like a bullet penetrating his troubled soul. Even movies with complicated plots are agonizing to him, and he does all he can to avoid them. “Something without philosophy, without metaphysics” “It’s too hot for intellectual exercises,” Our protagonist desperately urges as he attempts to convince his girlfriend on which movie to see. He then attempts to convince her to see a mindless Brazilian murder flick: “I’d love to see how the commit murders in Brazil,” making up any possible lie to avoid a complicated movie. But why should he care? It is just a movie after all.

But for him, the character of the plot makes all the difference. For if the plot is simple and mindless, he will be able to sink himself into the world of the movie and wrap his conscious around the protagonists simple problems, avoiding his own drastic predicaments. However if he sees a thought inducing movie, his mind is forced to think, and when he thinks he thinks of the holocaust, of the horrors he has seen. For him, what movie he sees makes all the difference.

For him the challenge in the novel: Day will be to come to terms with his past, to accept his present and to not fear the future. Something that comes off as simple to the majority but near impossible for a select few.

Masters: Deities in the Minds of Slaves.

Something the I could not stop but question myself in regards to Douglass’s predicament is why he nor any other slaves had attempted a mass revolt on their slaveholders. But at the same time I question whether I would of been able to revolt myself. As for the reasoning, I would have to disagree quite heavily with a fellow AP Lang blogger: Jong Park. He argues that the reasoning for why slaves would not rebel to be the following: “Slaves had become so used to their conflicted lives that their thoughts, which should have consisted of rebellion, became thoughts that seemed as if they were satisfied with their lives” (Park). Clearly the slaves were unhappy with their lives, they showed discontent in practically everything they ever did. Whether it be their songs, which Douglass described to be full of sorrow, or the attempts at sabotaging the master in any way possible. Clearly they were not content to continue suffering.

And while I agree with him in regards to the fact that clearly the slaves should have rebelled or at least attempted some sort of mutiny, I do not think that this is due to them being content with their lives whatsoever. I agree that they were somehow able to cope with their lives however I do not think that this is why they would not rebel. They did not rebel due to a sense of fear that the slave holders were able to instill upon the slaves. The slaveholders through much practice were able to instill and idea that somehow they had divine, ultimate powers in regards to  dispelling any slave resistance. The slaves developed this mindset as a result of being constantly exposed to the inhuman actions of the masters and the feeling of despair created on the plantations. It was created as such because when one slave revolted or denied the authority of the master, he was whipped to oblivion and after seeing this done to an individual, I conjecture that the slaves assumed the same result if tried with a group. The feared the horrors that would result if they happened to get punished. Douglass had to deal with this while explaining his escape plan: The strength of our determination was about to
be fully tested. "At this time, I was very active in explaining every difficulty, removing every doubt, dispelling every fear, and inspiring all with the firmness indispensable to success in our undertaking" (Douglass, 75). It would have been near impossible to organize a revolt on a grand enough scale to cause an effect as most slaves lacked the confidence that they would succeed, and this is why Douglass failed at first, as his slaves could not overcome the fear of failiure.

Douglass: Defying Biology one Narrative at a Time

Frederick Douglass was clearly a manifestation of all a slave was not supposed to be: clever, educated, brave. According to southerners, these traits were somehow absent in the slaves’ genetic code. The slave loving Southerns, trapped in their own egotistical circle of things had deduced that slaves were incompatible with intelligence. While Douglass may be able to Describe his predicament as such:"You are loosed from your moorings, and are free; I am fast in my chains, and am a slave!” (Douglass, page 82) .  However this was the exception rather than the rule. This shows the importance of being able to write with a register that is not familiar. Douglass is able to write in a register that would be applicable to the upper class.

          Douglass shows that it is just as painful for one with knowledge, regardless of race. If one becomes aware of how life may be outside of bondage then it doesn't matter if that man was white or black or blue or yellow. It is not the race which determines how a man suffers or how he will cope with freedom, but it is experience and knowledge which all races are equally able to comprehend. Some masters comprehended this and yet they feared to give slaves this knowledge as they knew it would serve them well: “As I read and contemplated the subject, behold! that very discontentment which Master Hugh had predicted would follow my learning to read had already come, to torment and sting my soul to unutterable anguish.” However, when Douglass published his narrative, it became pitifully obvious that slaves, were not incompatible with knowledge because they could not comprehend it but instead, because it would provide them with the spark that would cause them to look for a freedom, and long for a freedom which the slaveholders wanted to deny at all costs to the slaves.

And to guide the thinking process of those on the fence in terms of slavery, slaveholders would attempt to bend the minds of those who were more malleable by introducing false notions implying that slaves were somehow biologically inferior to white men. They would come up with lies such as, the negro has a primitive mind due to years living in African jungles or that somehow they were created for the sole purpose of intense labor and would come up with some sort of insane scientific proof out of thin air. In fact there were scientists who specifically searched for nonexistent differences between blacks and whites to prove their supposed inferiority.

However there were those like Douglass who made their jobs a bit trickier in regards to justifying slavery. For if all men with African lineage were intellectually challenged then how was Douglass, a black man, capable  of such deep thoughts, such brilliant ideas. With writing that matched and even surpassed that of white writers. It was texts such as this one that helped swing people to the abolitionist side of things as they realized through reading that maybe this man was similar to himself.

They're Taking the Slaves to Isengard.

Over the course of my reading of chapters 8 and 9 of Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass, it has become clear to me that knowledge, which all humans have an insatiable thirst for, can prove to be as much a curse as a gift. I have come to view it as a parallel to the master ring in The Hobbit. I came about making this odd connection while analyzing how the possession of knowledge transformed Douglass in a relatively short amount of time and realized that the ring held by Bilbo, which quickly transformed him, could easily be interpreted as an allegory for knowledge; knowledge being the ring Douglass now must bear.

In both cases, the discovery of their new-found powers is met with a sense of elation, of power. However for them both it quickly becomes apparent that this power has a major downside. It was a power which they had to keep themselves for fear of higher powers who did not wish for them to have these gifts. For Bilbo these would be the forces of evil who would hunt Bilbo to the ends of the earth for possessing the ring. For Douglass, his equivalent of forces of evil are clearly his masters who fear that with the power of knowledge he may be able to rise up against them much like Bilbo would rise up to defeat the forces of evil with the ring.

Once they become accustomed to the ups and downs of their gifts, they feel enlightened by what they have gained but also severely miss the ignorance they had before. Douglass would often feel that “In moments of agony, [he] envied [his] fellow-slaves for their stupidity”. However they would never give up the knowledge they now possess as they can now barely imagine life without it for it has been etched into their beings and is now a part of them. They must carry it with them and complete their task for it is the only way for them to rid themselves of their complications. For Bilbo this task is slaying a dragon; for Douglass this task is to attain freedom. And while these two things may not seem alike under any circumstances, they are akin to  each other in challenge and both reflect the hero’s determination to rid themselves of the curse which they have acquired.

It is truly unfortunate that those with the blackest hearts attain the most opulent lifestyles. This is what comes to mind the majority of the time when one comes to question the negative actions or the self centered lifestyle of the rich and the famous. However one could also argue the opposite: it is truly unfortunate that those with the most opulent lifestyles attain the blackest hearts. As was the case with the Mistress of Mr. Douglas with whom “the fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work” (Douglas, 35). And what is even more shocking than her transformation itself is the amount of time it took the transformation to transpire. Or to betterly put it, the lack thereof.

This then caused me to consider an idea which I hadn't considered prior to my reading of this memoir. Was the institution of slavery as much a curse to the slavers as to the slaves? And while I realize that it is nearly criminal to compare the suffering of slave and master, one must realize that it remains indisputable that  both parties were changed in the exchanges that occurred between the two. With every lash of the whip grew a scar on the slave’s back however the slaver does not escape unscathed for  with every lash of the whip grows a new scar upon his own heart. The number of scars being determined by the amount of power or in this case slaves a slave driver owns. As best stated by Douglas: "a city slave is almost a freeman, compared with a slave on the plantation" (Douglas,37). For the plantation owner, feeling himself more powerful, more righteous, feels he should exert enough power to balance out his greatness.

And while over the course of writing this I have wondered if I would succumb to the same tantalizing power that thousands did during the antebellum period in the US.  Part of me thinks I would as I have had tons of conditioning telling me how wrong a deed it is to treat another human being as such. But another part of me wonders that if I had grown up under a different background and had been suddenly thrust into a position of power, owning perhaps thousands of slaves, would I have been any different? Would a slave had done the same to a white man under different circumstances? And the only logical conclusion is yes. It is human nature, it is nearly impossible to avoid when one life is in control of another’s.

And don't get it wrong, I am in no way shape or form attempting to justify slavery or give an excuse for it. I am merely saying that slavery was way more destructive than people give it credit for. It was a double edged sword, literally killing the slaves and figuratively, the masters. And when slavery was finally defeated with the emancipation proclamation, it wasn't only the slaves who were saved, but also the masters.

For a self taught writer, Frederick Douglas is a paradigm for the use of rhetoric. This is due to the fact that Douglas takes his experiences and discusses them with authority, with ethos. In addition,  Douglas augments this story already laden with ethos through adding a heavy does of pathos as well as sprinkling a bit of logos here and there.

Let us begin with ethos. Ethos, which if misused can backfire heavily upon the one whom misuses it. It also, however, may be used to bring an argument to life. Douglas clearly exemplifies the latter as his subtle use of it provides the basis of the narrative. If one thinks about it, Douglas is implying that all his views and tales are correct as well as accurate however he never gives a reason for why one should in fact believe his word. He doesn't have to. Because underlying every argument he makes is the fact that he was once a slave. He speaks with authority and yet never explains why on the grounds that he knows what hes talking about, he has been through this himself and in consequence, his words should be headed. Ethos, however, is not the only weapon of speech wielded by Mr. Douglas; his arsenal delves deeper into rhetoric with his use of pathos as well as logos.

One thing that is true for the majority of the human race is that each and every one of us, if attacked from the right angle, will heed to sympathy. And in this type of battle, Douglas is a master general, using vivid imagery to evoke an emotional response in any compassionate soul who passes upon one of his passages. This is exemplified in every occasion in which Douglas describes the horrors committed unto the slaves.  "And in an instant poor Demby was no more. His mangled body sank out of sight, and blood and brains marked the water where he had stood". And it is true that most of us cannot go reading without feeling the slight twinge of pity for this man for our conscious tells us that it is only right to be a bit dismayed. 

However Douglas is also a man of cunning and logic. One who is able to gain ground in his arguments via using common sense to his advantage; in other words, logos. The prime example for this type of rhetoric is when Douglas goes on to describe how slaves were beaten for telling the truth. Not for lying to make themselves look good but for being utmost honest. Here our common sense rings in because we are conditioned to believe that the truth is the right thing to speak of no matter the circumstances.