Hey guys, it's Allison.
In our discussion of Patrick Henry's speech, I mentioned how Henry uses the imagery of slavery to arouse certain feelings and reactions in the reader based on the word's affective connotation. Mr. Lazarow then elaborated on the idea and explained how Henry used the imagery of slavery to describe how he felt England viewed the colonies.
When I re-read the speech, I was surprised by the number of times Henry made reference to slavery. To begin the speech, he said that he considered the issue with England to be "nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery". And so began his multiple allusions to slavery. Henry then went on to ask, "Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?". I took his use of the word liberty and his description of having to struggle for it to be a reference to how slaves must fight if they wish to be free. When Henry described the British cultivation of a strong army and navy, he said the military were "sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging." Such a judgment exemplifies Henry's concern that the British saw their colonists as their slaves. When Henry suggested that the colonists must fight to protect their freedom, he made yet another reference to slavery: "Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?" To reinforce his point, Henry said, "There is no retreat, but submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!"
I think Henry used the slavery imagery as a fear tactic to scare the nationalists into action. Henry suggested that the colonists fight to preserve their freedom and if the colonists believed that losing their freedom to the British was a pressing issue, they might have followed Henry's course of action. Do you think that Henry's use of slavery imagery was appropriate? Was his use of the imagery effective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey, it's Erin.
In a really weird way Patrick Henry's speech reminded me of Jonathan Edward's sermon and McCarthy's speech at the same time. He motivates his audience partly by using fear (which is created with his use of images of slavery - which I think was probably very effective, since we just took that test about the French Revolution, people valued the ideas of liberty and inalienable rights). His use of imagery reminded me of Edwards but also of McCarthy. When Patrick Henry said "there is no retreat, but submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!" it reminded me a lot of what McCarthy said: "Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all they way from the Indochina hills..." I think that all three of them use imagery because it makes what they're saying more powerful; you can see the words in your mind and they stick with you longer.
Hey this is Cristy.
On this topic of the slavery imagery, someone in class brought up how hypocritical it was for Patrick Henry to win sympathy and compassion using the comparisons of slavery to colonists when the colonies were importing more and more slaves each year. I totally agree with this. How can he claim the injustice of slavery to insult Brittan when his own country that he builds up follows the same policy? this just shows how readily we see faults in others without first looking at ourselves. I understand that racism ran rampant through this time period. I suppose the idea of white slavery was more upsetting to colonists than enslaving a race they saw as below them. I believe it was a bit of a fear tactic but also made the pride of colonists flare to assert themselves as equal to the brits. the colonists had already suffered insults at their quality of life "in the wilderness" of america and were used to brits looking down their noses at the lil, barbaric americans. The idea that they thought of americans as slaves brought this sore subject to light. The comparison to slaves might have been the last straw in insults.
Hey guys, it's Jasmine.
I do think that Henry used the slavery references well. By using the we-device constantly throughout his speech, he probably formed an unforgettable image in people's minds. He made the slavery issue personal. By stating that Britain was treating the colonists as if they were slaves, I think he was appealing to his audience's pride as well as their desire for liberty. Many colonists at the time, including Henry himself, were slaveholders, and to be compared to an inferior slave would have been a powerful metaphor.
I agree with Cristy's observation that Henry's speech was hypocritical. At the same time that Henry was condemning slavery, he couldn't seem to survive without his slaves. In a letter, he wrote, "I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living here without them (his slaves). I will not, I cannot justify it." Slavery was so deeply ingrained in the colonies that Henry saw no point in trying to get rid of it, even though he knew it was wrong. With Britain, however, I think Henry wanted to fight back against Britain's oppression to PREVENT the colonists from being seen as slaves for eternity. He wanted to do something about the situation before it was too late - before the chains of slavery were permanently locked onto the colonists. Lastly, I think that Henry used slavery because everybody understood it. He knew that countless other colonists felt guilty about owning slaves, so he provided them with a way of easing their guilt. Slaveowning colonists would feel less guilty if they thought they were fighting against the institution of slavery in some way. Since getting rid of their slaves was impossible, the notion of fighting back against the "slave-owning" Britain was appealing.
Post a Comment