I realize I've been hating Uncle Tom's Cabin for all of the right reasons (glorification of Christianity, complete self-degradation due to religion, backhanded racism, female power only through Christianity/marriage, [which is actually a patriarchal power, just sayin'], etc.) but I realize even more after reading Baldwin's essay, "Everybody's Protest Novel" that I have missed a huge, possibly the largest!, reason in hating this wretched "novel." That huge reason is sentimentality, which slid right under my radar of fiery, humanistic hatred.
"Sentimentality, the ostentatious parading of excessive and spurious emotion, is the mark of dishonesty, the inability to feel; the wet eyes of the sentimentalist betray his aversion to experience, his fear of life, his arid heart; and it is always, therefore, the signal of secret and violent inhumanity, the mask of cruelty" (Baldwin 14).
Baldwin was a genius, and I admire his valor. Crying over slave treatment does not make one a moral person if only a, "change of heart" is created when faced with the juxtaposition of "white-life" and "black-life;" all life should be cherished and respected as equal from the very beginning of life (which, by the way, isn't when the sperm meets the egg). Regardless of whether or not it was morally acceptable, a change of heart did take place within many of Stowe's readers' ribcages. For those of us who just aren't feeling it, though, how does Stowe suggest we attain this change of heart?
...
Why, religion, of course!
Possibly the most irksome issue I have with Stowe's sentimentality in Uncle Tom's Cabin is her implied claim that the infamous, "change of heart" comes only through true
Christian thought, belief, and behavior, when, realistically,
Christianity and other hierarchies are exactly what produced slavery. I can honestly say, as an Atheist, that I have never wanted to enslave another human being. You guys can quote me on that.
I definitely liked your post, and what you had to say. I believe Religion is a very big factor in Uncle Tom's Cabin and in many novels during this time. I love how you incorporate the change of heart and show how you feel about it.
ReplyDeleteI can say at a devoted Catholic conservative that I have never wanted to enslave another human being either.
ReplyDeleteI was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, the whole absurd nine yards, and I have never wanted to enslave another human being either. However, I think that maybe Stowe is confusing "Christianity" with having a conscience. You don't need to be a Christian, or go to church every Sunday to realize that Slavery is wrong. I believe at the time this book was written, the two were intermingled, and it was a popular belief that you couldn't have a good conscience without religion.
ReplyDeleteAbsurd?
ReplyDeleteYes! I like your comment, Jennifer. You do not have to be a Christian in order to be a compassionate human being. This idea though was pretty much non-existant in Stowe's time. She and others would probably be horrified at our conversations. Being a Christian does not automatically mean that you're a good person. Many slave holders in the South considered themselves Christians yet we would probably say otherwise. I guess that's also a point that Stowe is trying to make: there are differences between "true Christians" and "fake Christians".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnna, I love the point that you make: Being a Christian doesn't immediately make you a good person. I definitely think that Stowe was trying to make the point that some Christians, although they proclaim to be one, were not truly following God or loving others.
ReplyDelete"Christianity and other hierarchies are exactly what produced slavery" -- but Stowe would argue (and I would agree with her here) that slave supporters misappropriated the values of Christianity. And she would argue (and again, I would agree with her) that some folks who profess to members of the Christian religion set up/restrict people by hierarchies, Christianity is also about leveling such hierarchies and about equality. Stowe's religion (American evangelical protestantism) was absolutely about this democratic appeal
ReplyDelete(Which is another reason why, for so long, lots of American struggled with/rejected/discriminated against Catholics, who they saw as hierarchical.)
Pushing back a bit more: crying over someone else's pain might not make you moral, but it doesn't necessarily make you immoral--or bad or spurious or dishonest.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, I reject Baldwin's wholesale and unfair attack on sentimentalism. I think he makes some valid points, but there are misogynistic strains in his argument and a de-valuation of emotion and sharing of emotion that is destructive and unhealthy.
Consider, for instance, some of the really moving Vagina Monologues. I find sometimes that listening to those sometimes make me tear up. Maybe I don't run out and join an organization or send money to a worthy group (and I probably should do more), but I find my heart changed (even slightly). So call me gullible, etc., but I do think a change in heart is a real change. You change someone's heart and you change the world.
Piggybacking off of Dr. H here, what really resounded with me with this book is how much it accomplished. Social change, like natural selection, is achieved, I think, by doing what works-- picking easy, strong motivators in people. And no one can disagree that emotion and compassion are huge motivators. I see your point, Katy, that philosophically, her religious means and what we would call humanist ends of abolitionism are inconsistent, but practically I think it's a moot point.
ReplyDelete