The Genius of OPVL in Closing the Understanding Gap Between Authors and Readers

What the author intends and what the reader understands is not the same. This is due to language’s inability to fully convey what an individual is thinking. Hence, analysis of text can never fully grasp the meaning of a document. These differences and inaccuracies may cause one to question the validity of historical analysis such as the OPVL. OPVL provides a structure for pulling meaning from historical texts. However, with the writer to reader gap, one wonders if the found purpose and value could ever be close to accurate, and if taking the time to analyze in this manner is worth the effort at all. Thankfully, most historical documents can be placed in context with others like them, allowing us to look at texts on the same subject to see if what we pull from one contains similarities to the rest. If not, the author most likely did not intend for the message received from said document. Context allows for us to avoid the gap stretching too far by allowing us to look for patterns that ensure our analysis makes sense with history. The OPVL method contains checks for both purpose and value. Accounting for the origin of the document gives hints as to the purpose. For example, a letter written by Abigail Adams probably would not be trying to convince the general public of women’s inferiority. Additionally, accounting for limitations makes sure that the values pulled from the text are not skewed by bias or inaccuracy. Overall, the OPVL’s system of internal checks and balances closes much of the author to reader gap by ensuring that the textual analysis is valid and put into context, thus making the analysis of historical documents definitely worth out time.

Racism: Do Humans Have the Ability to Change?

Everyone can agree that racism is still existent in today’s culture. This occurrence was predicted far in advance by politicians during the time of slavery. In his “Notes on the State of Virginia” Jefferson mentions that the slaves cannot be integrated into American culture because prejudices would create lasting separation. Abraham Lincoln states something quite similar, saying that there is an underlying feeling which would prevent the equalization of slaves from being correct in the minds of the white Americans. Though discrimination has been combated over many generations by many different people, it still exists today, causing us to question the human capacity to change. Are we actually able to renovate the way we think and will this impede on further progression of society? I argue that our ability to change is limited, but existent.  When presented with a culture we have preexisting ideas about, we see it as what we thought it would be like. This is shown through Mary Rowlandson’s descriptions of the Native Americans as savage beasts, and her constantly covering up their good deeds with what they have done wrong, thus fitting them to how they were stereotypically imagined. Thoughts like this cause the stereotyped to be forced to conform to how others see them and hence further the cultural divide. Once caught in this cycle, it is difficult for those doing the stereotyping to change views about said culture. However, if one stops stereotyping, thoughts can slowly shift toward equality. In application to slavery and racism, Jefferson and Lincoln were incorrect in saying that integration was impossible. While prejudice is not yet a thing of the past, we have made progress and are trending toward a brighter future. Overall, our healing of discrimination speaks for a slight human capacity for change, despite the gloomy predictions of some early politicians.

Names and their Power in Relation to Different Types of Slavery

Names have always carried a large amount of significance. Naming an object or being shows ownership and power over said item. This has been the case since biblical times, shown by God naming Adam and asking him to name all the creatures of the world. With Puritan beliefs firmly rooted in religion, it is no surprise that early Americans opted to rename their slaves after purchase. In "The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano" Equiano is sold into slavery. On the slave ship he is renamed Michael, at the plantation he first works at he is given the name of Jacob, and after his purchase he is renamed again as Gustavus Vasa. As one can see, each time he changes "ownership" he receives a new name. The change of title is suggestive of the changing idea of what defines slavery. Up until this point in history, slavery occurred when one was captured in war or could not pay off a debt. Either way, the time as an unpaid laborer was temporary. However, with the rise of cash crops and plantations, one now became a slave for life, and was actually owned by one's master. This idea of indefinite possession caused slave owners to rename their slaves. On the contrary, those cultures that still had terminate slavery did not rename slaves, as it was expected that the captured people would later be returned. Such behavior is displayed through Mary Rowlandson's Captivity Narrative. Though she is taken as a slave by the Native Americans, she retains her given name and is eventually released for ransom. As is indicated by these two examples, definite and indefinite slavery synced with naming and non-naming behaviors respectively, thus displaying one result of the change the definition of slavery.