Saturday, September 13, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Katie, this is a powerful observation. There is an identity in Western culture between naming and control, an endless urge to label and classify and contain. We will see it again when we talk about the different ways in which Indians were assimilated into American culture. However, for the re-named, there is often the power to reject names. Did you see any signs that Equiano was resisting this form of control in his narrative?
ReplyDeleteEquiano tried to resist his name change by refusing to be called Gustvus Vasa after his purchase, though he still ended up being renamed. However, this was interesting to me because he did not try and resist his initial name changes on the slave ship or at the plantation. That he would have more attachment to a name given in captivity versus his birth name is confusing. Perhaps he was so mistreated in the other locations that resistance was not possible, but in a location where he felt slightly more comfortable he was able to conceptualize resistance. Additionally, I disagree that captive or renamed people have the power to reject names. As with Equiano, one can resist a name change (even that is not always the case), but to actually successfully retain one's given name and have that be what one's master knows and uses is not a particularly common thing.
DeleteI believe that the reason that Mary Rowlandson was not renamed, was both in the reason of her slavery, and also in the fact of who captured her. I believe that the reason that she was not renamed was because she was only captured as a temporary slave, and the Indians did not really have a need to rename her. I think that reason that she was not renamed is mainly because that was a practice e of the Europeans that was meant to establish familiarity, where as when the Indians speak to Mary Rowlandson, it seems as if they do not care for her name, or even know what her name is.
ReplyDelete