schmevil | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

I have voted. Huzzah. Let's hope this Parliament outlasts and outperforms the last two.

Heard in class today: Sir Thomas (of Austen's Mansfield Park) "is a good slave owner."

Sorry, what? I didn't know there were such things as 'good' slave owners. Pray tell, what are the criteria for being a 'good' slave owner'.

"He treated Fanny nicely."

Riiiight. Go to hell, classmate mine.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What was the class response? Dare I ask?

Most of the class didn't even blink. There are four people of colour in this class, all of whom immediately put up their hands. All were ignored and/or drowned out by slaver-girl, who continued to talk out of hand.

It was the strangest thing.

I'm not usually surprised by stupidity or how really dumb people seem to advertise the fact but come on, that sort of comment should not be offensive *just* to people of color.

Also, what a crappy metaphor! (Heh, today I'm mostly been annoyed by *everything*.)

Yeah, I could make the case for Austen drawing connections between the status of women and slaves in Antigua (because that's something that Mary Wollstonecraft and other early feminists did), albeit not explicitly, but I don't read it as being simply Fanny-as-slave. For one thing, if we accept that Sir Thomas is a slave owner and he returns from Antigua (during the period of slave rebellions), and immediately begins to elevate Fanny, then isn't he drawing a distinction between Fanny and his actual slaves? Unless he freed his slaves then what he's actually doing is making sure that no one mistakes a good Christian white woman for a slave, you know?

But yeah, I was surprised that people didn't seem at all offended. I gave her this face =|

Ah, a good subject and discussion completely wasted. :/

(Ok, I never really liked Mansfield Park but still, it's always cool to talk about books.:)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only