How Summer Camps have emebded into American Culture

Summer Camps in the USA

After spending the previous summer working at a summer camp in north west Wisconsin, I learned a lot about American culture and how it is very different in comparison to the UK. Going to camp for a day, week or a few weeks over the summer vacation is very popular among American school children.



According to the American Camp Association there are around 12,000 camps throughout the U.S, 7,000 of these are overnight camps and 5,000 are day camps. Different camps have different duration periods, such some camps may only be for the day or for a week and the campers go home each night, whilst there are other camps which are overnight and go on for a couple of weeks or even up to a month.
There are many different types of camps including private camps,mixed, girls only camp, boys only camps, boy scouts, scouts, camps for under privilege children, religious camps such as Christian YMCA camps and Jewish camps. Private camps can cost up to $11,000 for the summer whilst other camps such as under privilege camps can be free.

It has become more common to send your child to overnight camp for the summer especially among Jewish families, even if the child does not go to a Jewish camp. Many camps often have a no bully policy and often work to ensure all children are happy and are not being abused in anyway. The aim for summer camps is for children to have fun and enjoy themselves making new friends away from any stress at home or school.


Children are able to which ever activity they wish as most camps a a wide range of activities to choose from such as arts and crafts, swimming, water skiing, sailing, dance etc. But this generally varies between different camps based on their facilities. Summer camps allow children to act and behave like children as its often forgotten in today's society.

December and American History

7th December 1941: Pearl Harbour

For the task of our final blog post before Christmas, I thought it appropriate to discuss the relevance of a specific event that has occurred in America during December. Whilst there were many events to choose from that have been relevant to our weekly topics, I thought to choose something that I find so interesting and that is a different focus to previous weeks. Instead of selecting memorable dates such as: the world premiere of ‘Gone with the Wind’, the ratification of the 13^th Amendment abolishing slavery, The Boston Tea Party, or even the Assassination of John Lennon, I thought to single out the 7^th December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbour.

What remains so significant about the Pearl Harbour attack to this day was the undetectable nature of the invasion. The attack which killed over 2,400 Americans, as well as destroying or damaging eight navy battleships and 100 planes.[1] Relations with Japan escalated and President Roosevelt declared a state of War with the Japanese Empire on the 8^th December 1941. It was one of the first times that America had been exposed and explicitly vulnerable on its own soil. It also was arguably the most powerful short-term factor for America entering WW2 It remains one of the most memorable and sensitive anniversaries in American history to this day.

On screen adaptations on Pearl Harbour have previously included the documentary ‘December 7^th’ (1943), the film ‘From Here to Eternity’ (1953), ‘Tora! Tora! Tora!’ (1970) and the memorable ‘Pearl Harbour’ (2001) to name a few.[2] The promotional painting for ‘Tora! Tora! Tora!’ by Robert McCall, emphasises the chaos that related to Pearl Harbour. The bright colours created by the fires and the vast number of approaching enemy aircrafts, are very effective in setting the scene in just a simple painting. In comparison, the film adaptation ‘Pearl Harbour’ starring Ben Affleck and Kate Beckinsale conveys a romantic-drama storyline around the historical context of Pearl Harbour.

Today, the nature of this surprise attack has been reflected in more recent incidents, such as the 911 War on Terror, the Orlando shooting or even the Manhattan bombing in September 2016, New York. For many Americans, the early period of December remains as one of reflection and honouring any fallen veterans. This year it was seen at the 75^th Anniversary of Pearl Harbour, Hawaii. Similarly, celebrities including Dwayne Johnson have raised awareness about American troops and celebrated their duty recently this year in Hawaii. Overall, it remains one of the most remembered and historically significant aspects of Americas past.

Sources:

https://news.usni.org/2014/12/05/movies-pearl-harbor

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/06/how-america-changed-after-pearl-harbor

---

[1] US Naval Institute Staff, “Movies About Pearl Harbour”, USNI News, The US Naval Institute, 5^th December 2014 https://news.usni.org/2014/12/05/movies-pearl-harbor accessed 19 December 2016.

[2] Michael Morella, “How America Changed After Pearl Harbour” US News, 6^th January 2012, < http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/06/how-america-changed-after-pearl-harbor > accessed 19 December 2016.

Sod Houses

The title of this post was chosen deliberately to attract the attention of any readers who may be passing through at this trail end of the first Semester in American Studies. There is no suggestion that this mini topic should be considered for inclusion in the Autumn  programme..  It has been placed here to flag up the writer's personal  interest in the much broader topic of  'Writing America.' The pioneer life has been brilliantly evoked in the four volume series by Wilhelm Moberg who traces the lives of a group of Swedish emigrants from Smaland, via Chicago and onto the Great Plains. They had left the barren and difficult terrain of lowland Sweden only to face the near impossible conditions of creating settlement on the plains - driven forward by the promise of  'free land.' 

When settlers first arrived in Southwestern Minnesota, they found a vast prairie. Trees were only located along the banks of rivers, lakes and marshes.

With the scarcity of lumber, pioneers ploughed the heavy dense prairie sod into 2-foot strips, which were then stacked green side down like bricks, to build a house and other outbuildings. Stability was created using the few trees available or parts from their wagons. The roof was covered with the canvas from wagons. Then, more sod was added for insulation.

Sod houses, made mostly of dirt, were fireproof, cool in the summer, warm in the winter, and with walls 2 foot thick, safe from bullets and arrows. Occupants often shared the home with rodents, insects and snakes. Because the roof was not totally waterproof, heavy rains dripped inside and could leak for several days.

It is estimated that at one time, 150,000 sod homes existed throughout the Great Plains area. Eventually, sawmills were started and lumber was hauled in so settlers could erect wood-framed homes.

Reference
http://www.kshs.org/
http://www.vilhelmmoberg.com/english.html

12. Las Vegas as a microcosm

Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas Nevada, start of the Strip. 

Driving into Las Vegas, Nevada via 'South Las Vegas Boulevard', commonly known as 'The Strip', will take you past the Iconic 'Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas, Nevada' sign. Like some psychedelic post-modernist reworking of Fitzgerald's 'eyes of Eckleburg', this neon introduction to Las Vegas leads to the optimistically named 'Paradise' city district and is complete with its own star, shining as if parodying religious iconography, guiding ignorant masses to an oasis of earthly delights. Las Vegas is a diverse city of extremes, within which can be discovered any of the near infinite examples of American identity both past and present, all of them represented in an exaggerated, caricature-like fashion.

Las Vegas is of course, notorious for its gambling, a practice legalised there in 1931. The resultant prosperity and affluence of the myriad of casinos here has long cemented Las Vegas' reputation for indulgence, the legacy of which continues exponentially, ensuring that currently, almost a quarter of the city's population work in the tourism sector. By the 1950s and 60s, Las Vegas' reputation had attracted the elite of the entertainment world with iconic American figures like Frank Sinatra and Elvis, although equally, the city proved to be an optimal market for a criminal underworld. These spheres were however, not mutually exclusive, and there was a point in time where most of the cocaine flooding into Las Vegas could be traced back to the Sinatra name. Ultimately, this is a city where hedonism and money rules, and morals are a hindrance invariably discarded as the sun sets and the Strip becomes drenched in neon each night.

Preachers on Fremont Street, Downtown Las Vegas. 

'Miss Atomic Bomb' winner, 1957. 

Indeed, loose morality is somewhat of a recurring theme here, the branding of which is one that evokes in the minds of potential visitors, the familiar notion of liberty, though it is mutated into an absolute form, where nothing is forbidden, for better or worse. At the upper end of the Las Vegas strip can be found Fremont Street, its seedier yet not unattractive counterpart. This area is frequented by Christian preachers who, undeterred by the idea of undertaking a task more difficult than pushing water uphill with a rake, aim to curb the blasphemy of Downtown Las Vegas. It seems a desperate plight, as they stand in the American epicentre of debauchery, yet nonetheless, the juxtaposition is one that is representative of every aspect of American society, albeit in a more explicit form. A second example of this disconnect is the Nevada Atomic Bomb testing of the 1950s, a terrifying display of American military power, coming only a few years after the devices were used in Japan for the deaths of around 200,000 soldiers and civilians. Las Vegas, indifferent to the real-world implications of Atomic warfare, seized the opportunity as the perfect backdrop for another prosperous decade of glamour, partying and depravity. The detonation of an atom bomb was an event of public celebration as crowds would gather on casino rooftops to witness the mushroom cloud, even going so far as to create a 'Miss Atomic Bomb' beauty pageant.

Remains of the Old Mormon Fort, North Las Vegas.

Paris Las Vegas Hotel & Casino resort, Las Vegas Strip.

For Las Vegas to constitute a true microcosm of modern America, there must exist an element of 'authentic' America beyond contradictory morality, hedonism, military might and entertainment. Historically, the Las Vegas valley has been occupied by Native Americans who arrived 10,000 years ago although they never existed in great numbers. Later, the area became useful as a source of water and a refuge to travelers and religious zealots alike (recalls the American idea of religious freedom), with the latter building a Mormon fort in 1855. The City owes its name to Mexican merchants who rested in the valley during a trade mission to Los Angeles and named it 'The Meadows'. While the Spanish name remains; evidently, its meaning has been lost with the city being considered a prime example of excessive urbanisation. Similarly, foreign influence is manifested in Las Vegas through its themed hotels and casinos, notable examples being 'The Venetian' and 'Paris Las Vegas'. The idea of emulating foreign culture in a capitalist 'Americanised' format is one that I feel is inherent to American society given its history of immigration and diverse racial makeup.

Overall, it seems that Las Vegas can be described as a location within which all aspects of American society and culture are collected before being twisted together and projected onto this patch of desert in a larger-than-life way. Religious liberty, moral liberty, capitalism, superstars of the entertainment world, military dominance, foreign influence, Native American history, American exceptionalism and racial diversity: all of these are represented here. It is perhaps also appropriate to consider the city as a failure of the American West and its associations. Physically, this is true beyond doubt as Las Vegas, although a categorically Western City, lies some 5 hours drive shy of the Pacific Coast almost as if representing the failed ideology of the West, a condition represented equally by its dry and arid environment. Metaphorically, the moral trappings of Las Vegas would suggest that there is indeed a failure of ideology here on some level. However, what is a source of disgust for many is the realm of fantasy for many Americans, demonstrating again the paradoxical nature of American society and their difference in interpretation.

"No mercy for a criminal freak in Las Vegas. This place is like the Army: the shark ethic prevails – eat the wounded. In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." - Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Sources/Further Reading

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20536/who-are-you-miss-atomic-bomb/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308155/Frank-Sinatra-better-drug-dealer-singer-says-drug-lord-Pablo-Escobar-s-son-claims-crooner-father-s-business-partner.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42074829/ns/travel-destination_travel/t/sin-citys-dirty-little-secret-its-full-churches/#.WFVrRxuLTIU

http://www.history.com/topics/las-vegas

Bunks in a seven-cent lodging house, Pell Street

BUNKS IN A SEVEN-CENT LODGING-HOUSE, PELL STREET.

This is an image of a lodging house in Pell Street. Lodging houses were rooms where a large number of people rented a bunk. The owner of this 7-cent house had three such buildings. He is said to have made $8000 a year worth of profit through the investments, which is about $202,000 in today’s money. This shows the difference in earnings between the two classes at this time, with the landlords earning ridiculous amounts of money whilst the tenants are earning pennies, if they are even earning at all.

Legal lodging houses varied in price, ranging from 25 cents for rooms with lockers, down to 7 cents for a large communal room with somewhere to sleep. There were however also many unlicensed houses with far worse conditions than shown in this image. The unlicensed landlords charged 5 cents for a spot to sleep on the floor and 3 cents for a space to squat in in the hallway.

Because homelessness was such a huge problem in New York City at this time the poor immigrants were exploited massively by the landlords. This disregard for the poor led to terrible conditions for the homeless, with no toilets or any way to clean themselves properly. Riis writes about how bad the smell 7 cent house he visited was and comments that the beds were stained yellow, showing just how filthy the living conditions were.

This Image portrays the wealthy landlords total disregard to the basic human needs of the immigrants. They lived in squalor and because they couldn't earn enough money, were basically trapped in poverty.

Sources:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45502/45502-h/45502-h.htm

http://www.in2013dollars.com/1890-dollars-in-2016?amount=8000

The Working Girls of New York

The sad and toil worn lives of New York's working women.

 Jacob Rils estimates that at least one hundred and fifty thousand women and girls earn their own living in New York. But this may not provide an accurate picture as many women did some form of work to supplement family income. Ironically Rils finds the fact' that some need not starve on the wages, condemns so many others to that fate.'

The work available for women was in stores, factories, sweat shops - all marked with harsh conditions and long hours. But many had to work additional hours 'at home' as depicted in this picture. One testimony states.
' I worked eleven hours in the shop and four at home.' Another, ' worked from 4 in the morning to 11 at night.' They had to buy their own thread and pay for their machines from their wages. This situation was made worse when the practice arose of out-sourcing textile work to the farmers' girls in Maine. Their 'pin-money' set the rate so much lower for the working girls of New York.

 The Working Women's Society reported “It is a known fact that men’s wages cannot fall below a limit upon which they can exist, but woman’s wages have no limit, since the paths of shame are always open to her. It is simply impossible for any woman to live without assistance on the low salary a saleswoman earns, without depriving herself of real necessities.... It is inevitable that they must in many instances resort to evil.' 

Moralists claimed when talking of  tenement conditions, that many young girls made early and improvident marriages and this was one of the prolific causes of distress of the poor. Yet, a State Labour Bureau report said ' Decency and womanly reserve cannot be maintained there - what wonder so many fall away from virtue?'

There were a number of organisations which worked to ameliorate conditions in the tenements.  Riis's sincerity for social reform has seldom been questioned, but critics have questioned his right to interfere with the lives and choices of others. His audience comprised middle class reformers, and critics say that he had no love for the traditional life styles of the people he portrayed. "Riis was quite impatient with most of his fellow immigrants; he was quick to judge and condemn those who failed to assimilate, and he did not refrain from expressing his contempt."  (Allard 62) 

However, the power of the photographs contributed to raising awareness of the actual physical conditions that people were experiencing in the tenements.

Sources

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45502/45502-h/45502-h.htm

Alland, Alexander. Jacob A. Riis: Photographer and Citizen. Millerton, N.Y.: Aperture, 1993. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Riis

Jacob Riis’ How the Other Half Lives (1890)

'How the Other Half Lives'.

Thetitle ‘How the Other Half Lives’, really sets the tone of the serious nature Jacob Riis’ documentation and photographs. It emphasises the huge proportion of those who were living below the poverty line or were facing difficult circumstances. Whilst this picture only reveals immigrant males living in poor conditions, many of the other accounts show children living in the streets, and those working in extensive labour.

In context, Jacob Riis was a Dutch-American who migrated to the United States in 1870.[1] During his time as a police reporter, he witnessed the living conditions that many immigrants lived in, such as the slums of New York City and Manhattan. His published book ‘How the Other Half Lives’ sought to expose the poverty and poor living conditions that were effecting so many immigrants in America.

It calls to question the fundamental American values of prosperity and opportunity. For these individuals presented in the photograph, their circumstances can contradict the believed sense of endless opportunity that attracted most immigrants to America. From what we can see in the photograph, it appears that the men are living in a windowless, unfurnished, and poorly lit room. The way that Riis has captured the setting, makes the viewer question if the conditions were acceptable for people to live in. Today, we would see this as more of a basement or cellar, not somewhere for people to necessarily pay to live.
In addition, the nature of the photograph being cramped and housing at least six men can link to the wider context of mass immigration. New York was one of the biggest receivers of immigrants during the several waves that occurred in American history. The fact that these men had to live together can suggest that either the financial position of immigrants was more challenging, or that the big cities such as New York were quickly becoming overcrowded.

On a personal level, the absence of photographs or any family connections gives a sense of displacement amongst the men. The men are confined together in a room, instead of being part of the ‘melting pot’ or ‘mosaic’ ideology of the United States. From what we can see, they are not integrating into society.

Furthermore, as immigrant males, they may have moved for the employment opportunities available in America. However, this photo highlights the reality for many that they were not on route to achieving the American dream. It may also indicate the attitudes towards these immigrants, as they are living in such bad conditions, it could suggest that there was not an overwhelming support available to them at the time.

Overall, what was significant about Riis was the impact his writing had on attracting publicity and calling for social reform. His works brought attention to the big underlying socio-economic issues within American society. From both his detailed documentations and visitations to the ghettos with President Theodore Roosevelt, Riis helped to establish a platform that would help the immigrants. For instance, he helped influence the Tenement House Commission in 1884 and 1894, which voiced the poor conditions of Tenement buildings.[2] It meant that there were possibilities for bills to be passed to help improve these conditions, such as the bill introduced on 2^nd June 1884. It emphasised better conditions and set in place a series of improvements, such as sanitary inspections, the closing of all privy vaults, and an overall mass investigation into tenement housing.[3] He was vital in informing the public and initiating change.

---

[1] http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/riis.html

[2] https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/constituents/jacob-riis?all/all/all/all/0

[3] https://archive.org/stream/tenementhouseref00veilrich/tenementhouseref00veilrich_djvu.txt

The Italian Rag Picker

The Italian Rag Picker

This image was drawn in 1869 and shows a mother and baby living in a slum in Jersey Street, New York.

The woman in the image is supposedly Italian and was a rag picker. A rag-picker is someone who makes a living by rummaging through bins or on the street to collect materials such as cloth, paper, cardboard anything they could find in order to be remade into something to sell to make a living. This image shows the tough living conditions immigrants had to live in as they didn't make much of an income. In the image you can see the bags of rags that the woman has collected ready to be sold on top of barrels which could have been kept with food for her and the baby. There is very little room for the woman to raise a child as well as very unsafe. There is a small wooden ladder to the left of the woman which supposedly could be leading to another room such as her bedroom as it can be clearly seen that there is no where for the woman and child to sleep amongst all the rags.

During the period of colonisation a large Italian community formed in areas such as New York where many Italians came over to start a better life in America. There is no man pictured in the image, and therefore you could question whether the woman was working and raising her child alone or that the man was the rag picker whilst the woman is raising the child.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45502/45502-h/45502-h.htm

An old rear-tenement in Roosevelt Street

This is an image of a rear-tenement in Roosevelt Street. These types of accommodation were some of the worst available in the 19th Century. 

It is evident from this picture that there was severe overcrowding of immigrants in these buildings. Each apartment in the accommodation is small and box-like. In addition, the lack of contraception at the time means the immigrants would most likely have large families, who would be crammed into these buildings. The vast number of clothing lines that are attached to the building, also indicates a lack of space within the rear-tenement. 

When I first saw this picture, I immediately thought of shanty towns or favelas that are common in South America. These slums are some of the most impoverished settlements in the World, and the manner in which their inhabitants are treated is not dissimilar from how the immigrants in the picture had to live. These people live in extremely cramped conditions, kept out of the way of the middle and upper class. This comparison with the South American favelas, highlights the attitudes of society towards these new Americans. 

The building in the picture looks like it's made out of wood. This indicates the cheapness of the accommodation and how the immigrants were viewed as inferior to other 'native' (obviously not real Native Americans) Americans. These buildings were prone to catching fire and often suffered damage during storms. 

Sources:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45502/45502-h/45502-h.htm

http://www.tenement.org/encyclopedia/housing_options.htm

11. The Sweaters of Jewtown

This image shows a sweatshop manufacturing 'kneepants' in a tenement style building, typical of the kinds of businesses owned and worked by Jewish immigrants in New York towards the end of the nineteenth century.

On a superficial level, the image depicts the extremely poor working conditions that characterised the working lives of many immigrants at this time. Analysing the image this way, while completely correct and necessary, is rudimentary and leads to a simple conclusion that immigrant life in New York was unforgiving and perhaps demonstrates the misrepresentation of America to these immigrant groups when compared with reality. Instead, we may choose to contemplate factors which, although not literally represented in the photograph, are integral to our understanding of the social systems that evolved within immigrant societies in America and lead to scenes like these which can easily be captured in an effective way.

Evidently, this image and its real-world social connotations are plagued with irony, the first and most prominent example of which is perhaps the vivid portrayal of the failure of the American dream. Here, we see a small workforce, including two young girls and a young boy (all aged 15), working from daybreak to 9 o' clock at night to earn between 2 and 5 dollars a week (the owner's wife is actually unaware of how much they are paid when interviewed). The profits of their produce go directly to the owning family who use the money to support their own family and pay the rent on the rooms and the hired sewing machines. Clearly then, there is a disconnect here between the cyclical and aimless nature of the work being done by the Jewish immigrants, and Horatio Alger's ideological notion of a rise in social standing through hard work and integrity. In brief, this shows an irony to America's dream and exposes it as an aspiration and not a reality that is attainable in practice, especially not for an immigrant. This simple conclusion would be further enhanced through an understanding of the immigrant's perspective of the American dream, especially before arriving in their new home. In this passage however, Riis did not endeavour to empower the immigrants in question with a voice, in both a literal and metaphorical sense. Perhaps this in itself reinforces our view of American ideology as a facade and provides yet another perspective from which we might critique the vast and omnipresent theme of the American paradox.

The reactionary response to this assertion of American aspiration as false, if there is to be one, would likely revolve around the fact that despite the lack of individual liberty, it is the community as a whole who, through economic gain and mass production, gains power and significance, thus replicating the American dream on a larger scale, albeit at the cost of the archetypal hopeful immigrant. In a society where the majority are condemned to a failure of ideology, there is invariably a minority that will find cause to celebrate victory.

This format of Jewish immigrant society is one that imposed agendas of an almost darwinian nature upon individuals, forcing them to lower their standards of humanity in order to survive through capitalism and incremental financial gain. This is evidenced by Riis' exchange with the guide who, when highlighting the number of deaths caused by starvation and poverty in these communities, explains how "No thought of untimely death disturbs this family" as "In a few years the man will be a prosperous sweater". Essentially, this indifference to human suffering, countered with the comfort of financial security, demonstrates how in order to attempt integration into an American system defined by consumerism, a sacrifice of personal values and integrity is required at some stage. Not only does this betray our human values on a personal level (especially those that are religious-derived in these communities), it betrays the nationally-defined values of this American nation and represents a failure of sorts, just to re-iterate for the sake of a solid argument.

Ultimately, although unknown to Riis at the time, the Jewish communities of Manhattan would go on to become especially successful, culminating in their (semi-)integration into the upper echelons of American society. As the twentieth century progressed, the Jewish communities of New York emerged as being among the most successful, exemplified through celebrated individuals such as Gershwin and Asimov as well as their monopoly of Broadway and by association, the most successful examples of American theatre, the influence and prestige of which is beyond description. Perhaps the lesson here then is that the American dream actually was achievable for these immigrants, many of whom likely arrived in America having fled terror and fear in their home nations. However, if this is indeed the overarching narrative for this immigrant group, then it is certainly not represented on an individual level, and the process is consistently catalysed by immense suffering, sacrifice and loss.

Sources

pp. 125-128 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45502/45502-h/45502-h.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/nov/20/how-jewish-artists-built-broadway-musical

Forms of Control of slaves

12 years a slave touches on many aspects of slavery throughout its course, but none more brutally than the way they were controlled. The film is based on the story of Solomon Northup and portrays his story with gritty realism, especially with regards to the control over the slaves the masters had. There were many methods used by whites to subjugate blacks before the abolition of slavery. The film 12 Years a Slave conveys the horrors of slavery and pays attention to many aspects of it.

The first form of control shown in the film is just after Solomon is kidnapped in Washington DC. When Solomon protests that he is a free man he is brutally beaten down with a piece of wood. This asserts the white kidnappers dominance over Solomon as he starts to break him down into submission.

When on the boat to New Orleans a slave is shown to be wearing an iron bit in his mouth, when it is removed the slaver says “now keep your mouth shut” which implies that the device was used as a punishment for the slave protesting or being too loud. The device, which is pictured below, stops the slave from being able to speak as there is a large piece of metal in their mouth.

Fear was also a large part of the control the masters had over the slaves. This is shown when Solomon suggests that he and two other slaves try and overthrow the crew of the ship they are travelling on but one of the slaves, Clemens, talks him out of it basically saying that there is no hope. The hopelessness that is shown by many slaves throughout the film is also a large factor in how they were controlled. The slaves felt that there was no point in fighting back as they would only make it worse for themselves.

When Eliza, who was separated from her children early on in the film, is shown being dragged away by two men and crying out to Solomon for help, he does nothing. This is because Solomon has started to realise that there is no point in fighting back because he will just be killed. This hopelessness and fear of punishment keeps growing as a slave, and this is a major reason why the slaves just accept their fate in the film. Another part of the film which shows fear is when Solomon is lynched after fighting one of the masters. He is left hanging all day and the other slaves don’t let him down, they just go on with their daily routines, either too scared to let him down or too numbed to the violence which is faced by slaves to see it as something which is horribly brutal and inhumane.

Early on in the film when Solomon is first sold, he is bought by a man named William Ford. Ford was a preacher and plantation owner and seemed to show no incompatibility between being a preacher and a slave owner. Ford reads passages of the bible to the slaves, familiarising them with the Christian faith. There is a scene which portrays Ford as a hypocrite, when he is reading a sermon about children whilst Eliza, who he has separated from her children, cries in the background. Faith helped the slaves in some ways, but was a huge part of how they were controlled which is shown after Solomon is sold to Epps.

In a scene later on in the film Epps is also shown to use religion as a form of control of the slaves. He does this by reading a passage from the bible, Luke 12:47 which says “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” After he has finished reading the passage he says to the slaves “Now that’s scripture”, implying that the bible says that they should be slaves and whipped when they do not fulfil the needs of him, their master. Epps uses religion to indoctrinate the slaves into believing that God wants them to do their masters will. As most slaves had no education so could not read or write, this form of control through religion could be a very powerful tool for slave owners. Epps also uses this passage of the bible to try and legitimise the brutal whipping of slaves who do not pick enough cotton to fulfil their daily quotas. Even though Epps uses terrible cruelty and brutal methods to control his slaves, he is able to use the bible to try and support his claim to authority.

The use of daily quotas goes back to the point on fear. The slaves want to work hard so that they do not get whipped at the end of the day. They are also controlled whilst working, with overseers on horseback cracking their whips shouting at the slaves to pick the cotton. Those who do not pick enough cotton in a day are picked out and whipped out in the open, in front of all of the other slaves. This shows the slaves the consequences of not working hard enough for their masters and drives them to work harder.

Question: Fear is obviously a huge factor in how the slaves were controlled throughout the film but does anyone think that there is a more significant factor in the control?

The control Epps has over his slaves is so severe that he rapes Patsy, a slave girl who works on his plantation, multiple times. At one point he asserts his control over Solomon and makes him whip her and then when he takes over he whips her so hard that the skin on her back is flayed. Solomon and the other slaves are so scared of Epps that they will do anything he says as they are terrified of the repercussions of disobeying him. Epps has a reputation as a “breaker” of slaves according to Ford and prides himself on it. This shows that Epps is significantly crueler to his slaves than other slave owners. Epps takes the forms of control shown by Ford and his overseers to a new extreme, making the slaves constantly fear his wrath and always keep on their toes. Epps does not just control his slaves though as in one scene he tells his wife that he will send her back to the “hogs trough” that he found her in before he sells Patsy.

Epps is most controlling towards Patsy, he works her so hard that she picks five times the amount of cotton of any of the other slaves and is the cruelest to her. As his wife is jealous of her she is also treats Patsy very badly, throwing a decanter at her head in one scene and encouraging Epps to whip her in the scene where her back is flayed. Epps was not just torturing patsy physically, but he was damaging her mental health aswell. She had lost all hope of ever being free, so much so that she asks Solomon to kill her at one point in the film in order to end her suffering at the hands of Epps.

The slaves in the film are treated so badly and controlled through these terrible methods because they aren’t seen as people by the masters. The slaves were property by law and this is arguably one of the most significant ways in which they were controlled. Because they were regarded as property their owners could use whichever punishments and ways of controlling them they wished. The fact that slavery was legal also meant that slaves could not run away because there was nowhere to run, they would either be sent back and punished, taken in and sold again or killed for running away. This adds to the hopelessness of the slaves as they basically did not have any chance of escaping captivity. There is a scene when Solomon decides to run but he immediately runs into some white men hanging two slaves. This shows Solomon that there is no point in running as he will just end up like the two men who he sees get hanged. Hope is the most powerful tool for a slave who wishes to be free but many slaves did not have any at all as they were born into slavery and knew nothing different.

In conclusion, the slaves were controlled by many factors throughout the film, many of them obscenely cruel. The psychological strain which the slaves endured must have taken a terrible toll on them. I find it odd that in a country built on ideas of freedom there was slavery. I also find it odd that the Eighth Amendment which was adopted in 1791 bans 'cruel and unusual punishments' but not when it comes to black people.

http://usslave.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/slave-tortures-mask-scolds-bridle-or.html
http://biblehub.com/luke/12-47.htm

Conditions of Slavery

Conditions of Slavery

The 2013 movie of Twelve Years a Slave directed by Steve McQueen presents a very graphic insight of the conditions of slavery by showing how it really was in the 1800s. The life of a slave is not hown in a positive light as it shows how tough it really was for them, in that they constantly have to obey their master and failure to do so meant that they would get tortured. Slavery was maintained by the fear of punishment, mainly whipping. “Slave codes” regulated slave behaviour. During Solomon’s 12 years as a slave the main form of torture that was used was whipping the slaves back until the skin was completely ripped and torn open. Other forms of torture such as rape and getting hung is also prevalent in the story.

 

On a trip to Washington DC the kidnappers take advantage of Solomon by getting him so drunk that he became unconscious in order for them to easily beat him up and chain his wrist and ankles.  When Solomon regained consciousness he awoke in darkness all alone chained up.  The slave trader comes in, in which Solomon protests how he is a “free man”, which the slave trader tells Solomon that he is a runaway from Georgia, “a runaway nigger”. This results in Solomon being whipped for the first time, because he did not admit that he was a slave, consequently he gets punished. Steve McQueen focuses the camera shots on the whipping scene for over one minute in order for the audience to feel the pain alongside Solomon. McQueen also uses a pounding soundtrack to emphasise the beating.  Solomon protested throughout the film how he was “a free man” and due to this he got beat up, “my back is thick with scars from protesting my freedom”. He does not want to accept that he is now a slave.

Solomon is then stuffed onto the back of a cart with very little room along with the other slaves. They were all chained around the wrists and ankles to restrict movement throughout the journey to Louisiana, as well as to minimise the chance of escape. Solomon meets Eliza who was also on the cart and was sold along with him. She had just been separated from her children and is very distressed. This is an example where the slaves are not treated humanely as they were often separated from offspring, even after begging for them not to be separated.

Question: Do you think the film shows an accurate depiction of the conditions the slaves had to endure?

The living conditions of the slaves at William Fords plantation were kept to the bare minimum. They were given a basic chair and table, with no comfortable furniture and no bed so they had to sleep on the floor. Their food portions were very minimal, they had barely enough to maintain strength, a healthy body weight and ultimately survival. They had just enough to stay alive. The slaves are often dehumanised and treated very poorly without basic human rights. The slaves had to endure hard labour, with long hours and no rest. This can be clearly seen in the cotton fields scene. For some slave’s life was more brutal depending on their master. For Solomon, Ford was fairly decent to his slaves as opposed to Epps.

John Tibeats role was to ensure that the slaves were obedient and did their job but most importantly were alive. He used any opportunity he could to mistreat Solomon. He tormented the slaves whilst they were working by singing ‘run nigger run’ like a cursed nursery rhyme to put the slaves in place. Further on in the film the slaves sing songs together whilst picking cotton as a way to pass time and let them escape into song.

There is a big divide between the notion of slavery in the north of the United States and the south in the way Solomon feels and is treated. He quickly notices a vast difference compared to his old lifestyle in New York and his life now in Louisiana. Solomon sees the North as sources of comfort, luxuries of entertainment, clothing and being treated like an equal. He was a free man. In Saratoga, New York Solomon had various occupations including being a very good violinist. The violin was a source of comfort throughout Solomon’s time as a slave, by giving him a familiar thing he loves. It helped take his mind off being a slave; he gets so involved in his music he leaves all his bad thoughts behind. In the scene where Solomon is being made to play the violin, the other slaves are forced to dance for the white people’s entertainment, and if they weren’t doing a good enough job they were to get whipped. So in that sense Solomon was lucky he had musical talent otherwise he could have been abused even more.

There are considerable differences between how black slaves were treated compared to white slaves. The black Africans were all placed together in a cramp room whilst the white slave is given his own room. The black slaves were treated a lot harsher than white slave and you don’t see the white slave getting whipped at all. The only incident in the film where you see a white man getting beaten up is when Solomon takes the whip from Tibeats and starts beating him up. Solomon sees this as revenge against all the slave owners who have ever abused him. Throughout the film it is noticeable that the white slave owners are sometimes scared of the slaves as they feel that one day they can easily retaliate back due to the amount of abuse they are given.

The female slave Patsey at Epps cotton plantation had a remarkable skill for picking cotton and was the best one there. However, she was one of the most severely beaten slaves, because Mistress Epps encouraged her husband Edwin Epps to whip her. However, he first refused as he doesn’t want to harm her due to their intimate relationship. Therefore, he forces Solomon to whip Patsey, which he is very reluctant to. After Solomon had pleaded and reluctantly whipped Patsey more than forty times he threw down the whip and refused to go any further. Epps screams at Solomon “I will kill every nigger in my sight, strike her, strike her!”.  Then Epps picked up the whip and continued to hit Patsey until her back was completely torn open. This scene really shows how rough the conditions really were in that slave owners were able to force slaves to attack one another. Traditional gender roles were forgotten about in a slave society, as females were made to work just as hard as men.

Throughout the film if the slaves didn’t obey their master they would get whipped until their back ripped open. “A nigger that don’t obey his master gets given many strikes, get beaten 40/100/150 lashes. That’s scripture”. There is a significant use of religion throughout the film. It explores the way white Christians in the American south used scripture and their faith to perpetuate injustice. Solomon is sold to Edwin Epps, an oppressive owner of a cotton plantation. Epps reads an excerpt from the bible “and that servant, which he knows his lords will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes”. The slave owners often refer to ideas from the bible to justify their motives to beat up the slaves.  When the crops die Epps claimed it as a “biblical plague” brought on by his slave’s unrighteousness and therefore sends them away. Epps uses religion to assert his authority over his slaves. He uses the scripture as an excuse to justify his behaviour towards the slaves. For him Christianity is a solution and a threat. The scripture supports the institution of slavery as Epps is very eager to read parts of the bible to all the slaves so that they are educated to why they get punished so badly. “Sin? There is no sin” he says when he brutally whips Patsey. The film depicts the violent side of Christianity in a slave society.

In some parts of the film religion is depicted as a comfort for the slaves, such as when one member of their community dies the men and women gather round his grave singing “Roll, Jordan, Roll” in unison. The slaves feel this moment as significant in that they are mentally and spiritually fleeing the dehumanisation of their bondage. This is one of the scenes where Solomon shows emotional connection with the slave community he has become part off and no longer thinks of himself as a free man. This film manages to portray religion as one of the most valuable but dangerous tools in the slave south.

In conclusion Twelve Years a Slave manages to capture what really happened and the conditions the slaves have to endure during the era of slavery by producing the film from a slave’s perspective. Extreme violence is used throughout to emphasise the physical and emotional pain slaves had to go through. Whips, paddles and shackles make repeated appearances throughout the film, as the main source of punishment.

Question: Do you think if slavery was present in the 21^st century would slaves be physically abused as they were in the past?

The Presentation of Whites in 12 Years a Slave

The Presentation of Whites in 12 Years a Slave

‘12 Years a Slave’ is one of the only on screen adaptations, that features the slave trade and plantation life in America so graphically. It presents an original and inspiring account, originating from the unique story of Solomon Northup, who was a free man re-sold into slavery. Surrounding the life of Solomon, the film highlights many inexcusable injustices and brutalities that were behind the biggest exploitation in American history.

Ultimately, one of the most reflective and powerful aspects of the film is the presentation of the white characters. The film poses characters who experience and perceive slavery very differently during the pre-civil war years. Included in this are two substantial and reoccurring personas; those who are either brutal and merciless, or characters which are sympathetic or abolitionists, but feel somewhat powerless.

As there is such a heavy focus on the presentation of white people, to bring more depth I will analyse the characters in the groups of their roles throughout the film. These will include the characterisation of slave traders, auctioneers, owners, overseers, sympathisers, and abolitionists.

Slave Traders:

This was first seen when Solomon was deceived and captured by Merrill Brown and Abram Hamilton. It really set the atmosphere of the film from the shocking nature of his capture. Being promised new work for his virtuoso violin skills, Solomon was taken and then held by James H. Burch in Washington, before being auctioned into slavery.

This presented the white men as those who would do anything to make big profit from slavery. These men also presented the first instances of violence in the film against slaves in America. When Solomon would not declare himself a slave, he faced the horrific beatings by the hands of the men to dehumanise and traumatise him.

What was noteworthy about these difficult scenes was the scheming and lack of hesitation the men possessed towards inflicting their unjustifiable cruelty. The viewer sees how easily it was for two ordinary white individuals to break a man during this period, as well as emphasising the reality that there was no real protection for these victims.

Moreover, when he was held by Burch in Washington before the Auction, Solomon witnessed others like him who had been free and then captured into slavery. One of the scenes that reflects the nature of the white men in these scenes was during the boat journey to the auction. The slaves that Solomon witnessed inside the boat were numb, and seen as that they had already given up because they had faced such unspeakable trauma by the hands of the white men. Another aspect revealed during the journey was sexual abuse faced by the female. It reminds the viewer that slavery dehumanised those in different ways, regardless of being a man, woman, or child. Along with the careless dumping overboard of the dead slave bodies, it also reinforces the value of slave lives to the white men. They were valued as nothing by the slave traders, not even seen as humans, just cargo and profit.

Auctioneers:

 What was most striking about the presentation of the white Auctioneer, Theophillus Freeman, was his impersonal nature. After being imported straight from Washington, Solomon was renamed ‘Platt’ by Freeman along with the others. Therefore, by the time that they had reached auction, the slaves had been stripped of anything belonging to their former identity.

Ultimately, this created a ‘collective slave nature’, where no slave was an individual person. It established an impersonal feeling towards the buyer and the slave in the auction house, as well as ensuring that there was little possibility for former free black people to be found.

During the auction scenes, the viewer encounters the reality where the slaves were accessed systematically by the white men, and treated like livestock or property. Whether standing naked to be viewed by strangers, or demonstrating a ‘talent’, the humiliation was strongly conveyed. The impersonal nature of the white auctioneer was most importantly seen when Eliza was being separated from her children. The idea of not wishing to cause a scene, along with Solomon playing the violin to play over the sounds of their screaming and wailing, was particularly emotive.

Slave owners:

The most vital relationship throughout the book and the film has been Solomon’s interaction with his owners. Under his first owner Henry B. Northup, Solomon was taught to read and write to an extent, as well as to play the violin. This was a very unusual kindness of a slave owner, and can compare to the harsh 100 lashes Solomon would receive if he was believed to be literate during his time at the Epps plantation. It is also Northup who travelled to rescue Solomon from his situation when he discovered that he was illegally being worked as a slave. This presents him as a kinder owner, someone who did not just see Solomon as a commodity, but someone who wanted a future for him.

Bought at the auction by William Ford, his character became one of the few examples a white man holding a more sympathetic and kind attitude towards slaves. Upon arrival, both him and his wife were distressed from the separation of Eliza from her children and showed genuine regret. Ford was presented as a religious man, who held inclusive Christian services for his estate, which included the slaves. He also allowed for Solomon to voice his experience in construction and gave rewards for his good work, such as bestowing him with a violin. Moreover, he protected Solomon against the brutality of the overseers during his time there when he could.

However, the more positive portrayal of the slave owner William Ford is limited to an extent, from selling Solomon as part of repayment for his debt. The fact that he sold on another human being as easily as if he were an object is unforgettable. Even as Benedict Cumberbatch suggests in his character interview, while it is easy to judge these actions in the 21^st Century, the reality brought by Ford doing this, shatters any illusion of progression, and reinforces the economic mind-set of the slave owners.[1]

The most crucial slave owner presented in the film was Edwin Epps, who is referred to as ‘Northup’s final, and cruellest master’.[2] Epps was a drunk who was unbelievably cruel to his slaves. The demanding labour of producing a certain amount of cotton each day, as well as the strict discipline of lashes when they did not produce enough, revealed the fearful daily routine of his workers. Inside his home, there was also the regular embarrassment of the slaves by making them dance and play music in his company.

However, what was different about the presentation of Epps’ character was the deterioration of his mental state throughout the film. Gradually, he became increasingly more violence and obsessive over one of his female black slaves, Patsy. The viewer watches as Epps almost looses his mind and becomes more aggressive when attempting to regain his feeling of control. The film conveys the genuine representation of how many slave women were sexualised, abused and raped by their slave owners, and how there was no protection for them.

Another aspect of Epps’ character is his view of slaves as property. Throughout his appearances in the film, it is reinforced that he believes it is his God’s given right to own slaves. When questioned about his brutality towards them, Epps is convinced that there is no sin in abusing, owning or working his slaves. Moreover, when he has the rare moments of guilt or realisation; instead of logically doing what is best for his slaves, Epps drives himself further into his void of uncontrollable anger and violence.

Another complex aspect to consider about the presentation of Epps was raised by the actor who played the role, Michael Fassbender. He suggested that Epps lacked the intellect to pursue his own happiness. The viewer does see him happy with his slave children, however, he doesn’t have the capacity to set himself on the path of the future he would like. This can compare to the relationship between Mr Shaw and Mistress Shaw, who is living the life he wishes for himself.[3]

The character of Mistress Epps was presented as a very jealous, aggressive, and racist woman. Whilst the character of Mistress Epps appears complex on the surface, when the viewer looks deeper, she is the consequence of her time. Ultimately, she is trapped. She is stuck in the years long before any real rights for women were in place. She is in an unloving marriage where her husband was notoriously known for his sexual longing for slave girl, Patsy.

While she was living in an estate of luxuries and servants, the combination of her lack of children, no real past time and no job can reveal the empty reality for these housewives at the time. This does not act as any justification for her inexcusable behaviour, but it does add further depth to the character and why she acts the way she does.

Slave Overseers:

The character of John M. Tribeats was portrayed as a jealous and cruel individual who wished for the demise of Solomon. After receiving Solomon as payment from Ford, Tribeats was a short-tempered and cruel overseer on the plantation. His disrespectful songs, such as ‘run nigger, run’ echoed in the film and reminded us of the lack of respect many whites had for slaves. It was also shocking because of his youthful depiction in the film, where someone so young had the control of another life, because they were his property.

On the other hand, Ford’s other white overseer Mr Chapin was presented more positively in the film. He was not brutal like Tibeats or Epps. For instance, when Solomon was being hung after angering Tibeats, it was Chapin who helped him and stopped his brutal death by lynching and got him the help he needed from Ford.

Sympathisers and abolitionists.

Throughout Solomon’s journey, there were presentations of people who were more sympathetic towards the slaves. For instance, as mentioned earlier, Master Ford to an extent.

While there were instances of kindness from minor individuals such as from Armsby, these were not genuine. Solomon trusting Armsby to send a letter to his contacts in the North was betrayed. He was turned in to Mr Epps and another chance of his escape appeared empty.

However, it was the presentation of Mr Bass, a carpenter who was against the brutal treatment of slaves on Mr Epps’ plantation. He was the person who contacted superiors on behalf of Solomon in the North about his situation. While Mr Bass was explicitly concerned about his own safety and position at the plantation, he put himself at risk to help Solomon. To an extent, if it was not for the kindness and forward thinking of Mr Bass, Solomon would have probably never escaped slavery or would have died from the brutality of Mr Epps.

Question for discussion:

- It is undeniable that most white characters in this film behaved inexcusably towards slaves. However, to what extent are there additional factors that result in certain characters behaving the way that they do? (Particularly focussing on Mr and Mrs Epps and the points mentioned above in their character analysis)

Sources:

Benedict Cumberbatch Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFqBbHpZSvk

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/t/twelve-years-a-slave/character-list

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL2cb0g4IQ4

---

[1] Benedict Cumberbatch Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFqBbHpZSvk

[2] https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/t/twelve-years-a-slave/character-list

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL2cb0g4IQ4