12 Years A Slave: The Dehumanisation of the Slaves

Hello Winchester!

(Audience applause)

12 Years A Slave is a film that excellently displays certain aspects of the lives of slaves in the mid 19th Century. I opted to focus on the dehumanisation of slaves because it is such a huge part of the film, and it's often portrayed in subtle ways that may be missed upon first viewing.

“He will grow into a fine beast” – Slave auctioneer says this to a potential buyer of a young black boy, who is made to dance. Labelling the child a "beast" is a clear sign that this man does not think the boy is his equal. In fact, the use of that word is possibly an insight to the true feelings that the white racists possessed towards the black people. When I think of a "beast", I think of a crazed, powerful, wild animal that would be extremely dangerous to approach. I think there is a link here to the ancestral background of the slaves and how they were observed in their native lands with their tribal communities, prior to American and European influence. This leads me to ponder whether the slave owners only treated the slaves in such despicable manners because they felt they needed to quell the threat they thought the 'beasts' posed. It was either this, or simply the fact that they thought they were superior to the black people and felt they had the mandate to rule them, which admittedly may be more likely. But throughout the film, there are signs that the white people, who maintain the black people's enslavement, are fearful of the slaves. An example of this is the scene in which Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) fights back against John Tibeats (Paul Dano).

When Solomon seized the whip from Tibeats and started beating him, I found Tibeats' reaction to be excessive, almost as if he was being savaged by a bear, lion or another "beast". However, I don't think that his reaction is solely because he felt the slaves were nothing but dangerous savages. I believe his reaction shows that he knew what he and the other white people did was wrong and that if they got the chance, he knew the slaves would fight back and punish him like they had been punished. This suggests that the question of whether the slaves were treated as sub-humans by the white characters in the film, is more complex than it initially may seem. A lot of the time, the slave owners and workers are most racist and dehumanising when they feel they need to demonstrate their authority over the slaves. This was most often done by Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender), who seemed to have a personal grudge against the slaves throughout the film. 

During a conversation with Samuel Bass (Brad Pitt), who asks some controversial questions on the right to own slaves, Epps asks "what is the difference between a white man and a baboon?". This was in reference to Bass asking whether there was a difference between blacks and whites. Epps basically states that black people and baboons are interchangeable. This conversation is crucial to the plot of the film, as it is the first time we see a Southern white man who stands up for the slaves. The fact that Bass was bold enough to ask the question to a notoriously harsh slave owner, suggests the dehumanisation of the slaves is not as cemented in Southern US society as it was maybe assumed. I shall note that Brad Pitt was a producer of the film, so it is possible that his ego got the better of him and he decided to be the one white person in the film not against the black people. However this is an unlikely and unpopular possibility. His character eventually proves crucial to the film, as he manages to get a letter to Solomon's Northern friends, who come and rescue him. 

At this point, it is important to consider who in the film dehumanises the slaves and who does not. The North/South divide in the USA is evident in this film. Solomon had a family, and various occupations in Saratoga, New York, a life that was unimaginable in the South. The film tries to hint that although Solomon would be safer and free in the North, there was still discrimination rife throughout the United States.

An example of this is near the start of the film during a flashback that Solomon has. He and his family enter a shop and they're spotted by a black servant/slave who is out with his white master. This black person follows them into the shop, presumably in awe of Solomon's freedom but is told off by his master who also enters the store. The white master then glares at Solomon, acknowledges the white shopkeeper by touching his hat and saying "good day sir", then glares back at Solomon and leaves. He obviously didn't feel that Solomon and his family were worthy of acknowledgement. This scene gives examples of two opposing views in American society in the mid 19th Century. There's the stereotypical middle class older white man, who likes the 'good ol' days', and has his black slave to support the cliché, and then there's the slightly younger, white shopkeeper, who welcomes Solomon and his family, as well as the black slave, who he mistakes for another customer, into his shop. While it's true that the shopkeeper was most likely just trying to sell his products, so you could say he had to be nice to whomever entered his shop, he already knew "Mr Northup" when he walked into Mr Parker's shop, and seemed glad to see him, indicating a level of friendship and not dehumanising as they both were equals. The fact however, that the older white gentleman made a point of staring right at Solomon and then greeting Mr Parker and not Solomon, suggests he did not want black people to be free.

William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a character who is very conflicted during his small but significant role in the film. I would compare his character with a child who is friends with a group of bullies but doesn't partake in the bullying, but likewise doesn't stop it. As a viewer, you know he knows it isn't right to enslave other humans, and yet he still does. Following my bully comparison, this may just be to maintain an image and stay on the good side of the bigger bullies. Or perhaps there is something more sinister about Mr Ford. 

We are introduced to him at a slave auction, which is where he buys Solomon. During the auction, there is a black woman called Eliza (Adepero Oduye) up for sale with her two children. While negotiating with the auctioneer, Eliza can be heard in the background pleading to be sold with her children so they aren't split up. Ford tries to make this possible, but eventually decides just to purchase Eliza, so her children are ripped away from her in what is quite a distressing scene. Ford is obviously troubled by his decision, but nothing dissuaded him. Furthermore, having taken Solomon and Eliza back to his plantation, he leaves them with his staff and Mistress Ford (Liza J. Bennett), who in my opinion says one of the most shocking things in the film. 

Eliza arrives weeping, having had her children taken from her. Mistress Ford initially seems sympathetic. I personally thought she'd found it in her to see past their social and racial differences and connect on a more meaningful level. However that is vanquished when she says, "something to eat, and some rest. Your children will soon be forgotten". This clearly shows dehumanisation of Eliza. The fact that Mistress Ford, who has her two children stood behind her, cannot relate to Eliza's loss is disgraceful. She treats Eliza like a dog who's pups haven't survived. The dog is just expected to carry on as a pet, with no questions asked. The fact that Eliza is an actual human too, doesn't occur to her. It would be interesting (and fairly satisfying) to see how how Mistress Ford would have reacted, had her own children been taken away or killed. 
Although Mr Ford walks away, clearly shaken from that day's events, the fact that he has people around him, such as Mr Tibeats and Mistress Ford, who have clearly dehumanised the slaves, suggests he is also involved in the dehumanisation of the slaves. There are a couple scenes where I feel that Mr Ford both respected and dehumanised Solomon simultaneously. 

Following Solomon's exemplary work in the waterway, Ford rewards him with a violin, and says, "I hope it brings us both much joy over the years". This is probably one of the most cruel parts of the film, as it makes Solomon wonder how much he can ask of Ford later in the film. The quote is also an oxymoron, as he is suggesting Solomon can experience "joy" as a slave. It also implies that he intends to keep Solomon for a significant amount of time, "over the years". The significance of the gift itself should have been obvious to Solomon, as the viewer has already witnessed him playing the violin in front of an audience, so it's fairly blatant what Ford expects Solomon to do with it. In addition, the fact he says "us both", confirms that he basically just wants a slave who can entertain him and any guests Ford made have on his premises. 

The last scene that I feel displays Mr Ford's conflict within, is when he has fetched Solomon from the tree and let him sleep in the house. When Solomon wakes up, he tries to build on the relationship he thought he had made with Ford by asking him to believe that he isn't really a slave and whether he could help him or not. Ford immediately recoils and dismisses it, not wanting to be associated with talk against the South's fundamental beliefs. He then informs Solomon of where he has planned to send him, and admits that "you are an exceptional n****r Platt, but I fear no good will come of it", due to his cavalier behaviour and reluctance to conform. This sums up Ford's role in the film, in my opinion. He is perfectly happy to pay compliments to his slaves and treat them not too badly, as long as they do what he wants. But at the first sign that things could get ugly, he cowers away and begrudgingly goes back to his life of not supporting slavery but not having the balls to do anything! 

There's some graphic content in this film which contributes to the dehumanisation of the slaves. In this scene, Epps' wife demands that Epps beats his mistress, Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o). However Epps clearly shows signs that he doesn't want to harm the woman with which he's had an intimate relationship. To conquer this hurdle, he orders Solomon to whip her. Solomon hesitantly obliges. But after several halfhearted swings of the whip, Epps explodes screaming at Solomon, "you will strike her until her flesh is rent and meat and blood flow equal or I will kill every n****r in my sight, strike her, strike her!". The fact he makes two slaves inflict horrific injuries on each other, which dehumanises them. But also the fact that Solomon has no other choice but to do it, introduces the primal concept of 'survival of the fittest'. If Solomon didn't beat Patsy, he would be killed, so it was the lesser sacrifice to make. This is something that I feel truly dehumanises the slaves, as they are placed in impossible positions, where they are relegated to only their most primal instincts, survival. 

Thanks for listening.

(Audience cheer for an encore) 

To conclude, 12 Years A Slave has a lot of examples of the dehumanisation of slaves. This is expressed through ideological and physical means. If I were to offer a question, I would ask whether the dehumanisation of the slaves in 12 Years A Slave is too excessive or just right as an historical portrayal of slavery in the USA. 
Thank you for listening.