Twain and Reconstruction

After finishing Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, as well as discussing the Reconstruction period in class, I noticed that Twain reflected in his book the social issues that came with this period after the Civil War.  Twain finished the book approximately 20 years after the war was over.  Slaves were “free” by this time.  Yes, they were indeed free (as of the thirteenth amendment).  However, I feel like Twain hinted the truth of that time that while by law slaves were free, they still certainly did not have equal rights.  Black Americans during the time may have been free in a technical sense, but they did not have the same freedoms; Black codes (defined in Foner as “laws passed by the new Southern governments that attempted to regulate the lives of former slaves”) were enforced, and they could not vote.  Twain showed how Tom took advantage of Jim and mistreated him  (knowing all along that Jim was actually free).  However, in the end, such mistreatment causes other characters to acknowledge Jim as a worthy human being.  Reflecting on the entire book, it is evident how Twain portrayed Jim how probably many “free blacks” at the time felt; free in a legal sense, but not necessarily by society’s standards.

Looking at the immense segregation that followed the 13th amendment, clearly blacks were not equal.  How do you believe Twain's constructed world, the way Jim is seen by society, parallels the issues that would evolve during the Reconstruction era and the time to follow?

Jim was free all along?!

Last week, we have finished Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  After finishing the book, a few thoughts came to mind, some that were particularly frustrating (please note, I am not trying to devalue the book—it was definitely a good read).  But I’m not here to write a summary of the book (those who haven’t read it can do so or can look online for a summary).  However, the frustration I felt was the realization that most of the actions done by Jim and Huck were done, in hindsight, for no actual purpose.  It was a troubling aspect that a lot of what they did was for potentially no reason.  Throughout Huck and Jim’s journey, Jim had to be careful of who say him, and what he was “allowed to do” because of his black identity, set by society’s standards.  In the end, we find out that Jim has technically been a free man all throughout the adventure when Tom reveals that he has known all along that Miss Watson has been dead for two months, and that she freed Jim in her will.  That whole entire time when Jim was constantly cautious about being caught as a “runaway slave”, he was actually free!  To me, that was frustrating because I seemed to sympathize for Jim.  I felt sorry for all the masking, hiding and what not, he had to do because of his identity; especially since morally Jim seemed to be the only decent human being in the end...  

Success?

Recently in the news, Chinese mother, Amy Chua, published the book “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother”, as well as an essay titled “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior”.  In her piece, she mentions how she chose to raise her two daughters, and how it was “successful”.  Yeah academically I wouldn’t doubt it.  Both daughters, Sophia and Louisa (Lulu), (currently 18 and 13) never got a grade below an A (they “weren’t allowed to”, according to Chua).

In her book, she talks about her parenting style, why it “worked”, and why she thinks it is better than the “permissive Western parenting style”.  To say Chua is a strict parent is an understatement.  Talk about a parent who doesn’t allow their kids to have playdates, watch TV or play computer games, choose their own extracurricular activity, etc (click on the article above for more specifics).  Her daughters were raised to focus strongly on schoolwork and were required to play piano and violin (they were not allowed to play any other instrument) hours each day.

Throughout her piece, at least from what I could tell, she seems assume all Chinese parents are like her.  Maybe not to such extreme, but nonetheless that this is the “Chinese” way.

I cannot believe any mother would raise their children like this.  To infringe on their freedoms and basically take away the normal childhood seems wrong.  Reading this one particular story made me particularly mad.  It went like this:  Amy Chua was celebrating her birthday with her husband and two daughters, 7 and 4 at the time, when they gave her a handmade birthday card.

"More accurately, it was a piece of paper folded crookedly in half, with a big happy face on the front. Inside, 'Happy Birthday, Mummy! Love, Lulu' was scrawled in crayon above another happy face. I gave the card back to Lulu. 'I don't want this,' I said. 'I want a better one – one that you've put some thought and effort into. I have a special box, where I keep all my cards from you and Sophia, and this one can't go in there.' I grabbed the card again and flipped it over. I pulled out a pen and scrawled 'Happy Birthday Lulu Whoopee!' I added a big sour face. … 'I reject this.'" [an excerpt from her book]

I am in shock that any parent would do this to her children.  Her whole parenting style seems too much, in my opinion.  It seems like she is raising robots.  Yeah maybe her style would be okay if all we wanted were flawless brains.  But the interesting thing about humans is their characteristics, their individual interests, beliefs.  And not allowing children to try new things (school plays, sports, etc.) seems to be depriving them.  Clearly “success” is defined in many different ways, but do you think this the “successful” way to raise a child?