Stowe's Dodgy and Damaging Narrative

>>My Theme: Sexual Slavery 




It’s been wild gathering all of the best sources for this topic. I’ll admit I chose a hard one to research, but one I’m ultimately satisfied with. The topic of sexual slavery isn’t really discussed in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, not nearly as much as things like Christianity. In fact, I think Christianity is the most overt point of the story, with every other point taking some kind of back seat to the ride. But that’s not my discussion. 

Like many other topics, sexual slavery is largely skipped over in the story. Cassy and Emmaline are the closest we get to some kind of exposure to it, and even that doesn’t become the focal point. When you think about how important that is, given Eliza’s heritage, it seems almost odd that she would leave something like that out. So the claim I’m making today is this: Uncle Tom’s Cabin, as a narrative on the slave trade, is nowhere near what it could and should be. And the lack of discussion of certain topics, especially the aspect of sexual slavery is to blame.


There’s no denying that Stowe did her best with what she had. She was a white woman that had no real experience in what she was writing about. Her intention were all the best, and at the time, that worked for her. Like I’ve said in my previous posts, something must have worked for this book to hang on for the 150+ years it’s been around. But it doesn’t hold up to the test of time. Now that America has moved on from that time in history and we can really look back at it all through a proper lens, we can see everything that she was missing. It was a good springboard to get things moving in the right direction, but that’s about all it’s been good for since. A majority of Stowe’s characters fall into specific archetypes based first off of their color, and then off of where they fit into the narrative. That’s one of the first problems. The second is that concept of “white benevolence’ I mentioned before. What I mean by that is that none of this in the story would have been possible without the ultimate good deeds of goodhearted slave-owners or other well-to-do white characters. 

Look at Senator Bird when he’s first introduced. On page 71 the first look we get at him is the fact that he’s agreeing with the aiding and abetting laws. “There has been a law passed forbidding people to help off the slaves coming over from Kentucky , my dear; so much of that thing has been done by these reckless abolitionists, that our brethren in Kentucky are very strongly excited, and it seems necessary ,and no more than Christian and kind, that something should be done by our state to quiet the excitement.” [pg.71] And yet the second he meets Eliza and hears of her story, he is immediately receptive to her plight. Its helped by the fact that they too lost a child, but it seems all to convenient. For a man to switch so easily, having just talked about how dangerous the aiding and abetting punishments can be, to being sympathetic to a slave’s story seems just too perfect. It’s an instance or convenient writing that becomes a problem later on, but also the first noticeable instance of the “White Savior”. The problem doesn’t lie in the fact that he’s the one helping Eliza, it’s the fact that he was turned over to her side so easily. “It’s confounded, awkward, ugly business It’s important to note, however, that the Quakers don’t necessarily fall under that category as well. They were already sympathetic to the abolitionist cause, so they didn’t need to go through a rapid change of heart in the narrative. 

This is how it ties back to the argument: By giving the characters such an easy way out of things personality wise and not having them go through any kind of internal conflict beyond a little bit of frustration at the situation, it’s ultimately undermining the fact that slave escape was so difficult. When you step back to look at it, there’s really no one that any of them run into that isn’t ultimately sympathetic to their cause. Mrs. St. Claire maybe, but she isn’t the primary owner for Tom, Mr. St. Claire is. Everyone that Eliza and George, and even Tom, run into that holds any kind of power over them before Simon Legree, is generally good to them and their means to escape, or in Tom’s case, are just good to him in general. When you look at their journeys separately, there isn’t much that happens to either party to really screw them up or set them back, nothing that they don’t ultimately overcome. This is the problem with the White Savior. It isn’t an accurate depiction, and it ultimately damaged the narrative because of it. 


When you dive in even further, you see the lack of mention of the sexual aspect of the slave trade, beyond a few passing mentions. A vast majority of female slaves were used in this manner; their bodies were nothing more than units to produce more children for sale or eventual slavery. Many were taken from their mothers at an early age and then had their own children taken away as soon as they had them. Or even worse, they would be subject to the sexual violence of their masters for nothing more than their master’s amusement. Stowe basically glosses over this fact, and when she does use it, it’s only to further the narrative. In fact, beyond Eliza, the only time we ever hear about anything that happened to slaves and their children is pretty much just for the shock value. We hear about Prue’s story on pages 198 and 199, and that’s all we get for it. While not necessarily sexual slavery, it ties in with slaves and their children. Stowe likes to pick and choose when she uses certain aspects in her story to effect the characters, but we don’t see much consequence beyond that. Even little Eva doesn’t react much to the story of Prue’s struggles. “She did not exclaim, or wonder, or weep, as other children do. Her cheeks grew pale, and a deep, earnest shadow passed over her eyes. She laid both hands on her boso, and sighed heavily.” [pg. 199]  

When you look at the actual bits of sexual slavery, IE Cassy and Emmaline, it’s pretty much just for the movement of the story and the eventual exposition of Eliza’s heritage. You’d think something like this would be a lot more important in the narrative, especially when it applies to one of your main cast. The story suffers so much for this, because it just feels so hollow. There’s a lot of Christianity and spiritual references in the story, they practically come out every time Tom opens his mouth. It’s also one of the most common threads I saw in all of the reviews; users were saying how the story was such a testament to the power of God and that it helped return them to faith, or even strengthen it. But anything beyond that, into the actual nitty gritty details of slavery, falls by the wayside. Stowe likes to pick and choose what she uses in her story, and it’s usually only for the shock value or to further the story itself. She doesn’t really delve into anything, which is strange considering it would have been more impactful to show slavery in it’s full brunt and then start turning it around. By dismantling an entire piece in full view, rather than just showing the little bits being deconstructed, it might have held up much better than it does today. 


The idea of slavery in these contexts wasn’t even something that we really touched on in discussions. In the fishbowl, we talked a lot about the Christ imagery that was evoked though Tom and Eva especially. Chris brought ump a good point when I talked about the dehumanization of slaves, particularly in when we were discussing the fact that Prue called her baby “it” rather than by any pronouns. While this is accurate, it seems so skewed that Stowe would include something like that, something that would speak more to the slave-owners the narrative was trying to sway, and yet purposefully avoid any other radical depictions of slavery. It doesn’t feel to me that Stowe really studied the slave trade and the ones that she was writing about. It seems more like she wrote what she thought would be an effective slave narrative. At the time, it did work… with white people. I suppose maybe that was the point, but at the same time, it ended up alienating some of the slaves it was written for and about in the first place. Ultimately, Stowe cherry picked what she used in her story, and not always to great success. Especially not nowadays. The force of the story is something I always repeat myself on, because as much as I’m criticizing it, it was incredibly important at the time it was published. But that doesn’t exclude it from being problematic by the same token. It has not held up to the tet of time as well as I’m sure Stowe would have liked. 


The bottom line is pretty simple. Stowe did her best, but what she ended up with was a short term success, and a long term problem. The way she glosses over the biggest aspects of slavery, especially the ones that would have been the most prominent at the time beyond the immediate consequences like lashings or slave auctions, really shows the fact that she was a white woman writing about an experience she hadn’t been close enough to. What she tried to do was great. She did succeed, in the most essential way. This novel kicked off the Civil War, and helped further the abolitionist cause. But it’s deficiencies are painfully obvious now that we see it from a historical standpoint it doesn’t hold up to what we know about slavery; instead, it presents us with this watered down idea of what it was like. It passes over so many important topics that aren’t any harder to approach. American history itself likes to do that as well when it comes to the history of slavery that we have. There’s a trend of glossing in history, and Stowe isn’t exempt from it. Because of this, the narrative is ultimately damaged, and doesn’t hold up as well in the modern day as it should. She did her best, but it didn’t succeed on all levels.