Sophia Elahi RPC Blog

This week I started reading Up From Slaver by Booker T. Washington.  In the first few chapters of the book Washington talks about his opinions of slavery, mainly his oppositions.  In this essay I am going to talk about Washington’s main three arguments against slavery.

Work Ethic

Washington noticed how the slavery system may seem like it is only benefitting the whites, but in reality it was hurting them as well as the blacks.  When the slaves were freed, the whites did not know how to do manual labour for themselves as labour was viewed as jobs for the ‘lower rank’, the slaves.  They were so used to having people do it for them that they could not run their own farm without the help of their former slaves.  On the other hand, the slaves may know how to work, but they could not to read, write, or do mathematics as they were never taught.  Both parties lacked quality skills that they needed to survive, which is why many slaves started agreements with their former masters so that they could survive. 

Washington also noticed how all slaves worked hard, but for different reasons.  For those who had kind masters, they worked hard to please them.  But those who had cruel masters, they worked hard so they would not get a beating.  He found it wrong that the people’s work ethic was tainted by fear of punishment.

Stealing

As a young child, Washington would see slaves stealing things from their masters.  As he grew older he realized that the system would make it somewhat acceptable to steal, in fact, it was common.  Washington frowned upon stealing, but at that time it was the only way the slaves could survive since they were not given much to survive on.  He felt as if the system was prompting bad habits, such as stealing.

Family Structure

Washington’s final argument was that the system ripped apart the family structure.  In those days, as you probably know, slaves were sold from owner to owner.  Their owners rarely cared about the fact that they may be taking a mother or father away from their family or taking a child from their parents.  This happened to Washington himself.  He never met his biological father, never even knew his name.  He was raised by his mother and older siblings.  He did not have a father figure in his life until after he was freed. 

Unfortunately, this was common for the blacks back then.  Washington, like my family and I, believe that every child should grow up with both of their parents around.   

Conclusion

As you can see, Washington had a pretty good argument against slavery.  He was a man with a good conscious and morals.  He stressed hard work and good work ethic to the students he taught in his early adulthood.  Like he said in Chapter Four “I have had no patience with any school for my race in the South which did not teach its students the dignity of labour.”

Reading has always been a big part of my life.  My parents have always encouraged reading since I was in the womb (this is not a joke).  As a result, I have become a huge bookworm.  Despite the fact that I have probably read over a hundred books, none of them have ever affected me in too big of a way, except one book.

Six years ago, when I was in 2^nd Grade, I was given a book to read for my English class.  It was called A Doctor Like Papa by Natalie Kinsey-Warnock.  The book follows Margaret, a young girl who wants to study medicine to be a doctor like her father.  Her mother discourages this because ‘doctoring’s no kind of life for a woman.”  Spoiler alert: her mother eventually relents and allows Margaret to study medicine and she becomes a doctor when she is an adult.  The book is set during the last few years of World War 1.

If I am being honest, I do not remember much of the book anymore since I have not read it in over three years, but I do remember the two things that really affected me.

This book was meant for very young children and was only 100 pages, making it easy for me to finish the book in one sitting.  In the book a virus breaks out in Margaret’s village.  Margaret and her younger brother are sent away to their aunt’s house to live until the virus passes.  But while traveling the two siblings get lost and stumble upon a house with a family who was sick with the virus.  Margaret uses her limited knowledge in medicine and tries to help the family members.  She is only able to save one member, a young girl who is slightly younger than her.  In the book the young girl’s parents and baby brother were taken by the virus. 

Even as a seven year old, I would fully get into the books I read and thinking about suddenly losing my parents struck me hard.  I had always imagined that death only happened to the elderly, but this book made me realize that it can happen at any time.  Up until that point I had not given death much thought.  Why would I?  A seven year old is more concerned about when their next playdate will be, not when their last breath would be.

This book made me realize that death is not just talk, it can actually happen and it does happen in real life.

The second thing that affected me happened a couple years after my first read of the book.  Because of the interesting plot and its short length, A Doctor Like Papa became one of my favourite books to reread when I got bored.

One day, when I was nine or ten, I decided to reread the book and while reading a realization hit me.  Margaret was just like me!  She had a dream (she wanted to be doctor) and she never gave up on it, even when her mother would discourage it.  It reminded me of what my Dad would always tell me “follow your passion and ignore what others say.”  This really made me believe in what my Dad said even more. 

After all, if someone as brave and headstrong as Margaret could get what she wanted just by working for it and sticking to her dream, why can’t I?

As you can see, this book really affected me at a young age, which is saying a lot considering books do not usually affect me too much.  That book will always be one of my favorites and will always be a reread for rainy days.

This week I have started reading The Story of My Life by Helen Keller. In the book, Helen calls her blindness and deafness a ‘dark prison.’ It was not until Ms. Annie Sullivan, Helen’s teacher, came that she was finally seeing light in her prison.

If you do not know the story of Helen Keller, she was a woman who had lost her sight and hearing at a young age due to an illness she contracted as a baby. Her teacher, Ms. Sullivan, arrived when she was five years old and taught her everything a seeing and hearing child would learn.

One of the first things Ms. Sullivan taught Helen was that everything had a name. Ms. Sullivan put Helen’s hand under a water spout and spelt out the word ‘W-A-T-E-R’ into her hand. Immediately, Helen realized that this cold, liquid thing that was in her hand was called ‘water.’ Ms. Sullivan continued to do this with toys, chairs, anything the two of them could find. This was the first escape from Helen’s prison.

After a while, Helen had learned every name of every piece of furniture and dish in the house. She understood the meanings of simple words, but not abstract words. One day, Ms. Sullivan spelled ‘T-H-I-N-K’ on Helen’s forehead. This obviously puzzled Helen, but being the ambitious and determined child she was, she tried to figure out the meaning of ‘think.’ Finally she realized that ‘think’ is the little voice in your head that tells you what to do.

Ms. Sullivan taught Helen how to sign, read with her fingers, and talk. When Helen was young, braille was not yet invented. The blind would read by dragging their fingers over raised letters on a piece of cardboard, which is what Helen would do to read with Ms. Sullivan’s help.

Ms. Sullivan was truly the key to unlock Helen’s dark prison. Without her help who knows what would have happened to Helen. But Helen’s success is not solely because of Ms. Sullivan. She was a stubborn young girl with the desire to learn about the world, all she needed was someone to be patient and teach her, and that is exactly what Ms. Sullivan did.

Thanks for reading!

When writing autobiographies, there is no doubt in my mind that the authors have to write all of their dialogue from memory.  But when they are doing this there will, of course, be some gaps or inaccurate parts.  When writing dialogue from memory, is accuracy the main focus, or should succinctness and liveliness be the main focus?

Before getting into the essay, if you do not know what succinctness means do not worry, I did not know what it meant until I had to write this essay.  Succinctness, or concision, means clear and precise expression in a few words.  Now back to the essay.

Like many things, there is no general answer for this answer.  In some books, like manuals, you would want accuracy and succinctness.  But in an autobiography or novel, you would want liveliness.  It is no fun to read a long and boring paragraph full of dialogue.  Liveliness is what keeps the reader engaged and interested. 

I am not saying accuracy and succinctness are not important, in non-fiction books they are what you are looking for. But in autobiographies, liveliness should be the main focus when writing dialogue.

Thanks for reading!